Ex Parte Lu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2018

11797856 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/797,856 05/08/2007
60601 7590 07/26/2018
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C.
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22033
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
William Lu
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.
4459/l 833PUS 1 9982
EXAMINER
STIMPERT, PHILIP EARL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3746
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/26/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM LU, CHENG-SHU YU, PENG-CHU TAO, and
RALF-PETER PIETZ
Appeal2016-006003
Application 11/797 ,856
Technology Center 3700
Before DANIEL S. SONG, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
William Lu et al. ("Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-14 in this
application. The Board has jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Delta Electronics, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-006003
Application 11/797 ,856
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal, and it recites:
1. A fan comprising:
at least one rotor;
a frame body for containing the rotor therein, including a
first side and a second side adjacent to the first side;
at least one recessed portion between the first side, the
second side and the at least one rotor;
a control device controlling the rotor to rotate; and
at least one terminal seat comprising a first seat body
disposed on the recessed portion and having at least one terminal
slot; and at least one first terminal disposed in the corresponding
terminal slot,
wherein the first terminal has a fixing portion fixed to the
first seat body, and a signal part electrically connected to the
control device.
Claims App. 1.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1--4, 7, 8, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Chang (US 2005/0037660 Al, pub. Feb. 17, 2005) and
Poh (US 2006/0063405 Al, pub. Mar. 23, 2006).
Claims 5 and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Chang2, Poh, and Takeuchi (US 6,575,769 Bl, iss.
June 10, 2003).
2 The statement of rejection refers to a "Kosugi" reference, not Chang, as
the primary reference. See Final Act. 4. However, the Examiner intended to
rely on Chang. See id. at 6 (prior amendments and arguments made by
Appellants "are addressed by the above reliance on the teachings of Chang
in place of those of Kosugi").
2
Appeal 2016-006003
Application 11/797 ,856
ANALYSIS
A. Obviousness based on Chang and Poh
(Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10, and 11)
Claim 1
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Chang as disclosing most
of the claimed subject matter: a fan comprising a rotor; a frame body;
a control device; and at least one terminal seat comprising a first seat body
and a first terminal. Final Act. 2; Ans. 6-8. The Examiner determines
Chang's terminal seat body does not have a "terminal slot" for receiving the
first terminal, or the first terminal having "a fixing portion" fixed to the
terminal seat body. Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 6-8. The Examiner relies on Poh
as disclosing a terminal seat body having a slot for receiving a terminal, with
the terminal having a fixing portion fixed to the terminal seat body. Final
Act. 2-3. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to modify
Chang's terminal seat body and terminal to have the fixing interaction
specified in claim 1. Id. at 3.
The Examiner cites Chang's Figures 4A and 4B as illustrating a fan
comprising a terminal seat body disposed on a recessed portion of a frame
body, as claimed. Final Act. 2; Ans. 6-8. Figures 4A and 4B of Chang are
reproduced here, on the next page:
3
Appeal 2016-006003
Application 11/797 ,856
Fig.4A
511
Fig.4B
Figure 4A is an exploded view of three parts of a heat dissipating module
(i.e., a fan), and Figure 4B is a perspective view of the three parts assembled
together. Chang ,r,r 3, 23-24, 31. The three parts are: frame 51 with
cylindrical passage 54 for receiving a fan rotor (not shown); securing
device 52; and terminal 53. Id. ,r,r 23, 31; see also id. at Fig. 2A, ,r 27
(illustrating fan rotor disposed within frame of different embodiment).
Chang describes the module of Figures 4A and 4B as follows:
The securing device 52 has a receptacle 521 for allowing the
terminal 53 to be mounted and fixed therein. The frame of the
heat-dissipating device has flanges 511 on its front and rear sides
(i.e. inlet and outlet sides) to define a space therebetween for
allowing the securing device to be mounted therein. The frame
51 further includes a plurality of holes 512 disposed on four
comers thereof. The engaging members 522 of the securing
device can be wedged into the corresponding holes 512 on the
4
Appeal 2016-006003
Application 11/797 ,856
flanges. Through such a design, the terminal 53 can be mounted
and embedded in the receptacle 521 by [engagement], adhesive
or other well-known assembling ways without protruding out of
the frame as shown in FIG. 4B. In the present invention, the
terminal is embedded in the space defined by two opposite
flanges and the outer periphery of a cylindrical passage 54 of the
frame . . . without changing the original size of the
heat-dissipating device. In other words, the end of the terminal
is preferably positioned on the same plane of the periphery of the
outer frame or embedded in the outer side of the frame.
The Examiner annotates Chang's Figure 4A, as reproduced below, to
illustrate the Examiner's findings with respect to Chang's disclosure:
D
Ans. 7. The annotations reflect where the Examiner finds a frame body
(frame 51) with first and second sides (arrows A and B) and a recessed
portion (arrow X) that receives a terminal seat body (securing device 52) and
a terminal (terminal 53). Final Act. 2; Ans. 6-8. In support, the Examiner
"notes the fundamental similarity between the frame ( 51 ), securing
5
Appeal 2016-006003
Application 11/797 ,856
device (52) and terminal (53) of Chang and the frame body (35), seat
body (31) and terminal (32) of [ A Jppellant[ s '] Fig. 3 respectively." Ans. 6.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellants argue "Chang does not teach or
suggest that the terminal 53 (referred to by the Examiner as the claimed
terminal seat) is disposed on a recessed portion provided between a first side
of a frame body, a second side of the frame body, and the at least one rotor."
Appeal Br. 4---6. Therefore, Appellants contend Chang does not disclose "' at
least one recessed portion between the first side, the second side and the at
least one rotor; ... ; and at least one terminal seat comprising a first seat
body disposed on the recessed portion and having at least one terminal slot'
as recited in claim 1." Id. at 6.
Appellants' foregoing argument is not persuasive. Chang's securing
device 52 is a terminal seat body, because it seats terminal 53. Chang ,r 31
("The securing device 52 has a receptacle 521 for allowing the terminal 53
to be mounted and fixed therein ... by engagement, adhesive or other
well-known assembling ways .... ").
Further, the Examiner's annotations correctly identify how Chang's
terminal seat body 52 is disposed on a recessed portion of frame body 51
between a first side, a second side, and a rotor of frame body 51. Ans. 6-7.
Chang correspondingly describes how frame body 51 "has flanges 511 on its
front and rear sides (i.e. inlet and outlet sides) to define a space therebetween
for allowing [terminal seat body 52] to be mounted therein," and terminal 53
"is embedded in the space defined by two opposite flanges and the outer
periphery of a cylindrical passage 54 of the frame [ 51]." Chang ,r 31.
Chang, further, correspondingly indicates "terminal 53 can be mounted and
embedded in the receptacle 521" of terminal seat body 52 "without
6
Appeal 2016-006003
Application 11/797 ,856
protruding out of' frame 51, and "without changing the original size of the
heat-dissipating device." Id. ,r 31, Fig. 4B. Thus, a preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner's finding that Chang's securing device 52 is
a terminal seat body disposed on a recessed portion of a fan frame.
Appellants also contend "the combination of the securing device 52
and the terminal 53 in Chang (the receptacle 521 with terminal 53) is
different from the combination of the pins 52 with the knife-type terminal
32 in the present application." Reply Br. 6-7. This argument is not
persuasive because it relies on limitations that are not recited in claim 1.
Claim 1 does not recite a second terminal seat such as Appellants' terminal
seat 5, or "pins" or a "knife-type" terminal. See Claims App. 1 ( claim 1
pertinently recites a "terminal seat comprising a first seat body ... and
having at least one terminal slot," with a "terminal disposed in" the slot and
having "a fixing portion fixed to the first set body").
Indeed, it is only dependent claims that recite "a second terminal seat"
having "at least one pin." See, e.g., id. at 2 (claims 12 and 13). The
Examiner relies on Takeuchi, not on Chang, as disclosing these dependent
claim limitations. See Final Act. 5-6. Thus, Appellants' argument that
Chang fails to disclose these dependent claim limitations is not relevant to
the Examiner's rejection.
Appellants further contend the Examiner errs in relying on Poh as
disclosing a terminal having a fixing portion and a signal part as recited in
claim 1. Reply Br. 7-8. Appellants particularly assert the fixing portion and
the signal part of their terminal are "connected to the [terminal] body at
different sides," whereas Poh's are "at the same sides." Id. at 7.
Appellants also assert their fixing portion "is an inverse hook," whereas
7
Appeal 2016-006003
Application 11/797 ,856
Poh's "is not an inverse hook." Id. at 8. Appellants further assert their
terminal has certain properties that increase production and assembling
yields. Id.
These arguments are not persuasive because they rely on limitations
that are not recited in claim 1. Claim 1 does not recite that the fixing portion
and the signal part are disposed at different sides of a terminal body, or that
the fixing portion is an inverse hook, or any properties said to increase
production and assembling yields. See Claims App. 1.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as
unpatentable over Chang and Poh.
Claims 2-4, 7, 8, 10, and 11
Appellants rely solely on arguments presented in connection with
claim 1 in urging for reversal as to dependent claims 2--4, 7, 8, 10, and 11.
See Appeal Br. 6. For the reasons provided in connection with claim 1, we
sustain the rejection of these claims as unpatentable over Chang and Poh.
B. Obviousness based on Chang, Poh, and Takeuchi
(Claims 5 and 12-14)
Appellants argue for the patentability of claims 5 and 12-14 together
in one group, and do not argue for the patentability of any one claim
separately from the other claims. See Appeal Br. 7. Accordingly, we select
claim 12 to decide the present appeal as to all claims in this group. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
In the Appeal Brief, Appellants argue "Takeuchi ... fails to cure the
deficiencies of Chang and Poh" asserted by Appellants in connection with
claim 1, because "Takeuchi fails to teach or suggest that a seat body of the
8
Appeal 2016-006003
Application 11/797 ,856
connector 10 is disposed on a recessed portion provided between a first side
of a frame body, a second side of the frame body, and the at least one rotor."
Appeal Br. 7. For the reasons provided in connection with claim 1, we
discern no deficiency of Chang and Poh for Takeuchi to cure in that regard,
so Appellants' argument is not persuasive of Examiner error.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants additionally argue the two terminal
seats 30 and 5 disclosed in their Specification (e.g., Figure 3) may each be
"modified into" or "rep lac[ ed]" by the other. Reply Br. 7. Appellants
contrast that disclosure with Takeuchi, in which Appellants contend "the
terminal seat and other external elements can not be modified." Id.
However, the Examiner's rejection does not propose modifying
Takeuchi's device. See Final Act. 4--5. Rather, the Examiner determines it
would have been obvious to modify the fan of the combination of Chang and
Poh such that the first terminal is clamped by and electrically connected to a
second terminal, as recited in claim 12 and as disclosed in Takeuchi. Id. at
5. Thus, Appellants' argument that Takeuchi's elements cannot be modified
is not relevant to the Examiner's rejection. Further, Appellants' argument
that the two terminal seats of claim 12 may each be modified into or
replaced by the other is not persuasive because it relies on limitations that
are not recited in claim 12. See Claims App. 2 ( claim 12 pertinently recites
only that "the first terminal is clamped by and electrically connected to a
second terminal seat").
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 5 and
12-14 as unpatentable over Chang, Poh, and Takeuchi.
9
Appeal 2016-006003
Application 11/797 ,856
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections are each 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
10