Ex Parte Elser et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2018

13994796 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2018)

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.
13/994,796 07/29/2013 Hans-Peter Elser WG-022455-US-PCT 4786
26294 7590 03/02/2018
TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P.
1300 EAST NINTH STREET, SUITE 1700
CLEVELAND, OH 44114
EXAMINER
FUQUA, SHAWNTINA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2018 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):
rkline @ tarolli. com
docketing@tarolli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HANS-PETER ELSER, MATTHIAS TUMBACK,
REINHARD LENZ, and MORITZ VOGT
Appeal 2017-004678
Application 13/994,796
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, BRETT C. MARTIN,
and MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-004678
Application 13/994,796
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1—13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claims are directed generally “to a cooling module and an
apparatus for thermally treating substrates, in particular, solar cells having
an ink or paste printed thereon.” Spec. 1,11. 3—5. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. Cooling module for cooling substrates after passing
through a heating module, said cooling module comprising:
an elongated cooling chamber having an inlet opening
adjacent to the heating module and an outlet opening;
a transport unit for transporting substrates through the
elongated cooling chamber, said transport unit defining a
transport plane for the substrates;
at least one first cooling unit having a plurality of first
plate elements, which extend in substance perpendicular to and
above the transport plane in the cooling chamber, at least one
first conduit extending through the first plate elements and being
in thermally conducting relationship therewith, and at least one
conveying unit for conveying a cooling fluid through the first
conduit;
a conveying unit for conveying gas, in particular air, via
spaces between the plate elements towards the transport plane;
and
at least one second cooling unit having a plurality of
second plate elements, which extend in substance perpendicular
to and below the transport plane in the cooling chamber, at least
one second conduit, which extends through the second plate
elements and is in a thermally conducting relationship therewith,
and at least one conveying unit for conveying a cooling fluid
through the second conduit.
2
Appeal 2017-004678
Application 13/994,796
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kiriyama
Hajime
EP 1 783 837 A1 May 9, 2007
JP 2010210184 Sept. 24,2010
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1—3, and 5—10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Kiriyama. Ans. 2.
Claims 4 and 11—13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kiriyama and Hajime. Id. at 3.
ANALYSIS
We first acknowledge and agree with Appellants that “the Examiner
has failed to, ‘clearly communicate the findings, conclusions, and reasons
[that] support them’ as required by MPEP §2103(VI).” Reply Br. 2. The
initial rejection makes almost no reference to specific elements that the
Examiner alleges meet the various claim limitations and only broadly states
that the references teach what is claimed. Final Act. 2. As Appellants state,
“the Examiner summarily rejects claims 1—3 and 5—10 in a single sentence
spanning five lines of text.” App. Br. 5. While it may be sufficient in some
cases to reject a claim so generally, here more detail is needed and we are
left, like Appellants, attempting to divine how exactly the Examiner
interprets the references so as to meet the claims. We also agree that the
Examiner’s Answer contains inconsistencies that make it difficult to
3
Appeal 2017-004678
Application 13/994,796
determine what exactly the Examiner considers to meet various claim
elements. Reply Br. 3.
For example, the Examiner takes inconsistent positions as to what
meets the claimed plates by pointing both to cooling blocks 13 and 14 as
well as phosphor bronze plates 10 and 11. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. Under
either interpretation, however, we find the Examiner’s explanation lacking.
First, as noted by Appellants, cooling blocks 13, 14 do not meet the general
meaning of a plate, that being a “thin flat sheet.” Reply Br. 4. Appellants
consistently utilize the term “plate” to refer to such thin flat sheets, such that
the blocks of Kiriyama cannot properly be considered plates as described in
Appellants’ Specification. Even Kiriyama itself refers to elements 13 and 14
as blocks, while referring to elements 10 and 11 as plates, thus showing an
acceptance in the art as to the difference between a block and a plate. The
Examiner also appears to acknowledge this deficiency by switching, in the
Answer, from cooling blocks 13, 14 as meeting the claims to plates 10, 11 as
meeting the claims.
Turning to plates 10, 11, these also cannot meet the claimed plates
because, as Appellants state, “no conduit extends through the heat
conductive plates and phosphor bronze plates 10, 11” as required by the
claims. Reply Br. 5. The Examiner does not even mention the claimed
conduits when asserting that plates 10, 11 are the claimed plates. As such,
under either application, Kiriyama is deficient in teaching all of the elements
as they apply to the claimed plates.
Furthermore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has failed to
properly identify the claimed “spaces between the plate elements.” See
Reply Br. 6—7. As Appellants correctly note, the plates themselves “do not
constitute spaces between the plate elements” because “it is unclear how a
4
Appeal 2017-004678
Application 13/994,796
plate (physical object) could constitute a space (lack of a physical object).”
Reply Br. 6. Furthermore, we also agree that the Examiner has failed to
identify the claimed space because nothing in Kiriyama teaches the claimed
“conveying unit for conveying gas through the ‘area between bottom of plate
element 11 and bottom of 14.’” Reply Br. 7. Accordingly, for at least the
reasons above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, the
sole independent claim. As such, we likewise do not sustain the anticipation
rejection of the claims dependent from claim 1. Hajime does not cure these
deficiencies and so we also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 4 and 11—13 over Kiriyama and Hajime.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 1—13.
REVERSED
5