Ex Parte Chowdhury et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 5, 2016

13107045 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2016)

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.
13/107,045 05/13/2011 SOURAV CHOWDHURY 15491-070 (E07110 US-1) 6614
80711 7590 12/06/2016
ROT /Ann Arhnr
EXAMINER
524 South Main Street SHAIKH, MERAJ A
Suite 200
Ann Arbor, MI 48104 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/06/2016 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 SOURAV CHOWDHURY and PRASAD S. KADLE
Appeal 2015-003752
Application 13/107,0451
Technology Center 3700
Before ROBERT L. KINDER, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1—17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, “[t]he present invention relates generally to
a tube for a heat exchanger; specifically, to a fabricated tube for an
evaporator; and more specifically, to a folded evaporator tube.” Spec. 12.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Delphi Technologies,
Inc. Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-003752
Application 13/107,045
CLAIMS
Claims 1—17 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed
claims and recites:
1. A folded evaporator tube comprising,
a unitary strip of heat conductive material having a
thickness (t) folded into a cross sectional shape having:
a bottom wall with two opposing tube edges transitioning
into a pair of top walls spaced from and substantially parallel to
said bottom wall defining an interior surface;
a pair of abutted central walls bent substantially
perpendicularly out of said top walls and extends toward said
bottom wall;
a corrugated portion extending substantially
perpendicularly out of each of said central walls toward said
corresponding tube edge;
wherein said bottom wall includes a width (2w),
wherein said corrugated portion includes alternating
flange segments abutting said interior surface and channel walls
connecting said alternating flange segments,
wherein at least one of said alternating adjacent flange
segments includes a length (a) cooperating with adjacent said
channel walls to define a channel having a width (b); and
a number of ports per millimeter width (PPMW) includes
a range of 1/w to 2/t as defined by the equation:
PPMW = 2/(a+b+t).
Br. 22.
2
Appeal 2015-003752
Application 13/107,045
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yukitake.2
2. The Examiner rejects claims 2—12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yukitake in view of Kato.3
3. The Examiner rejects claims 13—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Elbourini4 in view of Yukitake and Kato.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Yukitake discloses a
folded evaporator tube as claimed, except that:
Yukitake does not explicitly teach wherein the number of
ports per millimeter width (PPMW) includes a range of 1/2 to 2/t
as defined by the equation PPMW = 2/(a+b+t) because Yukitake
does not teach the quantitative dimensions of its components.
Yukitake only teaches the relative dimensions of its components
via Figure 7.
Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner finds that the relative dimensions of
Yukitake’s components meet the claim limitations and that it would have
been obvious to use the relative dimensions depicted in Yukitake in a folded
evaporator tube “in order to reduce design costs by copying an existing
embodiment.” Id. at 3^4.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
regarding the scope and content of the Yukitake with respect to claim 1. See
2 Yukitake, US 5,441,106, iss. Aug. 15, 1995.
3 Kato, US 2007/0119581 Al, pub. May 31, 2007.
4 Elbourini, US 2005/0045314 Al, pub. Mar. 3, 2005.
3
Appeal 2015-003752
Application 13/107,045
id. at 2-4; see also Ans. 3—6. For the reasons set forth below, we are not
persuaded of error in the rejection by Appellants’ arguments.
Appellants first argue that the Examiner cannot rely on the relative
proportions in Yukitake’s figures because the depicted proportions of
features cannot be relied upon as evidence of actual proportions where the
drawings are not to scale. Appeal Br. 15—16 (citing MPEP § 2125).
However, MPEP § 2125 also provides that the description of the article
pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they
would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. We find that because
Yukitake describes a one piece construction with corrugated ribs in the
interior that is folded over to create a middle seam (see Yukitake, col. 3,11.
42—52) as claimed, Yukitake would necessarily meet the range claimed for
a+b+t for the reasons provided by the Examiner. See Ans. 4—6. More
specifically, we note, as the Examiner finds, that the claim requires only that
t < (a + b +1) < 2w, which is a broad range met by the depiction of
Yukitake’s device because “[t]he width includes two thicknesses, multiple
contact points between the fins and the exterior, and multiple spaces
between two adjacent contact points.” Id. at 5—6. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner’s conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found
it obvious to construct Yukitake’s device with the claimed proportions based
on the relative proportions disclosed in Yukitake.
Next, Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to produce a
reference teaching “at least one of [the] critical parameters as called for in
the claims, including claim 1 with respect to the PPMW” and that “the
Examiner is using impermissible hindsight from the teachings of Applicants’
specification and taking Official Notice that it is obvious to [sic] for a folded
4
Appeal 2015-003752
Application 13/107,045
tube having the proportions and dimensions as called for in the claims.” Br.
17. We are not persuaded at least because, as discussed above, the Examiner
has shown that Yukitake teaches proportions that meet the alleged critical
parameter with respect to PPMW in claim 1, and the Examiner does not rely
on information found only in Appellants’ disclosure in reaching the
conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 1. In re McLaughlin, 443
F.2d 1392, 1395, (CCPA 1971).
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Rejection 2
With respect to claims 2—12, Appellants argue that the Examiner took
official notice that the critical parameters claimed are well known in the art
without providing any teaching or suggestion in the art that the parameters
were known. Br. 17—18. Appellants assert that the official notice was
improper and that “Kato ’581 does not overcome the shortcomings of
Yukitake ’106 by at least failing to teach, suggest, or provide motivation for
the relative dimensions of the features as called for in claims 1-12.” Id. We
are not persuaded of error at least because this argument does not properly
address the full scope of the rejection before us, which relies on Kato to
show that the alleged critical parameters were known in the art and would
have been obvious to optimize as claimed. For example, with respect to
claim 2 the Examiner finds:
PPMW is a result effective variable, as it depends on the
spacing between corrugations, the thickness of the corrugations,
and the length of the intersections between the peaks and valleys
of corrugations and the tops and bottoms of an enclosing tube.
Adjusting these variables is known in the art to vary heat
exchanger efficiency. See, for example, Kato. Kato teaches a
heat exchanger tube with corrugated fins, wherein each fin
contacts a top or bottom region for a length, wflat, each contact
5
Appeal 2015-003752
Application 13/107,045
region has a space between it, P, and the tube has a thickness, tl
and t2. Figure 2. Kato proceeds to teach optimum ranges and
values of those variables for maximizing heat transfer efficiency.
Paragraphs 99-113.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to arrive at the
optimum value of PPMW being in the range of 0.4 to 1.0, since
it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are
taught in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable
ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Final Act. 5. The Examiner makes similar findings and conclusions with
respect to claims 3—12. See id. at 5—10.
Appellants have not identified any error in the Examiner’s findings
and conclusions with respect to the combination of Yukitake and Kato.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 2—12.
Rejection 3
With respect to this rejection, Appellants raise arguments only with
respect to claim 13. See Br. 18—20. Thus, we address only claim 13 below,
and claims 14—17 stand or fall with claim 13.
With respect to claim 13, the Examiner relies on Elbourini as
disclosing an assembly with a first header, a second header, and two banks
of evaporator tubes. Final Act. 10 (citing Elbourini, Fig. 11a). The
Examiner relies on Yukitake and Kato for the remaining limitations of this
claim in a similar manner as discussed above with respect to claims 1—12.
Id. at 11—13.
Appellants raise two arguments: that Elbourini does not disclose at
least two banks of tubes and that Elbourini discloses a radiator-type heat
exchanger instead of the claimed evaporator assembly. Br. 18—19. With
respect to the first argument, we agree with the Examiner that under the
6
Appeal 2015-003752
Application 13/107,045
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, Elbourini’s tiers of tubes
may be considered “banks” as required by this claim. See Ans. 9.
Appellants do not explain why the Specification and claims require a more
narrow interpretation of the claim such that Elbourini’s tiers of tubes would
not be considered banks. We also agree with the Examiner that, without
further explanation from Appellants, the descriptive terms evaporator and
radiator refer only to the intended use of the heat exchanger device and do
not impart any specific structure that would prevent Elbourini from reading
on the claimed banks of evaporator tubes. Id. at 9—10.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error and we sustain the
rejection of claim 13. For the same reasons, the rejection of claims 14—17 is
also sustained.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the rejections of claims
1-17.
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
7