Ex Parte Freund

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 17, 2018

12818218 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/818,218 06/18/2010
6147 7590 04/19/2018
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GPO/GLOBAL RESEARCH
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sebastian W. Freund
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.
236352-1 7251
EXAMINER
THOMPSON, JASON N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/19/2018 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):
haeckl@ge.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
Lori.e.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEBASTIAN W. FREUND
Appeal2017-004823
Application 12/818,218
Technology Center 3700
Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1--4, 6, 8-10, 12-15, 17, and 20-23. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2017-004823
Application 12/818,218
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a fin and tube heat exchanger. Claims 1,
13, and 20 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A fin and tube heat exchanger, comprising:
a plurality of tubes each comprising a plurality of
respective fins positioned there around, wherein respective fins
of one of the plurality of tubes are spaced apart from respective
fins of others of the plurality of tubes;
wherein a first set of the plurality of tubes comprises at
least one first pair of rows of the fin and tube heat exchanger and
a second set of the plurality of tubes comprises at least one
second pair of rows of the fin and tube heat exchanger,
wherein tubes from the at least one first pair of rows of the
fin and tube heat exchanger are arranged in a first in-line position
with respect to flow of air there through, wherein the at least one
first pair of rows of the fin and tube heat exchanger are separated
from each other by a first distance,
wherein tubes from the at least one second pair of rows of
the fin and tube heat exchanger are arranged in a second in-line
position with respect to flow of air there through, wherein the at
least one second pair of rows of the fin and tube heat exchanger
are separated from each other by a second distance,
wherein the tubes in the at least one first pair of rows and
the tubes in the at least one second pair of rows have an offset
position with respect to each other, and wherein the offset
position comprises about a half of a fin length perpendicular to a
direction of the flow of air.
EVIDENCE
The evidence relied upon by the Examiner is:
Hall
Wagner
Shikazono
Mannoni
us 2,965,555
us 4,002,198
us 6,050,328
US 6,364,008 Bl
2
Dec. 20, 1960
Jan. 11, 1977
Apr. 18, 2000
Apr. 2, 2002
Appeal2017-004823
Application 12/818,218
REJECTIONS
All of the pending claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), with
claims 1--4, 6, 8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 20 rejected as being unpatentable over
Shikazono, Mannoni, and Wagner, and claims 9 and 21-23 rejected as being
unpatentable over Shikazono, Mannoni, Wagner, and Hall.
OPINION
Appellant argues the rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 8, 10, 12-15, 17, and
20 together. We select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellant also relies on these arguments for the
patentability of claims 9 and 21-23. Br. 16.
Appellant argues that claim 1 requires a heat exchanger where "the
tubes in the at least one first pair of rows and the tubes in the at least one
second pair of rows have an offset position with respect to each other, and
wherein the offset position comprises about a half of a fin length
perpendicular to a direction of the flow of air," which is not taught or
suggested by the combination of references. Id. at 12.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's findings concerning which tubes
are in a row in Mannoni' s heat exchanger are "not consistent with a
reasonable technical interpretation" because "it seems artificial and arbitrary
to draw lines across portions of separate plates of Mannoni and then label
the lines as first pair of rows and second pair of rows." Id. at 14.
The Examiner responds that "even though tubes of adjacent 'tube
plates' (i.e. bundles 10-15) [in Mannoni] are associated with separate tube
plates, an individual tube of one tube plate is readable as being aligned in a
3
Appeal2017-004823
Application 12/818,218
row with at least one individual tube of an adjacent tube plate." Ans. 4--5.
We agree.
As noted by Appellant, Mannoni teaches placing a plurality of plates
10-15 where each includes a plurality of tubes in line with one another.
Mannoni col. 6:31--43, Fig. 1. However, as can also be seen in Figure 1, the
plates are also aligned so that tubes across plates are also inline. The
Merriam-Webster Dictionary 1 defines a "row" as "a number of objects
arranged in a usually straight line." Merriam-Webster.com, http://www.m-
w.com/dictionary/row (accessed April 10, 2018). As the Examiner's
construction of the term "row" is consistent with the ordinary meaning (as
exemplified by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition) we are not
informed of error in the rejection of claim 1.
Appellant also argues that "it [is] even more of a leap for the Office to
state that offset position comprises about half a fin length because the in-line
position of the first 'pair of rows' is half-way between inline positions of the
second pair of rows." Br. 14. Appellant argues that this is because "[t]here
are no fins referenced in the Mannoni tube bundle embodiments, and
Appellant submits that to arbitrarily look at distances between tube bundles
and relate that to Appellant's [claimed] fins is not appropriate." Id. at 14--
15.
Appellant's argument does not address the reasoning and explanation
provided by the Examiner in the rejection. The Examiner explained that
1 "[I]n determining the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term
as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art, it is appropriate to consult
a general dictionary definition of the word for guidance." Comaper Corp. v.
Antee, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Phillips c. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1322-23 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane)).
4
Appeal2017-004823
Application 12/818,218
"Mannoni was not relied upon to teach tubes that comprise fins since this is
already disclosed by Shikazono. Rather, Mannoni was relied upon to teach
the concept of tube offset." Final Act. 14. The Examiner further explains
Since the tubes as disclosed by Shikazono comprise fins that are
symmetrically arranged about respective tubes (e.g. Figure 2 of
Shikazono ), and since Mannoni teaches an offset position
comprising about half a length (Annotated figure 1 B: An inline
position of the first pair of rows is at a midpoint between the
second pair of rows), configuring the finned tubes as disclosed
by Shikazono to have an offset position that is about half a length
as taught by Mannoni necessarily results (emphasis added) in
Shikazono having an offset position that comprises about half a
fin length.
Id. at 15; see also Ans. 6-7. In other words, the Examiner determined that
offsetting a row of Shikazono' s tubes, which have a set relationship from a
second row, which also has a set relationship within the row, so that one of
the tubes in the first row is halfway between two tubes of the second row as
taught by Mannoni, results in "an offset position that comprises about half a
fin length" as required by claim 1. Appellant's argument does not show
error in this determination of the Examiner. For this reason we are not
informed of error in the Examiner's rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1--4, 6, 8-10, 12-15, 17, and 20-
23 are affirmed. 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
5