Ex Parte Schmidt

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 20, 2010

11119564 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 20, 2010)

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.
11/119,564 05/02/2005 Wayde R. Schmidt 67097-230; EH-11536 2379
26096 7590 09/20/2010
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
YOUNG, NATASHA E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1797
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte WAYDE R. SCHMIDT
____________________

Appeal 2009-012715
Application 11/119,564
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.

TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
I. STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1, 9, 11-12, and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tonkovich (US 6,616,909, issued Sep. 9, 2003) in
view of Dullien (WO 02/091083 A1, pub. Oct. 17, 2002; English Equivalent

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-012715
Application 11/119,564

2
US 2004/0116288 A1, pub. Jun. 17, 2004) and further reject claim 19 over
the above prior art references further in view of Manzanec (US
2004/0076562 A1, pub. Apr. 22, 2004). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The invention relates to a micro heat exchanger with a thermally
conductive porous network of microchannel structures (Spec. ¶¶ [0001] and
[0006-07]). Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A micro heat exchanger system comprising:
a heat exchanger structure which defines a first flow path
and a second flow path operable to transfer thermal energy
between a first fluid flowing through said first flow path and a
second fluid flowing through said second flow path; and
a thermally conductive porous network located within
said first flow path said thermally conductive porous network
including a symmetric repeatable cubic structure.

II. DISCUSSION
The dispositive issue is: Does the evidence support the Examiner’s
determination that the prior art (Tonkovich and/or Dullien) discloses a
“symmetric repeatable cubic structure” as claimed?
We answer this question in the negative.
The Specification discloses a symmetric repeatable cubic structure as
a repeated structure in the basic form of a cube, i.e., a structure with six
equal faces where the adjacent faces intersect at right angles. For instance,
Figure 7 (referred to as Fig. 7a and 7A in Spec.) and Figure 7c depict an
open cubic structure having open square sides 20 intersecting adjacent open
square sides 20 at the required right angles.
Appeal 2009-012715
Application 11/119,564

3
Figures 7 and 7c are reproduced below:

Figure 7 is a general perspective view
(Spec. ¶ [0017] referencing Fig. 7a)

Figure 7c is an expanded view of the single cubic structure of Figure 7
(Spec. ¶ [0019] as informed by ¶¶ [0017-18])
Appeal 2009-012715
Application 11/119,564

4

Tonkovich describes porous networks in the form of foams, felts,
wads, combinations of those, pellets, and honeycombs (Tonkovich, col. 6, ll.
6-21).
Dullien describes a monolithic body 1 having a parallelepipedic shape
and including a first network of evenly and homogeneously distributed one-
directional channels 2 and a second network of channels 3 intersecting the
channels of the first network. Channels 3, advantageously, have a cross-
section and density different from those of the channels 2 of the first
network (Dullien, ¶¶ [0057-59]).
The parallelepipedic monolithic body 1 having channels 2 is depicted
in Figure 1. The intersecting channel networks having channels 2 of
different cross-section than the channels 3 are depicted in Figures 3 and 4.
The channels are formed by drilling (Dullien, ¶ [0069]).
Figure 1 of Dullien is reproduced below:

Fig. 1 is a perspective view (Dullien, ¶ [0028])
Figure 2 shows the cross section of channels 2 and is reproduced
below:
Appeal 2009-012715
Application 11/119,564

5

Fig. 2 is a diagrammic view in partial cross-section along plane AA of
Fig. 1 (Dullien, ¶ [0029])

Figure 3 of Dullien is reproduced below:

Fig. 3 is a diagrammic view, in partial cross-section (Dullien, ¶
[0030])
Appeal 2009-012715
Application 11/119,564

6
In the rejection over Tonkovich in view of Dullien, the Examiner
acknowledges that “Tonkovich et al does not disclose said thermally
conductive porous network including a symmetric repeatable cubic
structure,” but states that:
Dullien et al discloses the catalytic support can be made . . . in
forms of a honeycomb, foam, woven fiber or interlocked fiber
(felt) structure in a parallelepipedic shape (see paragraphs 0032-
0036 and figure 4), which is interpreted as a symmetric
repeatable cubic structure.
(Ans. 4.)
However, in responding to Appellant's arguments, the Examiner states
that:
Both Tonkovich et al and Dullien et al meet the definition
of open cubes cited in the specification in paragraphs 0034-
0035 (see Tonkovich et al figure and column 6, lines 6-36),
where the honeycomb structure may have pores in the shape of
square or diamonds and (see Dullien et al figures 3-4 and
paragraphs 0032-0036) parallelepipedic is interpreted as open
cube.
(Ans. 8.)
As a first matter, we agree with the Examiner’s finding in the
rejection that Tonkovich does not describe a porous network having a
“symmetric repeatable cubic structure” as claimed. We do not find any
portion of Tonkovich describing cubic structures of any type. Column 6,
lines 6-36 describe honeycombs, but honeycombs do not have a repeatable
cubic structure, they have a honeycomb structure, i.e. repeating hexagonic
structure.
As a second matter, the Examiner refers to Dullien as disclosing forms
of a honeycomb and other structures “in a parallelepipedic shape” and
interprets that parallelepipedic shape as a “symmetric repeatable cubic
Appeal 2009-012715
Application 11/119,564

7
structure,” but the parallelpipedic shape of Dullien is the entire monolithic
body, not a repeatable structure of the conductive porous network.
As a third matter, paragraphs [0032-36] of Dullien only describe the
Figure 2 structure of parallel channels in the monolithic parallelepipedic
body 1 of Figure 1. The Examiner has not explained how the parallel
channels, which are drilled holes, form a cubic structure. While Dullien
further discloses drilled channels 3 intersecting drilled channels 2, the
Examiner has not explained how that further structure results in the
“symmetric repeatable cubic structure” required by the claims.
On this record, the evidence relied upon by the Examiner fails to
support the Examiner’s determination that the prior art (Tonkovich
and/Dullien) discloses or suggests a “symmetric repeatable cubic structure”
as claimed.
III. CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we do not sustain the rejections maintained
by the Examiner.
IV. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

cam

CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM MI 48009