Ex Parte LothDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 23, 201412239009 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2014) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation