Ex parte Gupte et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 29, 2000

08672383 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 29, 2000)

1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte NEELKANTH S. GUPTE, XIN LIU,
STEVEN J. SPENCER,
ROBERT H.L. CHIANG
and DANIEL GAFFANEY
_____________
Appeal No. 1999-0280
Application 08/672,383
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before ABRAMS, FRANKFORT, and PATE, Administrative Patent
Judges.
PATE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 3
and 4. These are the only claims remaining in the
application.
The subject matter is directed to an improved heat
Appeal No. 1999-0280
Application 08/672,383
Our understanding of the Japanese reference is via an1
apparent English language equivalent, Patent No. 5,052,476 to
Sukumoda et al. (Sukumoda).
2
transfer tube for a heat exchanger. The tube has external fin
con-volutions disposed helically around thereabout with the
fin convolutions cut at an angle by notches. The angle of the
base of the notches is at an oblique angle with respect to the
longitudinal axis of the tube and ranges between 40 and 70
degrees.
The claimed subject matter may be further understood by
reference to the appealed claims appended to appellants'
brief.
The references of record relied upon as evidence of
obviousness are:
Chiang et al. (Chiang) 5,203,404 Apr. 20,
1993
Kouda et al. 3-234302 Oct. 18, 19911
(Japanese Patent)
THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Chiang in view of Kouda. According to the
examiner, since Chiang's ribs or fins are helical, they, by
Appeal No. 1999-0280
Application 08/672,383
3
definition, extend at a slight angle to a radial line
perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the tube.
Furthermore, since the notches in the ribs of Chiang are
disclosed as perpendicular to these helical ribs, the notches
of Chiang must extend at an oblique angle to the longitudinal
axis of the tube. While the examiner admits that Chiang does
not disclose the 40 to 70 degree angle claimed in all claims
on appeal, the examiner has concluded that such an angle is a
matter of choice in design and would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in
light of the arguments of the appellants and the examiner. As
a result of this review, we have determined that the applied
prior art does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the claimed subject matter on appeal.
Therefore, the rejection of the claims on appeal is reversed.
Our reasons follow.
Turning to the examiner's determination that the angle "
disclosed by Chiang would have been an obvious matter of
Appeal No. 1999-0280
Application 08/672,383
4
design choice, we note that Chiang expressly states,
[t]he notches run axially and perpendicularly, or
nearly so, to the ribs for ease and economy in
making manufacturing tooling. (Chiang, col. 3,
lines 33-36).
Appeal No. 1999-0280
Application 08/672,383
5
It is quite apparent to us that Chiang has disclosed a
specific angle for the notches in his helical ribs, the
specific angle
being for the purpose of ease of manufacture of the tooling
equipment. Therefore, the examiner's conclusion of
obviousness is not based on underlying facts from the Chiang
reference. Far from being an obvious matter of choice in
design, Chiang carefully selects the angle of the notches to
the ribs for a specific purpose. Consequently, the Chiang
reference clearly teaches away from appellants' claimed
subject matter of an angle " of 40 to 70 degrees.
We have carefully reviewed the examiner is not relying on
the Kouda reference for a teaching or suggestion of the
claimed " angle of 40 to 70 degrees with respect to the
longitudinal axis of the tube. See answer, paragraph bridging
pages 6 and 7. Therefore, the Kouda reference adds nothing to
the Chiang disclosure on this critical point.
Appeal No. 1999-0280
Application 08/672,383
6
For the reasons given above, the rejection of claims 1, 3
and 4 is reversed.
REVERSED

NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
WILLIAM F. PATE, III )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1999-0280
Application 08/672,383
7
CARRIER CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPT.
P.O. BOX 4800
SYRACUSE, NY 13221
WFP/dal