Ex Parte Hetzler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

12460019 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/460,019 07/10/2009
26822 7590 09/28/2016
Hackler Daghighian Martino & Novak
433 North Camden Drive, Fourth Floor
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jurgen Hetzler
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.
3948-TWEL 9153
EXAMINER
WARD, THOMAS JOHN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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):
marc@martinopatentlaw.com
jcf@hdmnlaw.com
marc@hdmnlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JURGEN HETZLER and NORBERT ERNST
Appeal 2015-000001 1
Application 12/460,0192
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges.
WORTH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-14, 17-19, 21, and 22. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision refers to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed
Mar. 6, 2014) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Sept. 11, 2014), and the
Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Oct. 8, 2013) and
Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 17, 2014).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is BORGW ARNER
BERU SYSTEMS GmbH (Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal2015-000001
Application 12/460,019
Introduction
Appellants' disclosure relates "a vehicle heating system comprising a
plurality of heating devices and heat transfer devices" (Spec. 1, 11. 31-32).
Claims 1, 21, and 22 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A vehicle heating system, comprising:
a plurality of heating devices each comprising at least
one heating element arranged between two contact plates,
a plurality of heat transfer devices, each including a
plurality of heating device receptacles, said heat transfer
devices being arranged in series along a flow direction, through
which air to be heated can flow and to each of which at least
one of the heating devices is attached, and
a holder which combines the heat transfer devices and the
heating devices attached thereto to form an assembly, wherein
a plurality of electrically conductive contact rails extend
in parallel and are perpendicular to the flow direction, wherein
the contact plates of the plurality of heating devices are each
connected to one of the two neighboring electrically conductive
contact rails which are configured to connect the contact plates
to a pole of a voltage source.
(Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner maintains, and the Appellants appeal, the following
rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 9-13, 17, 18, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zeyen (US
2007 /0068913 Al, pub. Mar. 29, 2007), Luppold (US
2009/0139983 Al, pub. June 4, 2009), Bohlender (US
2005/0056637 Al, pub. Mar. 17, 2005) (hereinafter, "Bohlender
'637"), and Kawate (US 5,471,034, iss. Nov. 28, 1995).
2
Appeal2015-000001
Application 12/460,019
2. Claims 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zeyen, Luppold, Bohlender '637, Kawate, and
Lee (US 7,297,901 B2, iss. Nov. 20, 2007).
3. Claims 8 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zeyen, Luppold, Bohlender '637, Kawate, and
Bohlender (US 2007/0114217 Al, pub. May 24, 2007)
(hereinafter, "Bohlender '217").
4. Claims 3 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zeyen, Luppold, Bohlender '637, Kawate, and
Pierron (WO 2005/004538 Al, pub. Jan. 13, 2005).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 9-13, 17, and 18
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the combination of
Zeyen, Luppold, Bohlender '637, and Kawate, as proposed by the Examiner,
does not result in the "a plurality of heat transfer devices ... arranged in
series along a flow direction, through which air to be heated can flow," as
recited in independent claim 1 (Appeal Br. 13-20). Although the Examiner
finds that Zeyen (Fig. 11) discloses heat emitting elements arranged in a
series (Final Act. 3), the heat emitting elements of Zeyen are not in a series
along a flow direction [of air flow], as recited. The Examiner further
reasons that the assembly of Kawate is capable of being installed or oriented
in many different directions, and that the apparatus may be placed and
manipulated by the user (Ans. 2). However, we find that the direction of
airflow with respect to the heater elements of Kawate would not change,
even if the apparatus or assembly of Kawate were faced in a different
3
Appeal2015-000001
Application 12/460,019
direction (see Figs. 1, 2). In any event, the Examiner does not provide
adequate reasoning to explain how a person of ordinary skill would have
rearranged the components relied on to arrive at the apparatus of
independent claim 1. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
under§ 103(a) of independent claim 1 over Zeyen, Luppold, Bohlender
'637, and Kawate. For the same reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection under§ 103(a) of claims 2, 9-13, 17, and 18, which depend from
claim 1.
Independent claims 21and22
Independent claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under§ 103(a) over
Zeyen, Luppold, Bohlender '637, and Kawate, and contain similar language
and requirements as independent claim 1. We do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection under § 103 (a) of independent claims 21 and 22, for similar reasons
as for independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 3, 5--8, 14, and 19
Claims 3, 5-8, 14, and 19 depend from claim 1, and stand rejected
under§ 103(a) over Zeyen, Luppold, Bohlender '637, and Kawate, and one
of Lee, Bohlender '217, and Pierron. The Examiner does not rely on Lee,
Bohlender '217, or Pierron to remedy the deficiency in the rejection of
independent claim 1 over Zeyen, Luppold, Bohlender '63 7, and Kawate. As
such, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under§ 103(a) of claims 3,
5-8, 14, and 19, for similar reasons as for independent claim 1.
4
Appeal2015-000001
Application 12/460,019
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-14, 17-19, 21, and
22 is reversed.
REVERSED
5