Ex Parte Naukkarinen

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 28, 2019

12715072 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/715,072 03/01/2010 Olli Pekka Naukkarinen
99847 7590 07/02/2019
Modine Manufacturing Company
1500 Dekoven Ave.
Racine, WI 53403
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.
022231-9442-USOJ 8017
EXAMINER
LEO, LEONARD R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2019 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):
intellectualproperty@na.modine.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OLLI PEKKA NAUKKARINEN
Appeal2018-009085
Application 12/715,072 1
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant appeals from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 7-9, 12-15, 17, 19, and 25-29.
Claims 5, 6, 10, 16, 18, 23, and 24 are withdrawn. Non-Final Act. 2 (mailed
Jan. 4, 2018); Appeal Br. 6. Claims 11 and 20-22 are canceled. Appeal Br.,
Claims App. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 "The real party in interest is Modine Grenada LLC." Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-009085
Application 12/715,072
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Subject Matter on Appeal
Claims 1 and 1 7 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A heat exchanger that transfers thermal energy between an
internal heat exchange fluid that flows within the exchanger
and an external heat exchange fluid in thermal
communication with the internal heat exchange fluid, the heat
exchanger comprising:
one or more layers of a tube within which the internal heat
exchange fluid passes;
at least some of the one or more layers having an oblong ovate
configuration with opposing linear runs connected by
opposing curved sections, the internal heat exchange fluid
passing sequentially through successive ones of the linear
runs;
a planar spacer member that extends perpendicularly in relation
to the linear runs, the spacer member having forwardly and
rearwardly facing edges, the forwardly and rearwardly facing
edges each have detents spaced apart at a center-to-center
distance, each detent has a major diameter and the detents are
truncated and terminate at the forwardly and rearwardly
facing edges at positions that are offset from the major
diameters of the detents, and
wherein the opposing linear runs are detachably retained by the
detents in the forwardly and rearwardly facing edges of the
planar spacer member with a snap fit such that each
successive ones of the linear runs are spaced apart, in an
extension direction of the planar spacer member, by a distance
greater than the center-to-center distance of the detents.
Rejections
I. Claims 1-3, 8, 9, 17, 19, and 25-29 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Collins (US 3,080,916, iss. Mar. 12,
2
Appeal2018-009085
Application 12/715,072
1963), Page (US 4,605,059, iss. Aug. 12, 1986) and Hahn et al.
(US 4,175,617, iss. Nov. 27, 1979) ("Hahn").
II. Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Collins, Page, Hahn, and Paulman et al. (US 4,778,004,
iss. Oct. 18, 1988) ("Paulman").
III. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Collins, Page, Hahn, and Vleggaar et al. (US 4,484,624, iss. Nov. 27,
1984) ("Vleggaar").
IV. Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Collins, Page, Hahn, and Applicant's Admitted Prior Art
("AAP A"). 2
ANALYSIS
For the rejection of independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that
sinuous tubing 10 of Collins' heat transfer unit, which has straight-
portions 11 and U-shaped bends 15, 16, corresponds to the claimed heat
exchanger's one or more layers of tubes. See Non-Final Act. 2. The
Examiner finds that Collins' fins 17 correspond to the claimed planar spacer
member. Id. at 3. The Examiner finds that Collins does not disclose "each
successive ones of the linear runs are spaced apart, in [an] extension
direction of the planar spacer member, by a distance greater than the center-
to-center distance of the detents," as recited in claim 1. Id. Independent
claim 1 7 includes similar limitations to that of claim 1 and the basis for the
Examiner's rejection of claim 17 is similar to that of claim 1. See id. at 5---6.
2 The Examiner identifies "AAP A" as "page 11, amendment to the
specification filed on November 12, 2012." Non-Final Act. 8.
3
Appeal2018-009085
Application 12/715,072
To remedy this deficiency- as it relates to the subject matter of claims 1
and 17- the Examiner relies on the teachings of Hahn. Id. at 3--4 ( citing
Hahn, col. 6, 11. 29--33, Figs. 8, 9).
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 17 includes a modification
of Collins' tubing 10 so that straight-portions 11 are "offset to form a
skewed configuration for the purpose of increasing the residence time to
improve heat transfer efficiency as recognized by Hahn." Id. at 4; see
Collins, Fig. 1, Hahn, Figs. 8-9. The Examiner explains that as a result of
the proffered modification the U-shaped bends of Collins' tubing 10 are
longer, which increases the size and capacity of tubing 10. See Ans. 10.
The Appellant disputes the Examiner's position that "the longer bend
configuration of Hahn would increase the heat transfer performance of
Collins[' heat transfer unit]." Reply Br. 7; see also Appeal Br. 9--12. The
Appellant asserts that fins 1 7 increase heat transfer performance and
increasing the size of tubing 10 where the fins are lacking- i.e., at the U-
bends of tubing 10 - decreases heat transfer performance of Collins' heat
transfer unit. Reply Br. 7.
Accordingly, an issue in this Appeal is whether the proffered
modification improves heat transfer efficiency of Collins' heat transfer unit.
For the reasons discussed below, we determine that the Examiner's finding
that the proffered modification of Collins' heat transfer unit improves heat
transfer efficiency is speculative and therefore, inadequately supported.
The Examiner's relies on Hahn to teach:
While the primary invention of Hahn [] is to skew the tube 34 in
order to improve the air flow contact with the external fins 22,
the skewing of the tube 34 also provides the benefit of increasing
the size of the coil to accommodate a greater internal fluid
4
Appeal2018-009085
Application 12/715,072
capacity, which in tum increases the residency of the internal
fluid to improve heat transfer efficiency.
Ans. 9-10. The Examiner acknowledges that Hahn's tubing 34 is skewed
primarily so that air flow contacts fins 22. See Hahn, Figs. 8-9. The
Examiner finds that "the skewing of[] tube 34 also provides the benefit of
increasing the size of the coil to accommodate a greater internal fluid
capacity, which in tum increases the residency of the internal fluid to
improve heat transfer efficiency." Ans. 10.
The Examiner, however, does not identify any portion of Hahn - or
Collins -that suggests increasing the size of a sinuous or coiled tubing
where fins are lacking improves heat transfer efficiency. See also Reply
Br. 7. Additionally, the Examiner does not explain - using evidence or
technical reasoning - the degree to which efficiency of Collins' heat
transfer unit would be improved due to the proffered modification, i.e.,
lengthening the U-shaped bends of Collins' tubing 10. Further, we note that
Collins teaches one of ordinary skill in the art that the efficiency of its heat
transfer unit is affected by at least three parameters: first, the surface area of
internal surface of tubing 10; second, the surface area of fins 17; and third,
the distance between straight-portions 11 of tubing 10. See Collins, col. 1,
11. 13-15, col. 2, 11. 19--49, 56-58, col. 3, 11. 12-15. The Examiner's
proffered modification of Collins' tubing 10 to lengthen its U-shaped bends
may affect all three parameters. On this record, the Examiner does not
appear to consider the net effect to the efficiency of Collins' heat transfer
unit due to the proposed modification.
We determine that the Examiner's finding that the modification of
Collins' heat transfer unit in view of Hahn's teachings would have improved
5
Appeal2018-009085
Application 12/715,072
heat transfer efficiency is speculative and therefore, inadequately supported.
Moreover, the Examiner fails to rely on Page, Paulman, Vleggaar, and
AAP A in any manner which would remedy this deficiency. Thus, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1--4, 7-9, 12-15, 17, 19, and 25-
29.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 7-9,
12-15, 17, 19, and 25-29.
REVERSED
6