Ex Parte Loth

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2014

12239009 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL WILLIAM LOTH
____________

Appeal 2012–009812
Application 12/239,009
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before PETER F. KRATZ, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and GEORGE C.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–19. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a heat sink or cooling
system for a motor drive and a method of cooling a motor drive unit.
Claims 9 and 15 are illustrative and reproduced below:
9. A motor drive comprising:
rectifier circuitry configured to be coupled to an AC power source and
to provide power to a DC bus;
inverter circuitry coupled to the DC bus and configured to generate
drive signals for driving a motor;
a fan for directing a flow of cooling air through an air passageway;
and a heat dissipating structure thermally coupled to the rectifier circuitry
Appeal 2012–009812
Application 12/239,009

2
and to the inverter circuitry and extending into the air passageway and
cooled by the flow of cooling air from the fan;
wherein the air passageway comprises an air directing structure with a
setback distance and an angle; the air directing structure directing cooling air
into a lateral surface of the heat dissipating structure.

15. A method of cooling a motor drive unit, comprising:
forcing cooling air into a cooling channel comprising a heat sink and a
substantially open space adjacent to the heat sink;
forcing a first portion of the cooling air into a leading edge of the heat
sink;
forcing a second portion of the cooling air into an open space adjacent
to the heat sink; and
forcing the second portion of the cooling air into a lateral surface of
the heatsink at a location downstream from the leading edge of the heatsink.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Babinski et al. US 5,930,112 Jul. 27, 1999
Roman et al. US 6,621,700 B1 Sep. 16, 2003

The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
Claims 15–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Roman. Claims 1–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Roman in view of Babinski.
We affirm the stated rejections for substantially the reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the Answer. We add the following for emphasis.
Concerning the anticipation rejection of claims 15 through 19 over
Roman, Appellant argues the rejected claims together as a group making
substantially the same arguments with respect to independent claims 15 and
17 (App. Br. 7–9). Accordingly, we select claim 15 as the representative
Appeal 2012–009812
Application 12/239,009

3
claim on which we decide this appeal as to the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection.
Appellant argues that “the air guide 17 of Roman does not direct a
portion of cooling air into the heat sink 12 at a location downstream from a
leading (or forward) edge of the heat sink 12”; however, Appellant
acknowledges that “Figure 1 of Roman illustrates that the cooling air from
the fan 15 is directed across the heat sink fins 14 of the heat sink 12 . . .”
(App. Br. 7). In this regard, the Examiner relies on heat sink 12 including
base 13 and spaced-apart fins 14, and including downstream portions of the
heat sink, and a lower arrow depicting airflow as shown in drawing Figure 1
of Roman for describing the claim 15 step of “forcing the second portion of
the cooling air into a lateral surface of the heatsink at a location downstream
from the leading edge of the heatsink” (Ans. 5; claim 15; Roman, Fig. 1; see
Roman, col. 5, l. 65 - col. 6, l. 55).
Appellant’s argument indicates no reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection position. In this regard, we observe that representative claim 15
does not require that the cooling air forced into a lateral surface of the heat
sink at a location downstream from the leading edge of the heat sink must be
a portion of air that is not directed through heat sink fins via an upstream
leading edge of the heat sink and/or represent a portion of air that does not
otherwise contact the heat sink upstream of the downstream location where a
lateral surface is contacted by the air, as seemingly argued by Appellant
(Reply Br. 2–3; App. Br. 7).
As pointed out by the Examiner, Roman provides for an air guide 17
that “forces air through the fins 14 of the heat sink 12”, which portion of the
cooling air as represented by the lower cooling air arrows in Figure 1 of
Appeal 2012–009812
Application 12/239,009

4
Roman passes through the open space downstream of fan 15 and comes into
contact with the heat sink 12 at surfaces, including a lateral surface at
locations downstream from a leading edge of the heat sink as it traverses the
heat sink from left to right as depicted in Figure 1 of Roman (Ans. 14–16;
Roman, col. 6, ll. 15–55).
Appellant seems to suppose that the Examiner is relying on the upper
portions of the cooling air flow of Roman directed over the base 13 of the
heat sink for cooling other components of the power controller of Roman as
corresponding to Appellant’s second portion of the cooling air as called for
in representative claim 15 (App. Br 8). However, the latter portions of the
cooling air flow of Roman are relied upon by the Examiner as corresponding
to the first portion of the cooling air as claimed by Appellant (Ans. 5).
Appellant has not presented any persuasive argument indicating why he may
have believed that the Examiner has not prima facie established that the
upper portions of the cooling airflow of Roman would correspond to the
latter claim limitation of representative claim 15 respecting the first portion
of cooling air; that is, cooling air that is forced into a leading edge of the
heat sink near its upper edge in front of air guide 17 as depicted in Figure 1
of Roman.1
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection.
Concerning the obviousness rejection of claims 1–14, Appellant
argues the rejected claims together as a group presenting the same basic
arguments for independent claims 1 and 9. Appellant argues that the applied
references “fail to teach or suggest an air directing structure for directing

1 All arguments not timely raised in the principal Appeal Brief are
considered waived.
Appeal 2012–009812
Application 12/239,009

5
cooling air into a downstream portion (lateral surface) of a heat dissipating
structure, as generally recited by independent claims 1 and 9” (App. Br. 12).
Accordingly, we select claim 9 as the representative claim on which we
decide this appeal as to this ground of rejection.
Representative claim 9 requires a heat dissipating structure extending
into an air passageway, “wherein the air passageway comprises an air
directing structure with a setback distance and an angle, the air directing
structure directing cooling air into a lateral surface of the heat dissipating
structure” (claim 9).
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of harmful error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection. As discussed above and in the Answer
with respect to the anticipation rejection, the air guide (air directing
structure) 17 forces a portion of the cooling air as represented by the lower
cooling air arrows in Figure 1 of Roman through the open space downstream
of fan 15 and into contact with the heat sink 12 at surfaces, including a
lateral surface, at locations downstream from a leading edge of the heat sink
as it traverses the heat sink from left to right as depicted in Figure 1 of
Roman (Ans. 14–16; Roman, col. 6, ll. 15–55).
Thus, the Examiner has reasonably established how the air guide 17 of
Roman together with other structural features provided by Roman teaches or
suggests an air directing structure constructed and arranged as required by
representative claim 9 (Ans. 9). Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s
reliance on the additionally recited teachings of Babinski for teaching or
suggesting other features of the rejected claims (App. Br. 12–14; Reply Br.
4; Ans. 8, 17). It follows that we shall sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection on this appeal record.
Appeal 2012–009812
Application 12/239,009

6

CONCLUSION/ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims is 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).

AFFIRMED

lp