Ex Parte Emami

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2016

13602346 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/602,346 09/04/2012
50297 7590 09/27/2016
PA TENT2IP LLC, Andrew Jang
7901 STONERIDGE DRIVE, SUITE #320
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Arsalan Emami
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.
EMA002 1176
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, HUNG D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2016 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):
fax@vietempire.com
vnguyen@patent2ip.com
ajang@patent2ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
u-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARSALAN EMAMI
Appeal2014-009015
Application 13/602,346
Technology Center 3700
Before THOMAS F. SMEGAL, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
MARK A. GEIER, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant 1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-20, which
are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 The real party in interest is identified as the named inventor. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-009015
Application 13/602,346
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed invention generally relates to a modular heater. Spec.
Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A heater module, comprising
a layer of insulation material,
wherein the layer of insulation material has a first surface,
a second surface opposite the first surface, and a third surface
connecting the first and second surfaces;
a heater element,
wherein the heater element is coupled to the first surface
of the layer of insulation material,
wherein the layer of insulation material is configured to
insulate the heater element from an outside ambient;
external connections electrically connected to the heater
element,
wherein the external connections protrude to outside of the
second surface;
one or more tongue or groove structures, wherein the one
or more tongue or groove structures are disposed on the third
surface of the insulation layer, wherein the tongue or groove
strttctures are configured to mate \~1ith another heater module
having corresponding tongue or groove structures.
Rejections
1. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite. Final Act. 2.
2. Claims 1-6, 10, 11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Kobayashi et al. 2 Final Act. 3--4.
3. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kobayashi and Lindeman et al. 3 Final Act. 5.
2 US 2008/0205864 Al, published Aug. 28, 2008.
3 US 2009/0293784 Al, published Dec. 3, 2009.
2
Appeal2014-009015
Application 13/602,346
4. Claims 8, 14, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kobayashi and Kingsford et al. 4 Final Act. 5-
8.
5. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kobayashi, Kingsford, and Nierenberg. 5 Final Act. 8-9.
6. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kobayashi and Suenaga et al. 6 Final Act. 9.
7. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kobayashi, Kingsford, and Ejima. 7 Final Act. 9-10.
8. Claims 16 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kobayashi, Kingsford, and Suenaga. Final Act. 10-11.
9. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kobayashi, Kingsford, Ejima, and Nakao. 8 Non-Final
Act. 13-14 (mailed July 30, 2013); Final Act. 1 (indicating claim 19
rejected); Ans. 10-11 (explaining that the rejection of claim 19 was
inadvertently not copied from the Non-Final Action into the Final Action).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments (App. Br. 5-16; Reply Br. 2-13). We are not persuaded by
Appellant's arguments, except as to claim 19. For all other claims, we adopt
as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
4 US 5,997,049, issued Dec. 7, 1999.
5 US 3,973,934, issued Aug. 10, 1976.
6 US 2002/0088610, published July 11, 2002.
7 US 7,135,659 B2, issued Nov. 14, 2006.
8 US 5,813,851, issued Sept. 29, 1998.
3
Appeal2014-009015
Application 13/602,346
from which this appeal is taken and set forth in the Answer (see Ans. 2-10).
We highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as
follows.
1. Indefiniteness of claim 6 under 35 USC§ 112, second paragraph
Appellant addresses the rejection under§ 112 only in the conclusion,
and does not provide substantive argument regarding the rejection. App. Br.
16. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
2. Anticipation of claims 1-6, 10, 11, and 13 over Kobayashi
Claim 1
Appellant argues that claims 1, 3---6, 10, 11, and 13 stand or fall
together, and argues claim 1 as representative. App. Br. 5. 9 Regarding
claim 1, i\.ppellant argues Kobayashi does not disclose a heater module \vith
external connections and tongue or groove structures configured to mate
with another heater module having corresponding tongue or groove
structures and external connections. Id. at 6-7. Appellant acknowledges
that Kobayashi teaches heater sections with tongue or groove structures
configured to mate with other heater sections, but argues the entire furnace
only has one set of external connections. See id. at 7. According to
Appellant, "another heater module," as recited in claim 1, refers back to "a
heater module" recited in the preamble of the claim, and, thus, the "another
9 Although Appellant states that claim 2 stands or falls with claim 1 (App.
Br. 5), Appellant's separate argument for claim 2 (App. Br. 8) is addressed
below.
4
Appeal2014-009015
Application 13/602,346
heater module" must have all of the recited structures, including the external
connections and tongue or groove structures. Id.
Despite Appellant's arguments, a preponderance of evidence supports
the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. The Examiner finds Kobayashi
discloses a heater module with external connections, which Kobayashi
identifies as terminal plates 22a and 22b. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3; Kobayashi
i-f 37. Figure 2 of Kobayashi, which is reproduced below, shows that
terminal plates 22a and 22b protrude to outside of the outer surface of
insulation. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3.
Z2b_..-----
FIG.2
Figure 2 is a sectional view of part of Kobayashi's
vertical-type heating apparatus. Kobayashi i-fi-118-19.
Appellant argues, without support, that Kobayashi's external
connections 22a and 22b are the only external connections for the furnace,
and are not external connections for a smaller, independent module. See
App. Br. 6 ("The heater is integrated, meaning the multiple insulator
sections are assembled together with two external connections for the heater
elements."); id. at 7 ("If one considers the furnace of Kobayashi as a
5
Appeal2014-009015
Application 13/602,346
module, then there are two external connections 22a and 22b, but there are
no tongue or groove structures that are configured to mate with another
module .... "). Figure 2, however, shows that a small section of the heater
that includes only four shelf sections or steps for the heating coil has its own
external electrical connections 22a and 22b. Moreover, Kobayashi's
description of Figure 2 expressly discloses that terminal plates 22a and 22b
are connected to ends of the heater element at the lowermost and uppermost
steps, respectively, of a group of four steps. Kobayashi i-f 37. "Thus, the
heater 5 is vertically divided into a plurality of zones," and "[a] temperature
of each zone can be independently controlled." Id. Each block of the heater
with a shelf section joins to other blocks of the heater with tongue or groove
structures as shown, for example, in Figure 8, which is reproduced below.
43 a.,_.
43b --
1 6a---
FIG.8
Figure 8 of Kobayashi depicts a heat insulating member.
Kobayashi i-f 26. "[I]n consideration of assemblage of the
heater, the heat insulating member 16 is preferably, vertically
divided at the lower surfaces of the respective shelf sections
6
Appeal2014-009015
Application 13/602,346
17 .... This structure facilitates placement of the heating wires
18 on the respective shelf sections 17." Kobayashi i-f 53.
Accordingly, Kobayashi discloses that sections of the heater (e.g.,
consisting of four shelf sections) have their own external connections and
connect with other heater sections having corresponding tongue or groove
structures and external connections. Thus, Appellant has not apprised us of
error in the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Kobayashi.
In addition, we do not agree with Appellant that "another heater
module" as recited in claim 1 is limited to a heater module with all
limitations recited in claim 1. App. Br. 7. Claim 1 states that the tongue or
groove structures of the claimed heater module are configured to mate with
"another heater module having corresponding tongue or groove structures."
Thus, the claim specifies only that the other heater module must have
corresponding tongue or groove structures. It is "another heater module"
because it is also a heater module, but the claim does not limit the "another
heater module" to one having all other limitations recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, even if Kobayashi did not have multiple heater sections with
external connections, it would still anticipate claim 1 because the section
with external connections has tongue or groove structures "configured to
mate with another heater module having corresponding tongue or groove
structures."
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
we are not apprised of error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 10,
11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kobayashi. Thus, we
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3---6, 10, 11, and 13.
7
Appeal2014-009015
Application 13/602,346
Claim 2
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 2 as anticipated
by Kobayashi because "Kobayashi fails to teach that the insulation layer has
a shape of a portion of a cylindrical shape." App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br.
5. Claim 2, however, recites in part that "the insulation layer comprises a
portion of a cylindrical shape." Under the broadest reasonable interpretation
of this phrase, the insulation layer must have at least a portion of a
cylindrical shape. We agree with the Examiner that a cylindrical shape has a
portion of a cylindrical shape. Ans. 4 (citing Kobayashi Figs. 6, 8). We
note also that Kobayashi discloses in Figure 7 that "the cylindrical heat
insulating member is halved, i.e., longitudinally divided into two."
Kobayashi Fig. 7, ,-r 41.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
we are not apprised of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kobayashi. Thus, we sustain the
rejection of claim 2.
3. Obviousness rejection of claim 7 over Kobayashi and Lindeman
Appellant does not separately argue the rejection of claim 7. See
generally Appeal Br. and Reply Br. Therefore, for the reasons given above,
we sustain the rejection of claim 7.
8
Appeal2014-009015
Application 13/602,346
4. Obviousness rejection of claims 8, 14, 17, and 18 over Kobayashi and
Kingsford
Claim 8
Dependent claim 8 recites:
8. A heater module as in claim 1 further comprising
one or more soft seals, wherein the one or more soft seals
are disposed on a surface of the one or more tongue or groove
structures.
Appellant acknowledges that Kingsford teaches using an elastomeric
member in a leak-tight coupling system. App. Br. 9. Appellant contends
one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the teachings of
Kingsford with Kobayashi's heating system because a "person skilled in the
arts would not consider the low temperature elastomeric, e.g., polymer
based, member in a high temperature furniture system." Id.
We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have recognized the benefit of using a soft seal as taught in Kingsford in
order to provide a tight seal. Final Act. 7; Ans. 5. Claim 8 is not limited to a
particular type of soft seal or a particular temperature for the heater system.
Kingsford teaches a soft seal, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
known to use a soft seal adapted for the particular environment in which it
would be used. In addition, Appellant's argument that a polymer-based seal
would not function in a heater environment (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 6-7) is
unsupported by evidence, and is contradicted by Appellant's Specification
(see Spec. 8 ("The thin seal can include metal materials, graphite materials,
or high temperature polymer materials." (emphasis added))).
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
we are not apprised of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 8 under 35
9
Appeal2014-009015
Application 13/602,346
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kobayashi and Kingsford. Thus, we
sustain the rejection of claim 8.
Claims 14, 17, and 18
Appellant argues that claims 14, 17, and 18 stand or fall together, and
argues claim 14 as representative. App. Br. 10.
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 14 for
substantially the same reasons argued in support of claims 1 and 8. App. Br.
10-13. Claim 14 recites "a plurality of heater modules." Each heater
module comprises certain features, including "external connections [that]
protrude to outside of the second surface" of the layer of insulation material,
and "tongue or groove structures [that] are configured to mate with an
adjacent heater module having corresponding tongue or groove structures."
For the reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1, Appellant's
argument that "Kobayashi is silent with respect to independent heater
modules with external connections and groove or tongue structure[s]" (App.
Br. 12) is not supported by evidence. For the reasons discussed above in
connection with claim 8, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have had reason to look to Kingsford for teaching a soft
seal to provide a tight seal. Ans. 8-9.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
we are not apprised of error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 14, 17, and
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kobayashi and Kingsford.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 14, 17, and 18.
10
Appeal2014-009015
Application 13/602,346
5. Obviousness rejection of claim 9 over Kobayashi, Kingsford, and
Nierenberg
Appellant does not separately argue the rejection of claim 9. See
generally Appeal Br. and Reply Br. Therefore, for the reasons given above,
we sustain the rejection of claim 9.
6. Obviousness rejection of claim 12 over Kobayashi and Suenaga
Appellant does not separately argue the rejection of claim 12. See
generally Appeal Br. and Reply Br. Therefore, for the reasons given above,
we sustain the rejection of claim 12.
7. Obviousness rejection of claim 15 over Kobayashi, Kingsford, and
Ejima
Dependent claim 15 recites:
15. A modular heater as m claim 14 wherein a heating
capacity of the heater element in an outermost heater module is
higher than that of the heater elements in a middle heater module.
Appellant argues the cited references fail to teach the outermost heater
module having higher heat capacity than the middle heater module. App.
Br. 14. In particular, Appellant contends there is no mention in Ejima about
any difference in the three heater modules 3a, 3b, and 3c, and that Ejima
teaches the controllers 6a, 6b, and 6c for the three different modules all have
the same structure so there is no teaching about controlling the different
heater modules in different ways. App. Br. 14--15.
The Examiner finds Ejima teaches the heater element 3a or 3c on the
outside can be set to heat higher than the heater element 3b in the middle
because Ejima teaches separate controllers. Ans. 10. Ejima teaches:
11
Appeal2014-009015
Application 13/602,346
Further, controllers 6a, 6b and 6c are formed to control the
heat release value of each fold of the heaters 3a, 3b and 3c
respectively, and each of the controllers 6a, 6b and 6c is
structured to control the heat release value by controlling the
electric power supply of the heaters 3a, 3b and 3c based on the
detected temperature values of the internal thermocouples 4a, 4b
and 4c, the detected temperature values of the external
thermocouples Sa, Sb and Sc and the preset temperature values,
for example.
Ejima col. 6, 11. 30-34; see Ans. 10. In view of these teachings in Ejima, we
agree with the Examiner that the controllers are intended to allow heating to
different temperatures, even if they have the same structure. Thus,
Appellant's argument that Ejima does not teach controlling the different
heater modules in different ways is not supported by evidence.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
we are not apprised of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kobayashi, Kingsford, and Ejima.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 15.
8. Obviousness rejection of claims 16 and 20 over Kobayashi,
Kingsford, and Suenaga
Appellant does not separately argue the rejection of claims 16 and 20.
See generally Appeal Br. and Reply Br. Therefore, for the reasons given
above, we sustain the rejection of claims 16 and 20.
12
Appeal2014-009015
Application 13/602,346
9. Obviousness rejection of claim 19 over Kobayashi, Kingsford, E]ima,
and Nakao
Appellant argues there is no pending rejection of claim 19 because the
Final Action did not include a rejection of claim 19. App. Br. 15. Appellant
also provides substantive arguments regarding the rejection. See App. Br.
15-16. Although the Examiner indicates that the rejection of claim 19 from
the Non-Final Action mailed July 30, 2013 was intended to be copied into
the Final Rejection, the Examiner does not respond to Appellant's
substantive arguments regarding the rejection. See Ans. 10-11. In view of
Appellant's arguments and the lack of further explanation by the Examiner
to support the rejection, on this record, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 19.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-18 and 20. We
reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claim 19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
13