Ex Parte Lents et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 4, 2016

12176522 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/176,522 07/21/2008
26096 7590 08/08/2016
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Charles E. Lents
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.
67036-594
PUSl;PA-0001381
CONFIRMATION NO.
2763
EXAMINER
COMINGS, DANIEL C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/08/2016 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES E. LENTS,
TREVOR E. BAILEY, and
ABBAS A. ALAHY ARI
Appeal2014-002333
Application 12/176,522
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CAL VE, GEORGE R. HOSKINS,
and FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-002333
Application 12/176,522
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 14, and 20 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A heat exchanger assembly for an aircraft control,
compnsmg:
an aircraft control for controlling an operation of an
aircraft;
said aircraft control in thermal communication with a
first fluid;
a first thermoelectric device configured to transfer heat
between said first fluid and a second fluid against a temperature
gradient of said first fluid and said second fluid;
a temperature sensor for sensing a temperature of said
first fluid; and
a temperature control configured to control said first
thermoelectric device based on an input from said temperature
sensor.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 11-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sabatino (US 2005/0155353 Al, pub. July 21, 2005) and
Doke (US 5,367,890, iss. Nov. 29, 1994).
Claims 4--10 and 14--19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sabatino, Doke, and Chu (US 6,557,354 Bl, iss. May 6,
2003).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 11-13, and 20 as unpatentable over Sabatino and Doke
Appellants argue claims 1-3 and 11-13, and claim 20 as separate
groups. See Appeal Br. 3-7. We select claims 1 and 20 as representative
claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 2, 3, and 11-13 stand or fall
with claim 1.
2
Appeal2014-002333
Application 12/176,522
Claims 1-3 and 11-13
The Examiner found that Sabatino teaches all of the limitations of
independent claim 1 except for heat transfer conducted against a gradient by
a thermoelectric device controlled by a temperature control. Final Act. 2-3;
Ans. 3--4. The Examiner found that Doke teaches this feature. Final Act. 3;
Ans. 4.
The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to modify
Sabatino with Doke' s thermoelectric system "to more effectively cool
exchange heat than with a passive heat exchanger, thus providing superior
cooling and better operating reliability for the cooled components." Final
Act. 3; Ans. 4. The Examiner also determined that
Because the thermoelectric device of Doke is a reversible
thermoelectric device ... its installation in the system of
Sabatino allows it to function in one of two ways, either
transferring heat with the gradient (thus enhancing rather than
destroying the system of Sabatino) or transferring heat against
the gradient (such as \'l1hen emergency cooling is required of
components in the fuel line), which operation is claimed.
Final Act. 11. The Examiner further reasoned that modifying Sabatino with
Doke's reversible thermoelectric device adds an option rather than removing
features from Sabatino' s system or mandating a different form of operation.
Id. at 11-12. The Examiner found that the system of Sabatino still operates
as Sabatino describes but with an optional reverse mode. Id. at 12; Ans. 13.
Appellants argue that the Examiner treated the limitation "configured
to transfer heat ... against a temperature gradient" as a functional limitation
that Sabatino only need be capable of doing. Appeal Br. 3--4. Appellants
argue that the Examiner admits that Sabatino as modified is not configured
to transfer heat against a temperature gradient, as claimed. Id. at 4.
3
Appeal2014-002333
Application 12/176,522
Appellants further argue that the Examiner has not shown that a
thermoelectric device is more effective at cooling than the heat exchanger of
Sabatino or provided any reason to have modified Sabatino to include the
option of transferring heat against a gradient. Id. Appellants assert that the
Examiner has not shown that a thermoelectric device has any greater degree
of adjustability than Sabatino's heat exchangers. Reply Br. 1-2. Appellants
also argue that Sabatino' s principle of operation would change and Sabatino
would not be suitable for its intended purpose of receiving heat from warmer
oil loops 34, 36, if modified by Doke's teaching. Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 2.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons.
First, the Examiner found that Doke teaches a first thermoelectric device that
is configured to transfer heat between a first fluid and a second fluid against
a temperature gradient, as claimed. Final Act. 3; Ans. 4. Appellants do not
challenge that finding, but instead argue that there is no reason to combine
Doke's teachings with those of Sabatino. Appeal Br. 3-5; Reply Br. 1-2.
The Examiner proposes to include thermoelectric devices of Doke in
Sabatino' s system to improve Sabatino' s heat transfer system and increase
its capabilities not only to transfer heat from hot oil loops 34, 36, but also to
transfer heat against a heat gradient, if desired, to warm those oil loops and
associated components, thus adding to the capabilities of Sabatino' s system.
Ans. 13-14; Final Act. 11-12. The Examiner's reason to modify Sabatino is
supported by a rational underpinning of allowing Sabatino to operate in its
intended mode of operation of transferring heat from the oil loops to the fuel
line, and adding the option and capability of transferring heat in the other
direction against a gradient when the fuel temperature exceeds a desired
level such as 325 QF or the temperature of the oil is too low. Ans. 14--15.
4
Appeal2014-002333
Application 12/176,522
In this regard, Doke teaches a thermoelectric device 40 with cold plate
36 and hot plate 38 with thermocouples disposed therebetween. Doke, 5:30-
56, 1 :54--56. In a normal cooling mode, which is analogous to Sabatino's
heat exchanger, a mass or body to be cooled is attached thermally to cold
plate 36 to transfer its heat to cold plate 36 whereupon the thermocouples
can move the heat energy to hot plate 38 where it is removed by a heat sink.
Id. at 5:43-56. The Examiner proposes to include this feature in Sabatino so
Sabatino' s heat exchange system can continue to transfer heat from oil loops
34, 36 to fuel, i.e., with the temperature gradient. Ans. 14--15; Final Act. 11.
Doke also teaches that thermoelectric device 40 operates in a heating
mode by reversing the direction of current flow through the thermocouple
array to heat a mass or body attached to cold plate 36. Doke, 5:63---6:3. The
Examiner proposes to add this capability to Sabatino' s heat exchanger so
fluid in oil loops 34, 36 may be heated instead of cooled, i.e., by transferring
heat against a temperature gradient, as desired. Final Act. 11-12.
The Examiner reasonably found that a skilled artisan would have been
motivated to include Doke's thermoelectric device in Sabatino to enable the
system of Sabatino to cool oil loops 34, 36, or warm oil loops 34, 36 against
a temperature gradient, as claimed, to transfer heat from the fuel to oil loops
34, 36 if the fuel temperature is greater than desired or the oil temperature is
too low. Id.; Ans. 13-15. Appellants have not persuaded us that Doke is not
configured to transfer heat against a temperature gradient, as claimed. Nor
are we persuaded that this modification would change Sabatino' s principle
of operation or render Sabatino unsuitable to remove heat from oil loops 34,
36, rather than making Sabatino more versatile, as the Examiner found.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-3 and 11-13.
5
Appeal2014-002333
Application 12/176,522
Claim 20
Independent claim 20 recites "a method of controlling a temperature
for an aircraft control" with a first flow path to a thermoelectric device and a
second flow path from the thermoelectric device, which is "configured to
transfer heat from the first fluid to the second fluid when the first fluid has a
higher temperature than the second fluid thereby cooling the first fluid."
The Examiner relied on the findings that were made for claim 1 to render
obvious the method of claim 20. Final Act. 5; Ans. 6. Appellants make
essentially the same arguments that were raised against claim 1. See Appeal
Br. 3-5, 5-7. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive for the reasons
discussed above for claim 1.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 20.
Claims 4-10 and 14-19 as unpatentable over Sabatino, Doke, and Chu
Appellants argue claims 4--10 and 14--19 as separate groups. Appeal
Br. 7-9. We select claims 4 and 14 as representative.
Claims 4--10
The Examiner relied on Chu to teach a thermoelectric device with a
first and second plurality of conduits that carry fluids along first and second
sides of a thermoelectric device and a second thermoelectric device that is
spaced from the first thermoelectric device as recited in claims 4--10, which
depend from claim 1 directly or indirectly. Final Act. 6-10. Appellants
argue that Chu does not cure the issues with Sabatino and Doke as set forth
for claim 1. Appeal Br. 7. Because we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as
unpatentable over Sabatino and Doke, for the reasons discussed above for
claim 1, there is no deficiency in this regard for Chu to remedy. Thus, we
also sustain the rejection of claims 4--10.
6
Appeal2014-002333
Application 12/176,522
Claims 14--19
Independent claim 14 recites a heat exchanger with first and second
thermoelectric devices and first and second fluids on both sides of the first
and second thermoelectric devices. The Examiner relied on Sabatino and
Doke to disclose the first thermoelectric device configured to transfer heat
from the first fluid to a second fluid with a higher temperature and Chu to
teach a second thermoelectric device, as claimed. Final Act. 10; Ans. 11.
The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to use Chu' s
stacked thermoelectric arrangement on the modified assembly of Sabatino to
provide heat transfer to each fluid conduit from multiple sides and thus,
ensure greater cooling or heating. Final Act. 1 O; Ans. 11.
Appellants argue that Sabatino and Doke do not teach or suggest a
first thermoelectric device configured to transfer heat from a first fluid to a
second fluid having a higher temperature than the first fluid, as recited in
claim 14, and the Examiner has not provided a reason to modify Sabatino,
and the modification renders Sabatino unsuitable for its intended purpose
and changes its principle of operation. Appeal Br. 7-9. These arguments
are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above for claim 1.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 14--19.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1-20.
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
7