Ex Parte Haglid

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 26, 2017

11982210 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2017)

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.
2100 U.S. 9440
EXAMINER
RUBY, TRAVIS C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/982,210 10/31/2007
7590
Gregor N. Neff
85 Myrtle Ave
Dobbs Ferry, NY 10522
10/26/2017
Klas C. Haglid
10/26/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KLAS C. HAGLID
Appeal 2016-002655
Application 11/982,210
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 3—6, 10, 11, 17, 19, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2016-002655
Application 11/982,210
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a dehumidifier. Claim 1, reproduced
below, with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1 A dehumidifier comprising
(a) a heat exchanger having an elongated core having a
longitudinal axis and being made of plastic material and having
first and second sets of longitudinally extending flow passages
having a length along said longitudinal axis and said core having
a width transverse to said longitudinal axis, said length being
greater than said width, and multiple panels of integral side-by-
side tubes forming said first passages, and spacers separating
said panels from one another forming said second passages
between said panels, said first and second sets of passages
guiding air flow through said core in opposite directions to
produce counter-flow heat exchange in said elongated core, and
an elongated first housing enclosing said core and forming a first
air opening to said first set of passages at one end and a second
air opening at the opposite end of said first passages, and a
separate first air opening to said second set of passages at one
end and a second air opening at the opposite end of said second
passages,
(b) a second housing having at least one wall interconnecting one
set of said passages to the other set of said passages at one end
thereof, to guide air flow between said first and second sets of
passages,
(c) an air chiller in the path between said interconnected ends of
said sets of passages, and
(d) an air handler positioned to move air from one of said sets of
passages into the other set of passages through said air chiller,
and then through the other of said sets of passages.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims is
REFERENCES
Folsom US 2,128,641 Aug. 30, 1938
US 5,277,036 Jan. 11, 1994
US 6,176,305 B1 Jan. 23,2001
US 6,364,007 B1 Apr. 2, 2002
Dieckmann
Haglid
Fischer
2
Appeal 2016-002655
Application 11/982,210
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 3—6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Folsom in view of Fischer.
Claims 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Folsom, Dieckmann, and Fischer,
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Folsom, Fischer, and Haglid.
OPINION
Though not made explicit in the Final Action or the Answer, the
Examiner apparently considers Folsom’s arrangement of parallel plates 5 to
form tubes therebetween because the plates 5 and sidewalls 10 define and
surround flat rectangular voids. See, e.g., Ans. 2 (“Folsom teaches multiple
panels 5 that form multiple side by side tube passages for the air flow to pass
through (Figures 1—2).”). Even assuming these structures can reasonably be
characterized as forming “tubes,” the Examiner fails to establish how there
exists in Folsom “panels o/'integral side-by-side tubes.” Reply Br. 2. Under
the Examiner’s analysis Folsom’s plates 5, presumably the recited “panels,”
form the tubes as opposed to being comprised “of’ them. Cf. Folsom Fig. 1,
col. 2,11. 19—22 (“Each plate or fin divides the adjacent space into a
corresponding reheating space or channel 8, and a corresponding pre-cooling
space or channel 7.”). The Examiner appears to overlook the precise
language of the claim. All words in a claim must be considered in judging
the obviousness of the claimed subject matter. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d
1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). The Examiner has failed to demonstrate the
obviousness of the subject matter defined by either independent claim 1 or
3
Appeal 2016-002655
Application 11/982,210
17, and thus, of those claims depending therefrom. See In re Warner 379
F.2d 1011, 1016 (CCPA 1967) (“[T]he precise language of35U.S.C. § 102
that ‘(a) person shall be entitled to a patent unless,’ concerning novelty and
unobviousness, [] clearly places a burden of proof on the Patent Office which
requires it to produce the factual basis for its rejection of an application
under sections 102 and 103.”)
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
REVERSED
4