Ex Parte Bidon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2013

11563728 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013)

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.
11/563,728 11/28/2006 Daniel Bidon 5956-007 1435
24112 7590 02/26/2013
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
WALBERG, TERESA J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte DANIEL BIDON and JEAN-CLAUDE GALLOT
____________________

Appeal 2010-006134
Application 11/563,728
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: WILLIAM V. SAINDON, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and NEIL T.
POWELL, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006134
Application 11/563,728
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
3, 8-11, 15, 17, 18 and 41-55. Claims 1, 11, 44 and 50 are the independent
claims, and claims 2, 4-7, 12-14, 16 and 19-40 are canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to an evaporator, and more specifically to
“heat exchangers to transfer heat between a heat transfer medium, often
steam, and the liquid.” Spec. 1, para. [0002]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An evaporator for evaporating a liquid, comprising:
a. a housing;
b. a heat exchanger for transferring heat from a heat
transfer medium to the liquid and producing a vapor and a
product liquid;
c. a vapor collector disposed substantially within the
housing and including a vapor inlet having a downward-facing
portion;
d. wherein the vapor produced by the heat exchanger
flows downwardly past an upper portion of the vapor collector
and upwardly into the vapor inlet; and
e. wherein the heat exchanger includes a liquid inlet, an
outlet for product liquid and vapor, and a bank of tube plates
with each tube plate including a pair of corrugated sheets
secured together wherein each corrugated sheet includes a
series of alternating concave and convex segments with
adjacent segments being generally mirror images of each other,
and wherein the corrugated sheets comprising each tube plate
are disposed such that each concave segment of one sheet faces
a concave segment of the other sheet, and wherein each convex
segment of one sheet contacts or lies closely adjacent a convex
Appeal 2010-006134
Application 11/563,728
3
segment of the other sheet and wherein the tube plates are
spaced apart and spacing the tube plates includes bracing the
tube plates with two or more plates with each plate having
openings shaped to generally conform to the tube plates and
thereby adapted to retain the shape of each tube plate when
exposed to pressure.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Harrison
Protze
Rosenblad `119
Rosenblad `709
Sephton
US 1,005,028
US 2,873,954
US 3,351,119
US 3,371,709
US 6,309,513
Oct. 3, 1911
Feb. 17, 1959
Nov. 7, 1967
Mar. 5, 1968
Oct. 30, 2001

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 8, 41 and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rosenblad `119 and Harrison. Ans. 3.
Claims 3, 11, 17, 18, 44 and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rosenblad `119, Harrison and Protze.
Ans. 5.
Claims 15 and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rosenblad `119, Harrison, Protze and Rosenblad `709.
Ans. 6.
Claims 9, 10, and 50-53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rosenblad `119, Harrison, Protze and Sephton.
Ans. 6.
Appeal 2010-006134
Application 11/563,728
4
Claims 46-49, 54 and 55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rosenblad, Harrison `119, Protze and Sephton.
Ans. 7.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 8, 41 and 42 as unpatentable over Rosenblad `119 and Harrison.
The Examiner found that Rosenblad `119 discloses each of the
limitations of the evaporator recited in claim 1 with the exception of “tube
plates including pairs of corrugated sheets secured together and plates
holding the tube plates in spaced positions.” Ans. 4. The Examiner turned
to Harrison for the disclosure of a heat exchanger having “tube plates (5 in
Fig. 5) including pairs of corrugated sheets (Fig. 5 and page 2, lines 10-13)
secured together (at 14 and 15) and plates (at 7 in Fig. 2) holding the tube
plates (5) in spaced positions (page 2, lines 4-6).” Id. The Examiner
reasoned that it would have been obvious to include the corrugated sheets
forming tube plates from Harrison in Rosenblad `119’s heat exchanger “to
increase the rate of heat transfer due to increased surface area of the plates.”
Ans. 4.
Appellants draw our attention to the fact that Rosenblad `119 relates
to a falling film heat exchanger using inverted “V”-shaped baffles 50, as
shown in Rosenblad `119’s Figure 5, which evenly distribute the liquid as a
uniform film onto the surfaces of heat exchanger plates 161. App. Br. 8-9.
Appellants argue that Harrison’s radiator, having corrugated tubes through
which the fluid to be cooled flows, cannot be substituted for the heat transfer

1 The Appeal Brief refers to Rosenblad `119’s “heat exchanger plates 44.”
Our review of the reference indicates that the plates are more properly
“plates 16” where the description of element 44 refers to the “first baffle
members” which form the upper edge, or peak, of the exchanger plates.
App. Br. 9; Rosenblad `119, col. 4, ll. 51-52.
Appeal 2010-006134
Application 11/563,728
5
plates 16 in Rosenblad `119, “and still maintain Rosenblad [`119] 's object
of distributing a uniform thickness of liquid over the entire surface area of
the corrugated tubes.” App. Br. 10. Appellants assert that the modification
of Rosenblad `119 with Harrison’s corrugated tubes would render Rosenblad
`119 inoperable for its intended purpose. App. Br. 12. Appellants contend
that the use of corrugated tubes would destroy the efficiency and
performance of Rosenblad `119’s heat exchanger which is predicated upon
the uniformity of the liquid film evenly distributed across the entire surface
of the heat exchanger plates 16. App. Br. 12-13.
As noted by Appellants, Rosenblad `119 is directed specifically to
development of a uniformly distributed film of liquid across the entire
surface(s) of the heat exchanger plate(s) describing
[a] plate type heat exchanger of the falling film type,
such heat exchanger having an improved liquid distribution
device which insures the creation of substantially uniform
falling films on the entire heating surfaces of the heat exchanger
plates.
Rosenblad `119, col. 1, ll. 10-14. To facilitate the uniformity of the fluid
flow across the heat exchanger plates 16 (and down the heating channels 17)
Rosenblad `119 provides baffle means 50 “in the form of inverted V's which
are symmetrically disposed above the upper edges of the heating channels
17.” Id., col. 4, ll. 53-55. These inverted “V” baffles include first baffle
members 44 which form a central peak as the top portion of the heat
exchanger plates 16, and additionally a second row 49, and third row 50, of
additional “V”-shaped baffle members disposed above the first baffle
members 44. As described in Rosenblad `119
spray from the nozzle forms into films on the successive baffle
means 50, 49, the films flowing downwardly to drop upon
plates 45 of baffle means 44. By the time the films have
App
App
Id., c

of su
corru
Rose
the e
acce
what
impa
B, is

Figu
nozz
eal 2010-0
lication 11
reached
uniform
length o
ol. 5, ll. 1
Based on
ch a unifo
gated tub
nblad [`11
ntire surfa
pt this pos
the Exam
rt. Appel
reproduce
res A and
les 41 and
06134
/563,728
the upper
thickness
f each of s
0-16.
Rosenbla
rm film, o
es 5 for pla
9] evapor
ce area of
ition, App
iner’s mod
lants’ hypo
d below:
B depict th
42 and th
edges of
and exten
uch plates
d `119’s d
r flow, Ap
tes [16] w
ator to dist
the corrug
ellants pro
ification o
thetical re
e corruga
e baffles 4
6
plates 16
d through
.
isclosure
pellants’ p
ill make it
ribute a un
ated tubes
vide a hyp
f Rosenbl
presentati
ted tubes 5
9 and 50 o
they are o
out the en
being pred
osition is
impossib
iform thic
5.” App.
othetical r
ad `119 w
on, illustra
of Harris
f Rosenbl
f substan
tire horiz
icated on
that “subst
le for the m
kness of l
Br. 14. U
epresentat
ith Harriso
ted as Fig
on placed
ad `119. A
tially
ontal
the ideals
ituting the
odified
iquid over
rging us to
ion of
n would
ures A and

below the
pp. Br.

Appeal 2010-006134
Application 11/563,728
7
14-15. Keeping in mind that Rosenblad `119 is unwaveringly focused on
providing a uniform flow across the entirety of the heat exchanger plates 16,
we accept Appellants’ position that by providing Harrison’s corrugated tubes
5 in Rosenblad `119, “as shown in Fig. B above, a significant portion of the
corrugated sheets (shown in dotted lines) is disposed under the inverted V-
portion of the baffles. The liquid distributed by the baffles cannot be
uniformly distributed to these portions of the corrugated sheets.” App. Br.
15.
The Examiner’s reasoning that corrugated sheets would increase the
heat transfer surface area and thus provide an increase in overall heat
transfer to improve the overall functioning of the heat transfer device is
inadequately supported. Ans. 9. The Examiner provides no rationale or
explanation to support the finding that forming tubes from conjoined
corrugated sheets would provide any additional surface area besides that
already provided by the plates 16 in Rosenblad `119. Id. We also do not
agree with the Examiner’s supposition that there is “nothing in this liquid
distributing means that would preclude the use of corrugated plates in the
heat transfer device.” Id. As shown by Appellants’ hypothetical Figures A
and B above, the entire purpose of the baffles developing even, uniform flow
across the entire plate is compromised with such corrugated tubes.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 as
unpatentable over Rosenblad `119 and Harrison. As claims 8, 41 and 42
each depend directly from claim 1, we also do not sustain these rejections.
Claims 3, 11, 17, 18, 44 and 45 as unpatentable over Rosenblad `119,
Harrison and Protze.
Protze discloses a heat exchanger having cylindrical sheet metal rings
acting as anti-splashing plates 19 at the surface of the water. Protze, col. 4,
Appeal 2010-006134
Application 11/563,728
8
ll. 16-53 and fig. 1. Protze explains that in order “[t]o avoid excessive
splashing, when the jet reaches the water surface, the latter is subdivided
into small zones by the cylindrical anti-splashing-sheets 19. Id., col. 4, ll.
51-53. The Examiner does not make any findings with respect to Protze to
correct the deficiencies with respect to the underlying combination of
Rosenblad `119 and Harrison. Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and thus for
the reasons discussed supra, we reverse the rejection of claim 3.
Independent claims 11 and 44 include the same limitations as claim 1 with
respect to the bank of tube plates formed from a pair of corrugated sheets
and thus the rejection of these claims, and their respective dependent claims
17, 18 and 45 over Rosenblad `119, Harrison and Protze is also reversed.
Claims 15 and 43 as being unpatentable over Rosenblad `119, Harrison,
Protze and Rosenblad `709.
Rosenblad `709 is cited for the proposition of angling a series of
spaced apart plates forming the anti-splash device as recited in claim 15, and
for disclosing that the liquid and heat transfer medium flow in a normal
direction to one another as recited in claim 43. Ans. 6. Again, the Examiner
makes no findings based on Rosenblad `709 to cure the deficiencies of
Rosenblad `119 and Harrison, and where claims 15 and 43 depend directly
from independent claim 11 the rejection of claims 15 and 43 also cannot be
sustained.
Claims 9, 10, and 50-53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rosenblad `119, Harrison, Protze and Sephton.
Sephton discloses a plurality of vertically stacked tube bundles or
modules in a single unit to provide efficient evaporation for liquids.
Sephton, col. 3, ll. 8-15. The Examiner fails to find any basis in Sephton to
cure the deficiencies with respect to Rosenblad `119 and Harrison as
discussed above. Independent claim 50 includes the same limitations as the
Appeal 2010-006134
Application 11/563,728
9
previously discussed independent claims, and thus the rejections of claims 9,
10 and 50-53 are also not sustained.
Claims 46-49, 54 and 55 as unpatentable over Rosenblad `119, Harrison,
Protze and Sephton.
Claims 46-49 depend directly from independent claim 44, and claims
54 and 55 both depend directly from independent claim 50. As discussed
supra, the Examiner has provided no findings from Protze, nor Sephton to
cure the deficiencies of Rosenblad `119 and Harrison. Accordingly, we also
reverse the rejection of claims 46-49, 54 and 55.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 8-11,
15, 17, 18, 41-55 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

mls