Ex Parte Steinhauser et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 22, 2012

11475534 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2012)

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.
11/475,534 06/27/2006 Louis P. Steinhauser 13378-192 1088
80711 7590 10/22/2012
Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione/Ann Arbor
524 South Main Street
Suite 200
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
EXAMINER
PAIK, SANG YEOP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/22/2012 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 LOUIS P. STEINHAUSER and
KEVIN PTASIENSKI
____________________

Appeal 2010-007276
Application 11/475,534
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-007276
Application 11/475,534
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Louis P. Steinhauser and Kevin Ptasienski (Appellants) appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on
October 10, 2012.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 9, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. A heater system comprising:
a substrate defining a heating surface;
a layered heater formed on the heating surface, the
layered heater defining at least one resistive heating layer;
a grid of nodes having more than two nodes disposed
along the heating surface and in electrical contact with the
resistive heating layer;
a plurality of lead wires connected to the grid of nodes;
a multiplexer in communication with the grid of nodes
through the plurality of lead wires; and
a controller in communication with the multiplexer,
wherein the multiplexer sequences and transmits
resistances from the grid of nodes to the controller, and the
controller controls an amount of power provided to each of the
grid of nodes based on the differences in resistances between
the nodes.
9. A heater system comprising:
an upper substrate;
a lower substrate;
a resistive heating material disposed between the upper
substrate and the lower substrate; and
a voltage source electrically connected to the lower
substrate, wherein the upper substrate operates at a voltage level
different than that of the lower substrate and the resistive
heating material defines a positive temperature coefficient
material such that when a load is placed on the upper substrate,
Appeal 2010-007276
Application 11/475,534
3
the resistive heating material provides for an increase in power
proximate the load.

Evidence
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Kahn
Eck
Moe
Tagashira
Lynam
Coates
US 3,835,434
US 3,953,711
US 5,280,422
US 5,304,784
US 5,808,777
US 6,037,572
Sep. 10, 1974
Apr. 27, 1976
Jan. 18, 1994
Apr. 19, 1994
Sep. 15, 1998
Mar. 14, 2000
Rejections
Appellants request our review of the Examiner’s rejections of:
(1) claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kahn;
(2) claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14-16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Lynam or Eck in view of Moe;
(3) claims 6 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Lynam or Eck in view of Moe and Tagashira; and
(4) claims 13, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lynam or Eck in view of Moe and Coates.
OPINION
Anticipation by Kahn
In contesting this rejection, Appellants argue that Kahn discloses only
a constant voltage, and thus lacks “disclosure of the plates 13 and 14
operating at different voltage levels.” App. Br. 6. This argument is not
persuasive, because claim 9 does not require that the voltage levels change
over time. Kahn’s disclosure of applying a constant voltage (col. 1, ll. 21-
22), such as 110 VAC or 220 VAC (col. 5, ll. 18-19), does not mean that the
Appeal 2010-007276
Application 11/475,534
4
terminals are at the same voltage level. Electricity flows from higher
voltage potential (higher voltage level) to lower voltage potential (lower
voltage level) across the PTC resistor. The terminals of Kahn’s plates, and
thus the plates 13 and 14 themselves, must operate at different voltage levels
for the PTC to operate as a self-regulating heater as disclosed by Kahn.
Appellants also argue that Kahn does not provide a power increase
proximate the load when a load is placed on plates 13 and 14. App. Br. 6.
Given the properties of the PTC resistor body (col. 1, ll. 9-18), and the
disclosed “excellent thermal coupling between the electrically insulated PTC
resistor body and a flat surface of a machine to which it may be mounted”
(col. 4, ll. 38-41), Kahn provides a sound basis for the Examiner’s finding
that “the resistive heating material inherently provides an increase in power
proximate the load as claimed” in claim 9, so as to shift the burden to
Appellants to show that this is not the case. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324,
1327 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have not come forth with any evidence or
technical reasoning to satisfy that burden.
For the above reasons, Appellants’ arguments do not identify error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 as anticipated by Kahn. We sustain the
rejection.
Obviousness based on Lynam or Eck in view of Moe
None of Lynam, Eck, and Moe discloses determining differences in
resistances between nodes of a grid and controlling an amount of power
provided to each of the nodes based on such differences, as required in
independent claims 1, 8, and 10. Indeed, the Examiner does not address this
aspect of the claims or explain how the combined teachings of Lynam and
Moe or the combined teachings of Eck and Moe render obvious a heater
system or method as claimed including these features. Thus, Appellants are
Appeal 2010-007276
Application 11/475,534
5
correct that the combination of Moe with either Lynam or Eck as proposed
by the Examiner would not lead one of ordinary skill in the art to the
claimed invention, and particularly a heater system or method in which the
differences in resistance between the nodes are determined to control the
amount of power provided to a heating surface. See App. Br. 8-9. We do
not sustain the rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14-16, and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lynam or Eck in view of Moe.
Obviousness based on Lynam or Eck in view of Moe and
Tagashira or Coates
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Lynam or Eck in view of Moe and Tagashira, and the
rejection of claims 13, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lynam or Eck in view of Moe and Coates suffer from the same
deficiency as the rejection based on Lynam or Eck in view of Moe. Thus,
we also do not sustain these rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is affirmed as to claim
9 and reversed as to claims 1-8 and 10-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

hh