Ex Parte Jianlong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 3, 2017

12731769 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 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.
12/731,769 03/25/2010 Jiang Jianlong 6495-0394 1761
35301 7590 11/07/2017
MCCORMICK, PAULDING & HUBER LLP
CITY PLACE II
185 ASYLUM STREET
HARTFORD, CT 06103
EXAMINER
THOMPSON, JASON N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/07/2017 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):
patentdocket @ ip-lawyers .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIANG JIANLONG and LIN-JIE HUANG
Appeal 2016-004898
Application 12/731,769
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-004898
Application 12/731,769
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
3—7, 9-11, and 13—21. App. Br. 4. Claims 1, 11, 14, 16, and 18—21 are
independent. App. Br. 31—37 (Claims App’x). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to a fin used for a heat exchanger. Spec. 11.
Claims 1, 11, 14, 16, and 18—21 are independent. App. Br. 31—37. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A fin for a heat exchanger, said fin comprising:
a plurality of fin plates which are adjacent to one another,
each of the fin plates being formed with louvers, and
a connecting portion which connects adjacent fin plates at
an end of the adjacent fin plates;
wherein the connecting portion comprises a middle curved
section and side curved sections located on the sides of said
middle curved section, and a curvature radius of the middle
curved section is larger than a curvature radius of the side
curved sections;
wherein the middle curved section is a circular arc section
with a radius R in the range of 0.35mm < R < 1mm.
THE INVENTION
REFERENCES
Hiramatsu
Yamamoto
Richter
Higashiyama
US 4,332,293
US 5,271,458
US 2005/0229630 A1
US 2005/0230090 A1
June 1, 1982
Dec. 21, 1993
Oct. 20, 2005
Oct. 20, 2005
2
Appeal 2016-004898
Application 12/731,769
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3—5, 7, 9-11, 13, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Richter and Yamamoto. Final Act. 2.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Richter, Yamamoto, and Higashiyama. Id. at 12.
Claims 14—17, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Richter, Hiramatsu, and Yamamoto. Id.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3—5, 7, 9—11, 13, 18, and 19
Unpatentable over Richter and Yamamoto
Appellants treat claims 1, 11, 18, and 19 as representative of the
claims subject to this rejection. See App. Br. 19, 20 (arguing the
patentability of claims depending from claims 1, 11, 18, and 19 solely on the
basis of their dependency). Appellants also present separate arguments for
claims 11 and 19 (together) (App. Br. 15—16) and claims 18 and 19
(together) (App. Br. 16—19). We address each such grouping separately with
their respective dependent claims standing or falling therewith. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 1, 11, 18, and 19
(Curvature Radius of Middle Curved Section)
Independent claims 1, 11, 18, and 19 each recite a connecting portion
comprising a middle curved section and side curved sections located on the
sides of the middle curved section, the middle curved section having a
curvature radius R larger than the curvature radii of the side curved sections,
the radius (“R”) being between 0.35 mm and 1 mm. App. Br. 31—35
(Claims App’x). The Examiner finds that Richter teaches a connection
3
Appeal 2016-004898
Application 12/731,769
portion with a middle curved section having a curvature radius that is larger
than that of the two adjacent side curved sections, but acknowledges that
Richter does not teach the claimed range of R values. Final Act. 2—3 (citing
Richter H 28—31 and Fig. 1). The Examiner further finds that Yamamoto
teaches a connection portion having a single curved section with a curvature
radius in the range of 0.14 mm to 0.35 mm, which overlaps the claimed R
range. Final Act. 3 (citing Yamamoto 4:3—5). The Examiner asserts that
“the curvature radius of a connecting portion is recognized as a result-
effective variable,” the recognized result being “that excessively small or
excessively large values of curvature radius leads to corresponding decreases
in the total heat transfer ratio.” Final Act. 3 (referencing Yamamoto Fig.
10); see also Yamamoto 6:50-66. According to the Examiner, “it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to configure a middle curved section as disclosed by Richter with
a curvature radius as taught by Yamamoto to increase heat transfer by
increasing density of fins per unit area.” Final Act. 3.
We will address each of Appellants’ counter arguments in order.
First, Appellants dispute that the curvature radius of the middle
curved portion is a result-effective variable. See App. Br. 12 (modifying
Richter “is not an optimization of the radius of curvature R1 within prior art
conditions or through routine experimentation”). We disagree. Richter
teaches that: (1) improving the heat-transfer efficiency of heat exchangers
comprising flat tubes and corrugated ribs or fins was a known design need at
the time of the invention; (2) heat-transfer efficiency can be improved by
increasing the soldering surface (contact area between the connecting
portion and the tube surface) and “gill” or louver length; and (3) these
4
Appeal 2016-004898
Application 12/731,769
parameters are affected by the curvature radius of one or more curved
sections of the rib connecting portion. Richter || 2, 5, 8, 16. Further, while
Yamamoto discloses a connecting portion with only a single curved section,
Yamamoto confirms that heat transfer efficiency is improved by increasing
louver length vis-a-vis controlling soldering surface size, and confirms that
both of these parameters are affected by the curvature radius of the
connecting portion. See Yamamoto 4:23—38. Moreover, Yamamoto teaches
that acceptable solder surface size and louver length—and, therefore,
improved heat transfer performance—can be obtained with much smaller
curvature radii than those taught by Richter. See Yamamoto 4:3—5. Again,
although Yamamoto’s curvature radius is for the entire connecting portion
rather than a middle curved section thereof, Yamamoto’s teaching is
sufficient to suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art, who would have been
motivated to improve the heat transfer efficiency of heat exchangers, to use
smaller radii for Richter’s middle and side curved sections. See In re
Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A reference
must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply the described
invention or a preferred embodiment.”) Thus, we agree with the Examiner
that the curvature radius of the middle curved section of the connecting
portion is a result-effective variable.
Next, Appellants argue that Richter teaches away from modifying its
disclosed curvature radius of 50 to 70 mm to Yamamoto’s disclosed
curvature radius of 0.14 mm to 0.37 mm. App. Br. 13—14. Appellants assert
that Richter teaches that the middle curved section’s curvature radius is
“relatively high” compared to the radii of the outside curved sections, and
that if the middle sections’ curvature radius was changed in accordance with
5
Appeal 2016-004898
Application 12/731,769
Yamamoto, that radius “would be in about the same range” as that of the
outside sections. App. Br. 13—14. But this argument assumes that one of
ordinary skill in the art, modifying Richter in view of Yamamoto, would
ignore Richter’s teaching to have the middle section’s curvature radius be
larger than the outside sections’ curvature radii. On the contrary, it is more
likely that one of ordinary skill in the art would have followed Richter’s
teaching, and in doing so would have modified the outside sections’
curvature radii to ensure that they were smaller than that of the middle
section.
Finally, Appellants argue that the rejection “is based on impermissible
hindsight.” App. Br. 14—15.
Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it
takes into account only knowledge which was within the level
of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made
and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s
disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Appellants have not
identified any specific knowledge that the Examiner gleaned only from
Appellants’ disclosure. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the rejection is
based on impermissible hindsight.
Claims 11 and 19
(Fin Plate Pitch between 2.9 mm and 9 mm)
Independent claims 11 and 19 require the claimed fin to have at least
one of a list of features, one of which is “a range of the pitch P of the fin
plates is 2.9mm < P < 9mm.” App. Br. 32, 35 (Claims App’x). The
Examiner finds that Richter discloses a fin pitch of 4 mm, which is within
the claimed range. Final Act. 7 (citing Richter 116, Fig. 1). Appellants do
6
Appeal 2016-004898
Application 12/731,769
not dispute that Richter discloses a 4 mm fin pitch, but assert that “if the
radius of curvature R1 were to be reduced as proposed by the Examiner . . .
the pitch would also be reduced and fall outside the claimed range.” App.
Br. 16. The Examiner responds that a modification of Richter’s pitch was
not proposed, and that Appellants did not specify what the resulting pitch
would be if Richter was modified in view of Yamamoto. Ans. 8.
We are not persuaded that Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in finding that Richter discloses the claimed pitch. Appellants’
assertion that changing curvature radius R1 would necessarily change the
pitch is not supported by evidence or persuasive argument or otherwise self-
evident. Appellants have not demonstrated, for example, that there are no
other parameters determining pitch that can be adjusted to maintain a 4 mm
pitch despite the change to curvature radius Rl.
Claims 18 and 19
(Side Curved Sections Having Curvature Radii < 0.2 mm)
Independent claims 18 and 19 each require the side curved sections to
have a curvature radius r in the range of < 2 mm. App. Br. 34—35 (Claims
App ’x). The Examiner finds that Richter teaches a connecting portion
having side curved sections having smaller curvature radii than a middle
curved section, and also discloses “a wide range of parameters governing
radii of curvature for side sections (Paragraphs 16 and 29),” but “Richter
does not teach or disclose side sections having radii less than 0.2mm.” Final
Act. 8. The Examiner further finds that the claimed curvature radius is a
result-effective variable, for the same reasons discussed above, and that
Yamamoto teaches that acceptable curvature-radius values of a connecting
portion fall within 0.14 mm to 0.37 mm. Final Act. 9. The Examiner notes
7
Appeal 2016-004898
Application 12/731,769
that this range of values “overlaps both [A]ppellant[s’] claimed middle
curved section radius ‘R’ . . . and side curved section radius ‘r.’” Ans. 8.
Appellants respond that Richter’s outside curved sections curvature radii R2
and R3 “do not correspond to the radius of curvature R of a connecting
portion 110 taught by Yamamoto.” App. Br. 17.
Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in
determining that claims 18 and 19 would have been obvious over Richter
and Yamamoto. Richter teaches a middle curved section with a relatively
high curvature radius to provide a relatively wide soldering surface in
contact with the tube surface, and separate outside curved sections with
smaller curvature radii to achieve a relatively large gill or louver length, both
of which improve heat-transfer efficiency. Richter H 3, 6, 8, 16.
Yamamoto also teaches the relationship between soldering surface and
louver length to achieve efficiency (see supra), which can be accomplished
via Yamamoto’s single curvature radius value range that overlaps both the
claimed “R” and “r” values. As the Examiner explains (e.g., Ans. 6), one of
ordinary skill in the art, combining Richter’s teaching of a middle curved
section having a larger curvature radius than that of the two outside curved
sections, and Yamamoto’s curvature-radius values, would have resulted in
an outside curved section curvature radius range of values that at least
overlaps the claimed value of < 0.2 mm.
Claim 6
Unpatentable over Richter, Yamamoto, and Higashiyama
Claim 6 depends from claim 1. Appellants assert that claim 6 is
patentable for the same reasons that claim 1 is patentable and that
Higashiyama does not overcome the deficiencies noted in the combination
8
Appeal 2016-004898
Application 12/731,769
of Richter and Yamamoto. App. Br. 20. Because we are not persuaded that
the combination of Richter and Yamamoto is deficient as Appellants allege,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6.
Claims 14^17, 20, and 21
Unpatentable over Richter, Hiramatsu, and Yamamoto
Claims 14—17, 20, and 21 contain one or more of the disputed
limitations discussed above—e.g., limitations directed to the curvature
radius of the middle curved section, the pitch of the fin plates, and the
curvature radius of the outside curved sections. App. Br. 33—34, 36—37
(Claims App’x). Appellants rely on their previously made, yet non­
persuasive, arguments in support of the patentability of these claims. App.
Br. 20—29. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 14—17, 20, and 21 as unpatentable over
Richter, Hiramatsu, and Yamamoto.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3—7, 9—
11, and 13—21 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9