Ex Parte Smythe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 3, 2016

13361668 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/361,668 01/30/2012
28997 7590 05/05/2016
HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, PLC
7700 Bonhomme, Suite 400
ST. LOUIS, MO 63105
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert Michael Smythe
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.
9062N-000490-US-COB 7535
EXAMINER
PILLAY, DEVINA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1755
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/05/2016 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):
stldocket@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte
ROBERT MICHAEL SMYTHE, JEFFREY GERARD HERSHBERGER,
and RICHARD F. HILL 1
Appeal2014-007266
Application 13/361,668
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-20 and 26-30. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Laird Technologies, Inc. is identified as the Real Party in Interest. App.
Br. 4.
Appeal2014-007266
Application 13/361,668
Appellants claim a thermoelectric assembly 400 comprising a
substantially rigid thermally conductive layer 414, multiple thermoelectric
modules 402 coupled to this layer, and multiple hinge regions 406 defined
between adjacent ones of the thermoelectric modules on the layer thereby
allowing each of the modules to be movable relative to an adjacent module
(independent claim 26, Figs. 12-13). Appellants also claim an embodiment
wherein the thermally conductive layer is substantially contiguous and is
scored between adjacent modules to permit the layer to be plastically
deformed (independent claim 1 ). Finally, Appellants claim an assembly
wherein an articulated lower substrate 414 is mechanically and electrically
coupled to thermoelectric elements thereby defining multiple thermoelectric
modules on the articulated lower substrate (remaining independent claim 10,
Figs. 12-13).
A copy of claims 1, l 0, and 26, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A thermoelectric assembly comprising:
a plurality of thermoelectric modules, each of said
thermoelectric modules including a substantially rigid upper
laminate, a substantially rigid lower laminate, and a plurality of
thermoelectric elements disposed generally between the upper
and lower laminates;
a substantially contiguous, substantially rigid, thermally
conductive layer, the thermally conductive layer mechanically
connected to each of said thermoelectric modules and scored
between adjacent thermoelectric modules to permit the
thermally conductive layer to be consistently plastically
deformed between adjacent thermoelectric modules.
10. An articulated thermoelectric assembly comprising:
2
Appeal2014-007266
Application 13/361,668
a plurality of rigid upper laminates;
a plurality of thermoelectric elements mechanically and
electrically coupled to each upper laminate;
an articulated lower substrate mechanically and
electrically coupled to the thermoelectric elements;
wherein the plurality of rigid upper laminates, the
plurality of thermoelectric elements, and the articulated lower
substrate define multiple distinct electrically independent
thermoelectric modules on the articulated lower substrate.
26. A thermoelectric assembly comprising:
a substantially rigid thermally conductive layer;
multiple thermoelectric modules coupled to the thermally
conductive layer; and
multiple hinge regions defined between adjacent ones of
the thermoelectric modules on the thermally conductive layer to
thereby allow each of the thermoelectric modules on the
thermally conductive layer to be moved to a desired position
relative to an adjacent thermoelectric module prior to operation
of the thermoelectric modules.
App. Br. 19-20, 22 (Claims Appendix).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)/(e), the Examiner rejects claims 26, 27, and
29 as anticipated by Lofy (US 2009/0025770 Al, published January 29,
2009) (Final Action 2-3).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects as unpatentable:
claims 1-8 over Lofy (id. at 5-7);
claims 9 and 30 over Lofy in view of Yoshida (6,112,525, issued
September 5, 2000) (id. at 8 and 12); and
claims 10-20 and 28 over Lofy in view of Shah (US 2005/0087221
Al, published April 28, 2005) (id. at 8-12).
3
Appeal2014-007266
Application 13/361,668
Concerning the § 102 rejection of independent claim 26, the Examiner
finds that Figure 18E of Lofy discloses the claimed thermally conductive
layer at 1870, multiple thermoelectric modules, and multiple hinge regions
at 1872 (Final Action 2-3; Ans. 13).
Appellants argue that Lofy does not disclose "multiple []
thermoelectric modules coupled to a common thermally conductive layer
and separated by multiple hinge regions" (App. Br. 9).
Appellants' characterization of claim 26 as requiring multiple
thermoelectric modules coupled to "a common thermally conductive layer"
(id.) is consistent with their disclosure of multiple modules 402 coupled to a
single continuous thermally conductive layer 414 (see, e.g., Figs. 12-13). In
contrast, Lofy discloses forming thermal expansion joints 1872 "by
including separate (or non-continuous) thermal conductive members 1870"
(ii 138; see also Fig. 18E). The Examiner does not explain why it would be
reasonable and consistent with Appellants' disclosure to interpret the
thermally conductive layer limitation of claim 26 as satisfied by Lofy's
separate, non-continuous members 1870.
For this reason, the § 102 rejection of claims 26, 27, and 29 will not
be sustained.
As for the § 103 rejections of independent claims 1 and 10, the
Examiner refers to Lofy' s Figure 20 and finds that elements 2010
correspond to the thermally conductive layer of claim 1 (Final Action 5;
4
Appeal2014-007266
Application 13/361,668
Ans. 16) and that elements 2010, 2020, and/or 2040 correspond to the lower
substrate of claim 10 (Final Action 8-9; Ans. 19).
Appellants contest these rejections by again arguing that Lofy does
not disclose multiple thermoelectric modules on a common thermally
conductive layer or substrate (App. Br. 13 and 15).
Elements 2010, 2020, and 2040 are shown in Figure 20 of Lofy as a
plurality of non-continuous layers separated by a gap 2030. As above, the
Examiner does not explain why it is reasonable and consistent with
Appellants' disclosure to consider these non-continuous layers to satisfy the
"substantially contiguous, substantially rigid, thermally conductive layer" of
claim 1 or the "articulated lower substrate" of claim 10.
This deficiency of the§ 103 rejections is not supplied by the
Examiner's conclusion that, in view of Lofy's Figure 19 disclosure
regarding polyimide insulating layer 1930, it would have been obvious to
modify the upper and lower laminates of Lofy' s Figure 20 to be "rigid
segmented laminates joined with a flexible polyimide joint" (Final Action 6
and 9). Even if such a modification were made, the Examiner has failed to
explain how the resulting polyimide layer or substrate would be thermally
conductive as required by claim 1 or electrically coupled to thermoelectric
elements as required by claim 10.
For these reasons, we also will not sustain the Examiner's § 103
rejections.
5
Appeal2014-007266
Application 13/361,668
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
6