Ex Parte Cahill et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 16, 2016

12867857 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/867,857 08/16/2010
164 7590 08/18/2016
KINNEY & LANGE, P.A.
THE KINNEY & LANGE BUILDING
312 SOUTH THIRD STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415-1002
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kevin M. Cahill
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
H550.12-0075 3597
EXAMINER
JAGODA, AARON H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/18/2016 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):
uspatdocket@kinney.com
smkomarec@kinney.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN M. CAHILL, HOOSHANG DIDANDEH, and
EUGENE EL VIN WILLIAMS
Appeal2014-008241
Application 12/867 ,857 1
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
Final Decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Horton, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-008241
Application 12/867,857
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 7, and 11 are independent, with claims 2---6, 8-10, and 12-
20 depending from claim 1, 7, or 11. Claim 7 is illustrative of the claims on
appeal, and is reproduced below:
7. A fan assembly comprising:
a subassembly comprising:
a backplate comprising:
a substantially planar inner diameter portion; and
a substantially frusto-conical outer diameter portion;
and
a plurality of blades comprising a polymer material and
extending from the backplate, wherein each blade defines
an attachment region opposite the backplate, the
attachment region comprising:
a weld area; and
a captive area located adjacent to the weld area m a
streamwise direction; and
a fan shroud comprising:
a body having an annular shape and comprising a polymer
material;
a plurality of openings in the body, wherein the weld areas
of the plurality of blades are positioned at least partially
within the corresponding openings in the body; and
a pair of supports integral with the body portion and
extending along opposite sides of each of the openings
in the body, wherein the captive areas of the plurality
of blades are positioned between the corresponding
pairs of supports;
wherein weld joints are formed between the weld areas of
each of the plurality of blades and the fan shroud, the weld
joints containing ferromagnetic particles.
2
Appeal2014-008241
Application 12/867,857
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Amr (US 6,042,335, iss. Mar. 28, 2000), Mause (US
2008/0199319 Al, pub. Aug. 21, 2008), and Guglielmo (US 3,620,876, iss.
Nov. 16, 1971);
2. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Amr, Mause, Guglielmo, and Hauser ( 6,010,305, iss. Jan. 4, 2000);
3. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Amr, Mause, Guglielmo, and Berce (US 5,447,592, iss.
Sept. 5, 1995);
4. Claims 7, 9, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Amr, Mause, Iida (US 6,805,531 B2, iss. Oct. 19, 2004),
and Guglielmo;
5. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Amr, Mause, Iida, Guglielmo, and Hauser;
6. Claims 11-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mause, Iida, and Guglielmo; and
7. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Mause, Iida, Guglielmo, and Reyolds (US 7,331,764 Bl, iss. Feb. 19,
2008).
OPINION
We first discuss the rejection of independent claim 7 because
Appellants' arguments directed to rejections of independent claims 1 and 11
rely, at least in part, on its arguments directed to claim 7. See App. Br. 20-
21.
3
Appeal2014-008241
Application 12/867,857
A. Claims 7, 9, and 10
Appellants argue claims 7, 9, and 10 as a group. App. Br. 11-19. We
select claim 7 as representative. Claims 9 and 10 stand or fall with claim 7.
See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015). The Examiner finds that Amr teaches
the features recited in claim 7, other than the "captive area" and "weld area"
of the blades, the "pair of supports" on the fan shroud, and "weld joints
containing ferromagnetic particles." Final Act. 11. The Examiner finds that
Mause teaches blades having a "weld area" and a "captive area." Id. at 12.
The Examiner additionally finds that Iida teaches a "pair of supports" on a
fan shroud and that Guglielmo teaches "weld joints containing ferromagnetic
particles." Id. at 12-13. The Examiner proposes modifying the teachings of
Amr with those of Mause, Iida, and Guglielmo and provides rationale for the
combination of those teachings. Id.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's findings regarding Amr or
Guglielmo, or the Examiner's rationale for combining the teachings of the
various references. Rather, Appellants dispute the Examiner's findings
regarding Mause teaching blades having a "weld area" and a "captive area,"
as well as those regarding Iida teaching a "pair of supports." App. Br. 11-
19.
1. "captive areas ... positioned between ... pairs of supports"
Claim 7 recites that the "captive area" of each blade is "located
adjacent to the weld area in a streamwise direction" with the "captive areas .
. . positioned between ... pairs of supports" on the fan shroud. The
Examiner cites Mause's knob 11 and recess 12 as corresponding to the
"weld area" and areas adjacent to knobs 11 as corresponding to the "captive
area," and cites Iida's walls 22 as corresponding to the "supports." Final
4
Appeal2014-008241
Application 12/867,857
Act. 12-13. The Examiner then proposes modifying Amr's teachings to
include "weld areas" and "captive areas" on its blades, as well as a further
modification to have the "captive areas" in the modification to Amr be
located between "pairs of supports." Id. at 13.
Appellants contend that "the areas adjacent to the knobs of Mause et
al. are not 'captive areas' and are not 'positioned between ... corresponding
pairs of supports."' App. Br. 13. Appellants further contend that "[a]
significant underlying error in the Examiner's application based on Mause et
al. is the unreasonable interpretation of the claim language in question" and
that the Examiner's interpretation "improperly removes the 'captive area'
limitation from the claims entirely." Id. at 13-14; see also Reply Br. 1-3.
Appellants, however, do not propose any particular construction for "captive
area" or argue that term requires any particular structure. Rather, Appellants
contend that claim 7 requires a particular placement for the "captive area"
(i.e., between the pair of supports) and that "the Specification fully supports
the claimed distinction between captive areas and welded regions." Id. at
14. Appellants further contend that Iida' s teachings "do[] not provide a
'captive area' of a blade 'located adjacent to the weld area in a streamwise
direction' and positioned between 'a pair of supports' as presently claimed."
Id. at 15.
Appellants are correct that claim 7 requires a particular placement for
the "captive area" (i.e., between the pair of supports) and that "the
Specification fully supports the claimed distinction between captive areas
and welded regions" (id. at 14 ), but this does not identify Examiner error.
The "captive area" recited in claim 7 is a portion of the blade "located
adjacent to the weld area in a streamwise direction" that is not welded. This
5
Appeal2014-008241
Application 12/867,857
is fully consistent with the contentions presented by Appellants (i.e., that
there is a distinction between the captive area and the weld area-the captive
area is not welded). The claim further requires that the "captive area" is
"positioned between ... pairs of supports." As noted above, Appellants do
not contend that any particular structure is associated with the "captive
areas."
The problem with Appellants' arguments is that they attack the
references individually, rather than addressing the specific combination of
teachings asserted by the Examiner. For example, as noted above,
Appellants contend that Mause does not teach captive areas of blades
located between supports and that Iida does not teach captive areas of
blades (App. Br. 13, 15), but the Examiner does not cite Mause as teaching
the "pairs of supports" on a fan shroud or Iida as teaching "captive areas" of
blades. Rather, as noted above, the Examiner cites Mause as teaching
"captive areas" and Iida as teaching "pairs of supports" and proposes
modifying the structure of Amr to include "captive areas" that are
"positioned between pairs of supports." See Final Act. 12-13 (explaining
that "Iida ... teaches ... a pair of supports ... wherein the captive areas []as
taught by Mause ... are positioned between the corresponding pairs of
supports" and reasoning that "[i]t would have been obvious ... to modify
the assembly of Amr, as modified by Mause, by providing a pair of supports
as taught by Iida."); see also Ans. 3.
Appellants do not dispute that Mause teaches areas of a blade
adjacent knobs 11 that are not welded, that Iida teaches pairs of supports on
a fan shroud, or the Examiner's rationale for the combination of those
features with Amr's teachings as proposed by the Examiner. Accordingly,
6
Appeal2014-008241
Application 12/867,857
we are not apprised of Examiner error with respect to the findings or
rationale regarding the "captive areas" or "pairs of supports" recited in
claim 7.
2. weld area
Claim 7 also recites that each of the blades has a "weld area" with
"weld joints [] formed between the weld areas of each of the plurality of
blades and the fan shroud." As noted above, the Examiner cites Mause as
teaching a "weld area." See Final Act. 12 ("parts 11 and 12 [in Mause]
make the weld area").
Appellants contend that rather than teaching welding, Mause actually
teaches away from welding. App. Br. 17-18. Appellants contend that
Mause' s discussion of welding distinguishes its use of adhesives from prior
welding techniques, and that there is no reason to believe that the structure
of Mause would be appropriate for the welding techniques that it references.
Id. at 18. We are not persuaded that Mause does not teach welding and,
therefore, are also not persuaded that Mause teaches away from welding.
In reference to Mause teaching welding, the Examiner cites
paragraphs 14--16 and 36. Final Act. 12. Paragraph 14 of Mause, for
example, explains that "a materially bonding connection of all components
for an impeller which is constructed in a multipart manner ... previously
used ultrasonic or UV welding process." We have no reason to believe that
the structure of the blades disclosed in Mause in combination with adhesive
bonding is not the same structure that "previously used ultrasonic or UV
welding process." The Examiner responds to Appellants' arguments in a
similar manner, noting that "the discussion of welding as a prior art process
previously used for carrying out the connection of the parts of the impeller
7
Appeal2014-008241
Application 12/867,857
precisely teaches the process of welding as an acceptable alternative, which
is being improved upon by Mause et al." Ans. 5; see also id. at 6 ("Whether
Mause employs adhesive bonding or a welded connection, the 'weld area'
remains structurally the same, and teaches the 'weld area' as claimed.").
Although Appellants filed a Reply Brief, that brief does not address this
explanation in the Examiner's Answer. See Reply Br. 1-3.
For the reasons set forth above, we are persuaded that Mause teaches
a "weld area" as required by claim 7. Appellants fail to apprise us of error in
that finding. Accordingly, we are not apprised of Examiner error in the
rejection of claims 7, 9, and 10.
B. Claim 20
Claim 20 depends from claim 7 and further recites that "the captive
area is located between the weld area and a free end of each blade." The
Examiner finds that Mause teaches this limitation. Final Act. 14 (citing
Mause, Fig. 5). Appellants do not dispute that finding. Rather, Appellants
dispute a statement made by the Examiner in the Answer. See Reply Br. 3
(quoting page 8 of the Answer). Page 8 of the Examiner's Answer states
that
the "free end" as claimed in claim 20 may correspond to any end
of the blade, including the leading edge or the trailing edge, both
of which are adjacent to the "captive areas" as taught by Mause
(Mause, fig. 5). The term "free end" is not understood to have
any more of a limiting effect than the term "end" when applied
to an impeller blade assembly.
Although we do not agree that the term "free end" has effectively the
same meaning as the term "end," that is not fatal to the Examiner's rejection.
For example, we agree, and Appellants do not dispute, that the leading and
trailing edges of the blade in Mause are "free ends," and that is the structure
8
Appeal2014-008241
Application 12/867,857
identified by the Examiner as corresponding to the "free end" recited in
claim 20. See Final Act. 14; Ans. 8.
Accordingly, we are not apprised of Examiner error requiring reversal
of the rejection of claim 20.
C. Claim 8
Claim 8 depends from claim 10, and Appellants do not provide
separate argument regarding the Examiner's rejection of claim 8. See App.
Br. 19 (arguing that "Hauser, cited with respect to claim 8, does not
overcome the deficiencies of the other cited art" in the rejection of claim 7).
As noted above, we are apprised of no deficiencies in the rejection of claim
7.
D. Claims 1-6 and 11-19
Appellants rely on arguments similar to those presented regarding
claim 7 for the patentability of claims 1---6 and 11-19. See App. Br. 19-22.
Those arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above.
Accordingly, we are also not apprised of Examiner error in the
rejection of claims 1---6 and 11-19.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9