Ex Parte Asfia et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 16, 201311435964 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JULIE FATEMEH ASFIA, QINGJUN CAI, and CHUNG-LUNG CHEN ____________ Appeal 2012-001270 Application 11/435,964 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, GAY ANN SPAHN, and MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges. SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 22-27, and 32-34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2012-001270 Application 11/435,964 2 Claimed Subject Matter The claimed subject matter “relates generally to heat transfer devices, and more particularly, to a multi-layer wick for a loop heat pipe.” Spec. 1, para. [0001]. Claim 1, reproduced below, with emphasis added, is illustrative of the appealed subject matter. 1. A multi-layer wick structure for a loop heat pipe, comprising: a primary wick including a first layer and a second layer, wherein the first layer made of a first material substantially surrounds a first portion of the second layer, the second layer having a second portion which is not surrounded by the first layer and extends beyond the first layer, the second layer made of a second material having a lower thermal conductivity than the first material; and a secondary wick made of a third material having a thermal conductivity higher than the second material disposed at least partially within the primary wick. App. Br., Clms. App’x. Independent claim 9 is directed to a loop heat pipe including, inter alia, a multi-layer wick having a primary wick with first and second layers made of first and second materials, respectively, wherein the second material has a lower thermal conductivity than the first material. App. Br., Clms. App’x. Independent claim 23 is directed to a multi-layer wick structure for a loop heat pipe including, inter alia, a primary wick having first and second layers made of first and second materials, respectively, wherein the first material has a higher thermal conductivity than the second material. App. Br., Clms. App’x. Appeal 2012-001270 Application 11/435,964 3 Rejections The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review: I. claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, and 22-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art1 (hereinafter “AAPA”), Valenzuela (US 2005/0230085 A1, published Oct. 20, 2005), and Seidenberg (US 4,765,396, issued Aug. 23, 1988); and II. claims 32-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over AAPA, Valenzuela, Seidenberg, Hong (US 2006/0162906 A1, published Jul. 27, 2006), and Kroliczek (US 2005/0252643 A1, published Nov. 17, 2005). OPINION Rejection I – Obviousness based on AAPA, Valenzuela, and Seidenberg The Examiner finds that AAPA substantially discloses the subject matter of independent claims 1, 9, and 23, but fails to disclose that “the primary wick comprising two layers, the second layer . . . having a lower thermal conductivity that the first layer made of a first material.” Ans. 5. To cure the deficiency of AAPA, the Examiner turns to Valenzuela to disclose “a multilayer wick comprising a primary wick having multiple layers (FL2), (FL3), and (206),” and to Seidenberg to disclose “a heat pipe which comprises a wick made of nickel or a wick made of ceramic.” Ans. 6 (citing Valenzeula, paras. [0055] and [0076] and Fig. 6, and Seidenberg, col. 2, ll. 28-46). 1 The Examiner identifies Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art as being Prior Art Figure 1 of the application underlying the present appeal. See Ans. 5; see also Spec., paras. [0003]-[0005] describing Prior Art Fig. 1. Appeal 2012-001270 Application 11/435,964 4 Appellants argue that none of AAPA, Valenzuela, and Seidenberg “nor their combination teaches or suggests a primary wick including first and second layers having different levels of thermal conductivity.” App. Br. 10-11. More particularly, Appellants argue that Valenzuela discloses a wick 206 that is just a single layer, and fractal layers FL2 and FL3 are not layers of a wick at all, but rather fractal layers “FL2 and FL3 are parts of a bridge structure [either 202 or 204 in Figure 6] for carrying vapor away from wick 206 to vapor channels or for carrying liquid to wick 206 from liquid channels,” respectively. App. Br. 11-12 (citing Valenzuela, paras. [0053]- [0054], and Fig. 6). Appellants further argue that “[n]othing in Valenzuela describes of suggests that structures FL2 and FL3 are parts of a wick, perform the functions of a wick, or are made from a material and/or in a manner appropriate for a wick.” App. Br. 12. Thus, Appellants “dispute the Examiner’s interpretation of the teachings of Valenzuela,” and “[s]pecifically, . . . dispute the Examiner’s suggestion that FL3 (or FL2 or FL1) in Figure 6 of Valenzuela describes or suggests a layer of a multi-layer wick.” App. Br. 13. The Examiner responds that “the claim calls for the primary wick to have multiple layers . . . , however, this does NOT mean that each layer has to be a wick,” because “nothing in the claim[] says that each layer is made of a wicking material,” only first and second materials. Ans. 10. The Examiner’s position is that “[t]he combined teachings, specifically Valenzuela, broadly teaches using a multiple layer wick having multiple layers (FL2), (FL3), and (206), which are made of different materials.” Id. Appellants reply that the Examiner’s interpretation that each of the first and second layers of the primary wick do not have to be a wick is not Appeal 2012-001270 Application 11/435,964 5 correct. Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue that claim 1 calls for “a primary wick including a first layer and a second layer,” and “[t]he plain meaning of this phrase is that the first layer and the second layer are parts of the whole that is the primary wick,” and “[t]hus, the first layer and the second layer are wick layers that together form the primary wick.” Id. The Figure 6 embodiment of Valenzuela discloses a capillary evaporator 200 having both a vapor-side bridge 202 and a liquid-side bridge 204 on either side of a wick 206. Valenzuela, para. [0053]. The vapor-side bridge 202 provides a structure between capillary wick 206 and vapor-side ribs 208 and vapor channels 210 that has great ability to spread heat from ribs 208 to wick 206, but also has a high permeability to allow vapor to flow from the wick 206 to the vapor channels 210. Id. The liquid-side bridge 204 provides a structure that substantially cools capillary wick 206 while providing a highly permeable structure that allows liquid from liquid channels 212 to flow substantially across the wick 206. Valenzuela, para. [0054]. By virtue of openings 222 increasing in size and decreasing in number from the fractal layers FL3 adjacent the wick 206 to the fractal layers FL1 farthest from the wick 206, the spreading capability and high permeability of both the vapor-side bridge 202 and the liquid-side bridge 204 is enhanced. Valenzuela, para. [0055]. We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. In particular, we agree with Appellants that neither of fractal layers FL3 and FL2 of vapor-side bridge 202 and liquid-side bridge 204, relied on by the Examiner to be part of wick 206, appear to be a wick because they do not “operat[e] by ‘wicking’ or by capillary action or capillary forces.” App. Br. 13-14. An ordinary and customary meaning of the verb “wick” is “to draw off (liquid) Appeal 2012-001270 Application 11/435,964 6 by capillary action,” and an ordinary and customary meaning of “capillarity,” also called capillary action or capillary attraction, is “a manifestation of surface tension by which the portion of the surface of a liquid coming in contact with a solid is elevated or depressed, depending on the adhesive or cohesive properties of the liquid.” The Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc., 2013, available at http://dictionary.reference.com (last visited: Dec. 15, 2013). Since fractal layers FL3 and FL2 of vapor-side bridge 202 and liquid-side bridge 204 do not appear to draw off liquid or vapor by capillary action in accordance with the definition of wick, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not considers the fractal layers to be part of wick 206. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 23, and claims 3, 5-8, 11, 22, and 24-27 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over AAPA, Valenzuela, and Seidenberg. Rejection II – Obviousness based on AAPA, Valenzuela, Seidenberg, Hong, and Kroliczek The Examiner’s rejection of claims 32-34 relies on the erroneous finding that Valenzuela’s fractal layers FL3 and FL2 are part of wick 206. The Examiner does not rely upon Hong or Kroliczek to cure the deficiency of Valenzuela discussed supra. Thus, for the same reasons as discussed supra with respect to independent claims 1, 9, and 23, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 32-34 dependent thereon, respectively, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over AAPA, Valenzuela, Seidenberg, Hong, and Kroliczek. Appeal 2012-001270 Application 11/435,964 7 DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 22-27, and 32-34. REVERSED llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation