Ex parte Gregory

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 12, 2001

09131930 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 12, 2001)

Claims 1 and 4 have been amended subsequent to final rejection.1
1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 10
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte CHRISTIAN THOMAS GREGORY
__________
Appeal No. 2000-1335
Application 09/131,930
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before CALVERT, MCQUADE, and GONZALES, Administrative Patent
Judges.
MCQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Christian Thomas Gregory appeals from the final rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4 through 18 and 20. Claims 3 and 19, the1
only other claims pending in the application, stand objected
to as depending from a rejected base claim.
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to a “radial flow heat exchanger in
which the fluid to be heated or cooled flows between an outer
Appeal No. 2000-1335
Application 09/131,930
The appellant spends a good portion of the brief (Paper No. 8) discussing U.S.2
Patent No. 2,508,729 to Stein as if it had been, or was going to be, applied to support
a rejection. As pointed out by the examiner in the answer (Paper No. 9, see pages 2 and
8), however, Stein has not even been officially made of record. Inasmuch as this
reference is not applied to support any of the appealed rejections, it has no relevance
thereto and will not be further discussed in this decision. Of course, the examiner is
free to take appropriate action should he ultimately decide that Stein is relevant to
the patentability of the appellant’s claimed invention.
2
peripheral portion of the heat exchanger, through a plurality
of radially extending tubes, and a center hub, the tubes
passing through a fin arrangement” (specification, page 1). A
copy of the appealed claims appears in the appendix to the
appellant’s brief (Paper No. 8).
THE EVIDENCE
The items relied on by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:2
Swan 1,965,011 Jul. 3, 1934
Modine 2,055,549 Sep. 29,
1936
Dauvergne 5,284,203 Feb. 8, 1994
Yasuda et al. (Yasuda) 5,307,867 May 3, 1994
Obosu et al. (Obosu) 5,660,230 Aug. 26, 1997
Nomura 5,832,994 Nov. 10, 1998
The item relied on by the appellant as evidence of non-
obviousness is:
An analytical study undertaken by the appellant,
Christian Thomas Gregory, and Dr. Kamal Karimanal
comparing rectangular versus radial flow heat
exchangers. This study was made of record on August
30, 1999 as part of Paper No. 5.
Appeal No. 2000-1335
Application 09/131,930
3
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 5 through 13, 17, 18 and 20 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nomura in
view of Obosu.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nomura in view of Obosu and Modine.
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Nomura in view of Obosu and Swan.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nomura in view of Obosu and Dauvergne.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nomura in view of Obosu and Yasuda.
Attention is directed to the appellant’s brief (Paper No.
8) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 9) for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner with
regard to the merits of these rejections.
DISCUSSION
Nomura, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses a
heat exchange apparatus designed to efficiently cool large
Appeal No. 2000-1335
Application 09/131,930
4
quantities of fluid such as dry air by inducing turbulence
therein. The apparatus 2 includes a heat exchanger
flowpassage 10 disposed in a vessel 3 where it is subjected to
an external flow of
refrigerant (e.g., liquefied nitrogen, oxygen, argon and the
like) passing through the vessel. Tubes 11 and 12 supply and
discharge the dry air to and from the flowpassage. As
described by Nomura,
flowpassage 10 is composed of annular tubes 18
communicated in a circumferential direction which
constitute peripheral flowpassages, communicating
tubes 19 which constitute communicating
flowpassages, a tank 20 on the supply port side, a
tank 21 on the discharge port side, and the like, as
shown in FIG. 1. Plural rows (5 rows in the
illustrated embodiment) of the annular tubes 18 are
arranged in a parallel state so as to have a desired
spacing in a vertical direction around a vertical
axis. The annular tubes 18 adjacent to each other
are communicated at plural locations by the
communicating tubes 19 in a vertical direction. The
communicating tubes 19 in each of upper and lower
rows are arranged substantially at equal intervals
while being alternately deviated in a peripheral
direction to each other so that the positions of an
inlet and an outlet at the annular tube 18 in each
row are alternately deviated in a peripheral
direction, the inlet and the outlet being set so
that the inlet and the outlet are not opposed on a
straight line. The tank 20 on the supply port side
and the tank 21 on the discharge port side are
arranged on the lower inside and on the upper inside
of the plural rows of the annular tubes 18. The
tank 20 on the supply port side is communicated in
Appeal No. 2000-1335
Application 09/131,930
5
its intermediate portion with the lowermost annular
tube 18 by means of communicating tubes 22 arranged
radially, and the tank 21 on the discharge port side
is communicated in its upper end portion with the
uppermost annular tube 18 by means of communicating
tubes 23 arranged radially. The supply tube 11 is
communicated with the bottom of the tank 20 on the
supply port side, and the discharge tube 12 is
communicated with the bottom of the tank 21 on the
discharge port side [column 3, line 41, through
column 4, line 4].
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, recites a
radial flow heat exchanger comprising, inter alia, a sealed
fluid manifold, a sealed fluid receiving hub spaced interiorly
and radially with respect to the manifold, a plurality of
separate and spaced fluid flow tubes having respective ends in
sealed fluid communication with the manifold and the hub, and
a fin assembly positioned between the manifold and hub. In
the examiner’s view (see pages 3 and 8 through 10 in the
answer), Nomura’s flowpassage 10 meets all of the limitations
in claim 1 except for those pertaining to the fin assembly.
Among other things, claim 1 requires the fin assembly (1) to
include a heat conducting material which is arranged or
disposed at spaced intervals and in a generally annular
orientation between the hub and manifold, (2) to have a
progressively increasing surface area whereby the maximum
Appeal No. 2000-1335
Application 09/131,930
6
surface area is in the region of the manifold and the minimum
surface area is in the region of the hub and (3) to be in
intimate heat conducting contact with each of the tubes.
Nomura’s flowpassage 10 does not have any sort of fin
assembly. The examiner’s reliance on Obosu to overcome this
deficiency is not well founded.
Obosu discloses a heat exchanger which makes use of fins
to enhance heat transfer between an internal flow of
refrigerant and
an external flow of air. The heat exchanger 10 has a
generally planar configuration (see Figure 1) and includes a
plurality of heat exchange tubes 12, 12' arranged in
vertically aligned rows between manifolds 14, 16, and a series
of plate-shaped fins 22, 22' installed on the tubes in closely
spaced relation. Each fin consists of a generally planar body
24 having centrally located, linearly arranged apertures 26
for receiving the tubes in one of the vertical rows.
In proposing to combine Nomura and Obosu to reject claim
1, the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
skill in the art “to employ in Nomura a plurality of fins . .
Appeal No. 2000-1335
Application 09/131,930
7
. having spaced apertures receiving the tubes [presumably
radial tubes 22, 23] for the purpose of increasing surface
area and heat exchange as recognized by Obosu et al” (answer,
page 4).
Although Obosu certainly teaches the advantages of
utilizing fins in conjunction with heat exchange tubes to
increase heat exchange efficiency, the heat exchanger
disclosed by Obosu differs markedly in overall shape and tube
arrangement from that disclosed by Nomura. Given the
disparate natures of the two heat exchangers, it is not
apparent how or why Obosu’s planar tube and fin arrangement
would have suggested providing Nomura’s radially
configured flowpassage 10 with the annularly oriented fin
assembly specified in claim 1. We are therefore constrained
to conclude that the only suggestion for such a result stems
from impermissible hindsight knowledge derived from the
appellant’s own disclosure.
Thus, the combined teachings of Nomura and Obosu fail to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
Appeal No. 2000-1335
Application 09/131,930
This being so, there is no need to delve into the merits of the appellant’s3
evidence of non-obviousness.
8
the subject matter recited in claim 1. Hence, we shall not3
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1,
or of dependent claims 2, 5 through 13, 17, 18 and 20, as
being unpatentable over Nomura in view of Obosu.
Inasmuch as Modine, Swan, Dauvergne and Yasuda do not
cure the foregoing flaw in the basic Nomura-Obosu combination,
we also shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claim 4 as being unpatentable over
Nomura in view of Obosu and Modine, of dependent claims 13 and
14 as being unpatentable over Nomura in view of Obosu and
Swan, of dependent claim 15 as being unpatentable over Nomura
in view of Obosu and Dauvergne, or of dependent claim 16 as
being unpatentable over Nomura in view of Obosu and Yasuda.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4
through 18 and 20 is reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 2000-1335
Application 09/131,930
9
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. MCQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOHN F. GONZALES )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JPM/kis
BEEHLER & PAVITT
100 CORPORATE POINTE
SUITE 330
CULVER CITY, CA 90230
Appeal No. 2000-1335
Application 09/131,930
10