Ex Parte Ptasienski et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 201310941609 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/941,609 09/15/2004 Kevin Ptasienski 13378-78 7702 110407 7590 02/28/2013 Detroit Office/Brinks Hofer Gilson and Lione P.O. BOX 10395 Chicago, IL 60610 EXAMINER JENNISON, BRIAN W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/28/2013 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 KEVIN PTASIENSKI, JAMES MCMILLIN, ROLANDO O. JULIANO, and GREGORY J. LAMMERT ____________________ Appeal 2011-002574 Application 10/941,609 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges. WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-002574 Application 10/941,609 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-3, 6-9, 12, 14, and 18-22. Claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, and 15-17 have been withdrawn. An oral hearing in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.47 was held on February 13, 2013. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to an adaptable layered electrical heater that maintains a relatively constant temperature distribution in the presence of local heat sinks. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A constant voltage heater system comprising: a heating target defining a primary heating direction along which a heating target power gradient occurs; and a layered heater disposed proximate the heating target, the layered heater comprising: at least one dielectric layer; at least one resistive layer formed on the dielectric layer and defining a single combination of: a parallel circuit, the parallel circuit comprising a plurality of resistive traces; the resistive traces comprising a positive temperature coefficient material having a relatively high TCR [temperature coefficient of resistance]; and the resistive traces being oriented approximately perpendicular to the primary heating direction; and at least one protective layer formed on the resistive layer, wherein the resistive traces are responsive to the heating target power gradient such that the resistive traces output additional power proximate a higher heat sink and less power proximate a lower heat sink along the primary heating direction. Appeal 2011-002574 Application 10/941,609 3 REFERENCES Stanzel Juliano Kallgren West Provancha Godwin US 4,733,057 US 5,973,296 US 5,973,298 US 6,215,388 B1 US 6,242,722 B1 US 6,305,923 B1 Mar. 22, 1988 Oct. 26, 1999 Oct. 26, 1999 Apr. 10, 2001 Jun. 5, 2001 Oct. 23, 2001 Smith Sopory Oguma US 2002/0124847 A1 US 2003/0052121 A1 US 2003/0230566 A1 Sep. 12, 2002 Mar. 20, 2003 Dec. 18, 2003 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 7-9, 12, 14, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(b) as anticipated by Godwin. Ans. 5. Claims 1, 2, 7-9, 12, 14, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Godwin. Ans. 11. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Godwin and Sopory. Ans. 12. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Godwin, Stanzel, and Juliano. Ans. 13. Claims 6 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Oguma, Smith, Juliano, and West. Ans. 15. Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Provancha and Kallgren. Ans. 20. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, 7-9, 12, 14, and 20 – Anticipation – Godwin The claims subject to this rejection are drawn to layered heaters comprising, inter alia, a resistive layer having multiple resistive traces that are (1) electrically connected in parallel; (2) made of a material having a positive and relatively large Thermal Coefficient of Resistivity (TCR); and Appeal 2011-002574 Application 10/941,609 4 (3) oriented approximately perpendicular to the primary heating direction. App. Br. 24-33 (Claims Appx.). The Examiner found, inter alia, that Godwin discloses a layered resistive heater having two resistive traces (figure 23a, elements 231 and 232), each with separate positive and negative terminals. Ans. 5-7. The Examiner inferred from this fact, and from the fact that figure 23b depicts a “series circuit configuration,” that traces 231 and 232 would be connected in parallel. Ans. 7, 24. Appellants dispute this finding, arguing that Godwin’s figure 23a depicts two resistive traces that are arranged as “two separate series circuits” rather than the claimed parallel circuit. App. Br. 16. The Examiner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Godwin discloses a plurality of traces connected in parallel. First, while Godwin’s figure 23a depicts two traces, each with positive and negative terminals, there is no express disclosure that they are to be connected in parallel, i.e., that the two positive terminals would be connected to the same voltage source and the two negative terminals would be connected to ground. That Godwin discloses an alternative “series circuit configuration,” and that traces 231 and 232 have separate terminals, is insufficient to constitute a teaching that traces 231 and 232 are connected in parallel, because it is possible that the traces are to be connected to separate voltage sources – two series circuits – as Appellants argue. The Examiner points to Godwin’s figure 16a as additional evidence that Godwin teaches multiple traces connected in a parallel configuration. According to the Examiner, figure 16a shows traces 231 and 232 connected via “two independent connection contacts (161)” to mold control processor (1000). Ans. 24. But, again, the specific structure of the mold control Appeal 2011-002574 Application 10/941,609 5 processor is unknown so it cannot be ruled out that the mold control processor supplies two independent voltages to the traces. Because we are not persuaded that Godwin discloses a layered heater with a resistive layer comprised of a plurality of resistive traces connected in parallel, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 7-9, 12, 14, and 20 as anticipated by Godwin. Claims 1, 2, 7-9, 12, 14, and 20 – Obviousness – Godwin The Examiner found that “[t]o the degree it can be argued that Godwin et al. does not disclose ‘the resistive traces being oriented approximately perpendicular to the primary heating direction,’” parallel and perpendicular traces, as depicted in figures 23a and 23b, respectively, “were art recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made.” Ans. 11-12. Therefore, the Examiner determined that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute resistive traces in a perpendicular orientation to the primary heating direction for resistive traces in a parallel orientation to the primary heating direction in order to provide the same heating effect.” Id. at 12. This analysis does not address or cure the deficiency noted above. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 7-9, 12, 14, and 20 as obvious over Godwin. Claim 3 – Obviousness – Godwin and Sopory Sopory is not relied upon to cure the deficiency in Godwin noted above. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3. Claim 19 – Obviousness – Godwin, Stanzel, and Juliano Independent claim 19 recites a layered heater comprising, inter alia, a resistive layer with first and second resistive traces, each trace having Appeal 2011-002574 Application 10/941,609 6 separate positive and negative terminal pads formed at opposite ends of the traces, wherein the first and second positive terminal pads are electrically connected and the first and second negative terminal pads are electrically connected to form a parallel circuit, and a dielectric layer that covers the first and second traces but not their terminal pads. App. Br. 30-31 (Claims Appx.). The Examiner relies on Stanzel to teach a parallel circuit with first and second traces having positive terminal pads electrically connected together and negative terminal pads electrically connected together. Ans. 14. In this regard the Examiner found that Stanzel teaches a “sheet heater with electrodes (6) extending along the heater elements (4) and extending outward [from] the heater elements (4) to positive and negative corresponding connection elements (2).” Id. (citing Stanzel, col. 5, ll. 56-68, fig. 1a). The Examiner further relied on Juliano to teach dielectric layers formed over the traces but not the terminal pads; and on Godwin to teach the remaining limitations. Id. at 14-15. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to combine Godwin with Stanzel “to allow for all electrical connections to occur on one side of the element, thereby providing the element to be configured to fit multiple applications,” and with Juliano to “increase[e] the versatility of temperature heating gradients of a heated nozzle.” Id. at 15. Appellants argue that “Stanzel et al. addresses a completely different problem to be solved,” and therefore a person of ordinary skill would not have combined Stanzel with Godwin. App. Br. 21. Likewise, Appellants assert that Juliano et al. “is simply limited to a thick film heater with a single resistive trace and does not appreciate the problem of cold spots with parallel circuit configurations.” Id. But neither of these arguments Appeal 2011-002574 Application 10/941,609 7 addresses the Examiner’s express rationales for combining the references, much less explain why they are erroneous. Moreover, it is not necessary that the prior art references relied upon for an obviousness rejection address the same problem that the application addresses; rather “any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19. Claims 6 and 18 – Obviousness – Oguma, Smith, Juliano, and West Claim 6 is drawn to a layered heater for a heating target having at least two heating directions, the heater comprising a “continuous resistive layer” made with a material having a positive and relatively high TCR, and which is sandwiched between two conductive layers, each conductive layer comprising a terminal tab. App. Br. 25 (Claims Appx.). Claim 18 is similar. Id. at 29-30. The Examiner relied on Oguma to teach, inter alia, the “continuous resistive layer.” Ans. 16. Appellants respond that Oguma “does not disclose a continuous resistive layer, and instead, discloses only discrete resister patterns.” App. Br. 22 (citing Oguma, fig. 7, elements 131, 132, and 133). According to Appellants, “[a] continuous resistive layer, as this term is used in the present application, is to be construed to mean ‘without individual resistive traces.’” Id. (citing Spec. para. [0075]). We agree with Appellants that paragraph [[0075] of the Specification defines “continuous resistive layer” to exclude discrete resister patterns or traces, such as those taught by Oguma, and refers instead to a uniform layer or sheet. We therefore do not sustain this rejection. Appeal 2011-002574 Application 10/941,609 8 Claims 21 and 22 – Obviousness – Provancha and Kallgren Claims 21 and 22 are drawn to a layered heater for a circular heating target having a radial primary heating direction, comprising a plurality of resistive traces that are (1) electrically connected in parallel, (2) made of a material having a positive and relatively large TCR, and (3) oriented approximately perpendicular to the primary heating direction. App. Br. 32- 33 (Claims Appx.). The Examiner found that Provancha discloses all of the claim limitations except for traces made of a positive and relatively high TCR material; the Examiner therefore relied on Kallgren for this teaching. Ans. 20-22. The Examiner determined that it: would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the resistant thin film of the Provancha et al. with the PTC resistant thin film of Kallgren to prevent thermal run away, thereby creating a safer heater system. Id. at 22. Appellants argue that “neither Provancha et al. nor Kallgren et al. disclose any such benefit/results of this unique, single combination for the resistive layer/traces, they merely disclose, independently, various aspects of the claimed layered heater.” App. Br. 23. Again, this does not address the Examiner’s express rationale for combining the two references, or explain why that rationale is erroneous. We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred. DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the following rejections: Claims 1, 2, 7-9, 12, 14, and 20 as anticipated by Godwin; Claims 1, 2, 7-9, 12, 14, and 20 as unpatentable over Godwin; Appeal 2011-002574 Application 10/941,609 9 Claim 3 as unpatentable over Godwin and Sopory; and Claims 6 and 18 as unpatentable over Oguma, Smith, Juliano, and West. For the above reasons, we affirm the following rejections: Claim 19 as unpatentable over Godwin, Stanzel, and Juliano; and Claims 21 and 22 as unpatentable over Provancha and Kallgren. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation