Ex Parte Army et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 15, 201713186577 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/186,577 07/20/2011 Donald E. Army JR. 59247US01 4588 87521 7590 11/17/2017 Cantor Colburn LLP - Hamilton Sundstrand 20 Church Street, 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 EXAMINER MA, KUN KAI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/17/2017 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DONALD E. ARMY, JR. and CHRISTINA W. MILLOT Appeal 2015-000209 Application 13/186,577 Technology Center 3700 Before JAMES P. CALVE, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Donald E. Army, Jr. and Christina W. Millot (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 1—19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Appeal 2015-000209 Application 13/186,577 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 7, and 14 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A heat exchanger comprising: a first member having an inlet at a first end and a first flange at an opposite end, the first member being generally hollow to define a first flow path between the inlet and the first flange, the first member being made from a nickel-chromium material; and a second member having a second flange at an end, the second flange being directly coupled to the first flange, the second member further having an outlet on a second end opposite the second flange, the second member being generally hollow to define a second flow path in series with the first flow path and arranged between the second flange and the outlet, the second member being made from titanium. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Pall US 3,372,743 Mar. 12, 1968 Plaschkes US 4,924,938 May 15, 1990 Murry US 6,629,428 B1 Oct. 7, 2003 Pohlman US 2005/0126769 A1 June 16, 2005 Bayt US 2007/0101731 A1 May 10, 2007 REJECTIONS I. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. II. Claims 1—3, 5, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Plaschkes and Pall. III. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Plaschkes, Pall, and Pohlman. 2 Appeal 2015-000209 Application 13/186,577 IV. Claims 7—11 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Murry, Plaschkes, Pall, and Bayt. V. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Murry, Plaschkes, Pall, and Pohlman. VI. Claims 14—17 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Plaschkes, Pall, and Bayt. VII. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Plaschkes, Pall, Bayt, and Pohlman. DISCUSSION Rejection I The Examiner determines that it is unclear how the second member can have “a length equal to 40% of the total length of the first member and second member” as set forth in claim 6 when the length of the first member is “greater than 60% of the total length of the first member and second member” as set forth in claim 5. See Final Act. 3. Appellants do not contest this rejection. Rather, Appellants contend that claim 6 is not indefinite in view of the amendment to claim 6 filed on March 12, 2014. See Appeal Br. 11. However, this amendment was not entered by the Examiner. See Adv. Act (mailed Mar. 27, 2014). Accordingly, the copy of claim 6 in the Claims Appendix of the instant Appeal Brief is incorrect. As Appellants provide no substantive arguments contesting the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, we summarily sustain this rejection. 3 Appeal 2015-000209 Application 13/186,577 Rejection II The Examiner finds that Plaschkes discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 except for “the first member being made from a nickel-chromium material; the second member being made from titanium.” Final Act. 4—6. The Examiner finds that “Pall teaches titanium alloys and nickel-chromium alloys can be used in heat exchangers.” Id. (citing Pall 4:28—33). Based on these findings, the Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious “to incorporate the materials nickel-chromium alloys and titanium alloys as taught by Pall for the first member and for the second member, respectively, in order to provide high heat conductivity, desired rigidity and structural strength for the heat exchanger.” Id. (citing Pall 4:24—28). Noting that “Plaschkes uses a plastic material, while Pall discloses the use of various metals,” Appellants contend that “[n]either reference teaches the use of different materials to provide different heat exchange rates in different portions of the heat exchanger.” Appeal Br. 8. In particular, Appellants argue that “Pall does not disclose making the heat exchanger out of multiple metals.” Appeal Br. 7. Responding to this argument, the Examiner directs our attention to Pall’s discussion of the advantages of using metal materials. See Ans. 2 (citing Pall 4:24). However, the Examiner does not explain how Pall suggests the use of two different materials (nickel-chromium material and titanium) in the same heat exchanger as required by claim 1. Pall states: The device of the invention can be formed of any material which is high in heat conductivity. Metals have the desired rigidity and structural strength, in addition to affording good heat exchange, and accordingly are the preferred construction materials. Any of the metals commonly used in heat exchangers can be employed, 4 Appeal 2015-000209 Application 13/186,577 for instance, iron, steel, aluminum, tin, titanium alloys, nickel and nickel alloys, zinc, cadmium, silver, copper alloys, nickel- chromium alloys, such as Nichrome and Monel, and magnesium. Pall 4:24—33. Thus, Pall suggests using metals such as nickel alloys and titanium alloys. However, the Examiner does not identify, nor do we discern where Pall suggests, the use of two different metals in the same heat exchanger as required by claim 1. Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is convincing. For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 5, and 6, which depend therefrom. Rejection III Claim 4 depends from claim 1. Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). The rejection of claim 4 relies upon the same deficient reasoning as the rejection of claim 1. See Final Act. 7—8. Pohlman does not cure this deficiency. See id. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 4 for the reason discussed supra. Rejection IV Claim 7 also requires a first member made from a nickel-chromium material and a second member made from titanium. Appeal Br. 17—18 (Claims App.). Although claim 7 is rejected based on the combined teachings of Murry, Plaschkes, Pall, and Bayt, the rejection of claim 7 relies upon the same deficient reasoning as the rejection of claim 1. See Final Act. 11. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 5 Appeal 2015-000209 Application 13/186,577 7, and claims 8—11 and 13, which depend therefrom, for the same reason we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1. Rejection V Claim 12 depends from claim 7. Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). The rejection of claim 12 relies upon the same deficient reasoning as the rejection of claim 7. See Final Act. 14. Pohlman does not cure this deficiency. See id. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 12 for the reason discussed supra. Rejection VI Claim 14 also requires a first member made from a nickel-chromium material and a second member made from titanium. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). Although claim 14 is rejected based on the combined teachings of Plaschkes, Pall, and Bayt, the rejection of claim 14 relies upon the same deficient reasoning as the rejection of claim 1. See Final Act. 15—16. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 14, and claims 15—17 and 19, which depend therefrom, for the same reason we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1. Rejection VII Claim 18 depends from claim 14. Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). The rejection of claim 18 relies upon the same deficient reasoning as the rejection of claim 14. See Final Act. 18. Pohlman does not cure this deficiency. See id. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 18 for the reason discussed supra. 6 Appeal 2015-000209 Application 13/186,577 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is AFFIRMED. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are REVERSED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation