Ex Parte Levings et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 8, 2016

12838114 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/838,114 07/16/2010
27820 7590 08/10/2016
WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C.
106 Pinedale Springs Way
Cary, NC 27511
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Natalie B. Levings
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.
1602-005 5594
EXAMINER
THOMPSON, JASON N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/10/2016 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):
patents@wt-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NATALIE B. LEVINGS, NICHOLAS J. NAGURNY,
and MICHAEL R. ELLER
Appeal2014-006356
Application 12/838,114
Technology Center 3700
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as "Lockheed
Martin Corporation." (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal2014-006356
Application 12/838,114
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants' invention relates to "heat exchangers for Ocean
Thermal Energy Conversion systems." (Spec. i-f 3.)
Exemplary Claim2
1. A heat exchanger comprising:
a first core, wherein the first core comprises;
a first layer comprising a first channel for conveying a
first fluid; and
a second layer comprising a plurality of fins that define
a first plurality of flow channels, wherein the
second layer is brazed to the first layer;
a first plate disposed at a first end of the first core, wherein
the first plate and the first end of the first core are joined via a
first joint that is a galvanic-corrosion-resistant joint; and
a second plate disposed at a second end of the first core,
wherein the second plate and the second end of the first core are
joined via a second joint that is a galvanic-corrosion-resistant
joint.
Andrus
Bathla
Tolani
Sugimasa
1?..ef erences
us 2,653,211
us 3,825,061
US 2008/0078536 Al
US 2008/0241615 Al
Rejections
Sept. 22, 1953
July 23, 1974
Apr. 3, 2008
Oct. 2, 2008
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bathla, Andrus, and Tolani. (Final Action 2.)
The Examiner rejects claims 2, 4, 5, 6, and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Bathla, Andrus, Tolani, and Sugimasa. (Id. at 6.)
2 This exemplary claim is quoted from the Claims Appendix ("Claims
App.") set forth on pages 21-24 of the Appeal Brief.
2
Appeal2014-006356
Application 12/838,114
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 8 are the independent claims on appeal, with the rest of
the claims on appeal (i.e., claims 2-7 and 9-12) depending therefrom. (See
Claims App.) Independent claims 1 and 8 are each directed to a heat
exchanger wherein certain elements (i.e., a core and a plate) are joined by a
"galvanic-corrosion-resistant joint" (e.g., a "friction-stir weld"); and wherein
certain core elements (i.e., a first core layer and a second core layer) are
"brazed" one to the other. (Id.) In the Appellants' words, galvanic-
corrosion-resistant joints are used "at specific locations" while at the same
time there are "brazed joints within the exchanger core." (Appeal Br. 18.)
The Examiner finds that the Bathla teaches a heat exchanger wherein
a core (tubes 10 and fin strips 15) and a plate (header plate 21) are brazed
together and wherein a first core layer (tubes 10) and a second core layer (fin
strips 15) are in direct contact. (See Final Action 3.) There is no dispute
that it would have been obvious to braze Bathla's tubes 10 and fin strips 15
together. (See e.g., Appeal Br. 13.) There is also no dispute that Bathla
"does not teach or disclose galvanic corrosion resistant joints." (Final
Action 3.)
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious, in view of
the secondary references, "to utilize galvanic corrosion resistant joints" in
Bathla' s heat exchanger "to improve corrosion resistance at a joint
interface." (Final Action 3.) The Examiner maintains that "incorporation of
corrosion resistant joints within a heat exchanger is obvious since corrosion
resistant joints have recognized benefits (e.g. extending heat exchanger
service life by improvingjoint corrosion resistance)." (Answer 14.) And
the Examiner maintains that "substituting of one known bonding technique
3
Appeal2014-006356
Application 12/838,114
[i.e., brazing] with "another known bonding technique [i.e., friction stir
welding]" is "obvious based on the current record." (Id. at 18.)
We are persuaded by the Appellants' position that the Examiner does
not sufficiently show that the claimed heat exchanger would have been
obvious over the prior art. (See Appeal Br. 13-18.)
We agree with the Appellants that the Examiner establishes, at best,
that it would have been obvious "to replace all brazed joints with galvanic-
corrosion resistant joints" in a prior art (e.g., Bathla's) heat exchanger.
(Appeal Br. 18.) However, this would not result in the claimed heat
exchanger. As indicated above, in the claimed heat exchanger, galvanic-
corrosion-resistant joints are used "at specific locations," while at the same
time there are "brazed joints within the exchanger core." (Id.)
The Examiner does not adequately address why one of ordinary skill
in the art, when modifying Bathla's heat exchanger to improve joint
corrosion resistance, would select certain locations for galvanic-corrosion-
resistant joints (e.g., friction stir welds) but not others. More specifically,
the Examiner does not adequately address why one of ordinary skill in the
art would know to use galvanic-corrosion-resistant joints between Bathla's
tubes 10 and header plate 21 while at the same time knowing to use brazed
joints between Bathla's tubes 10 and fin strips 15. Although the Examiner
determines that Bathla's heat exchanger "is inherently employable in a
situation in which galvanic corrosion is a concern" (Answer 11 ), the
Examiner does not explain why, in this hypothetical situation, Bathla's
header plates 21 would be susceptible to corrosion while its fin strips 15
would not. As such, the Examiner does not establish that the claimed heat
exchanger would have been obvious over the prior art.
4
Appeal2014-006356
Application 12/838,114
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1 and 8. The Examiner's further findings and determinations with
respect to the dependent claims (see Final Action 4--10) do not compensate
for the above-discussed shortcoming in the rejection of independent claims 1
and 8. Thus, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of dependent
claims 2-7 and 9-12.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-12.
REVERSED
5