Ex Parte Tang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 12, 201613264744 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/264,744 10/14/2011 22879 7590 05/16/2016 HP Inc. 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR William S. Tang 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. 82837252 2113 EXAMINER GIRARDI, VANESSA MARY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2833 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/16/2016 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): ipa.mail@hp.com barbl@hp.com yvonne.bailey@hp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WILLIAM S. TANG and YANCY CHEN Appeal2014-008341 Application 13/264,744 Technology Center 2800 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejections of claims 1, 2, 4--7, and 9--14, which constitute all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P., Hewlett-Packard Company, and HPQ Holdings, LLC, as the real parties in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-008341 Application 13/264,744 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to generating electricity from wasted heat of an electrical appliance. See Abstract. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitation in italics, is illustrative of the invention: 1. A system for deriving operating electricity for an electrical appliance from wasted heat of said electrical appliance, said system comprising: an electrical appliance with a heat generating component, wherein said heat generating component generates heat as a by- product of other operation of said heat generating component; a thermoelectric device thermally coupled with said heat generating component and configured to thermoelectrically generate electricity from waste heat of said heat generating component, said waste heat generated by said heat generating component during operation of said electrical appliance; a charge storage device electrically coupled with said thermoelectric device and configured to store a portion of said electricity generated by said thermoelectric device; a real-time parasitic component of said electrical appliance, said real-time parasitic component electrically coupled with said thermoelectric device and with said charge storage device, said real-time parasitic component configured to receive a portion of real-time operating electricity for said real- time parasitic component from said thermoelectric device and a portion of parasitic operating electricity for said real-time parasitic component from said charge storage device; and a microturbine coupled with said electrical appliance and configured to generate additional electricity from fluid movement induced by convection via heat radiated from operation of said electrical appliance. App. Br. 11 (emphasis added). 2 Appeal2014-008341 Application 13/264,744 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4--7, and 9--14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Leng et al. (US 2007/0054422 Al; Mar. 15, 2007) and Tadayon et al. (US 6,574,963 Bl; June 10, 2003). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' arguments presented in this appeal. Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer, and highlight the following for emphasis. Claim 1 Appellants assert the limitation "[configured to generate electricity] from fluid movement induced by convection" is not found in the prior art. App. Br. 8-10. Specifically, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding this limitation in Tadayon's disclosure of an electrical energy-generating system, which Appellants contend utilizes "propelling vapor" rather than "fluid movement induced by convection." Id. Tadayon Figure 2, which the Examiner replies upon in rejecting the claim, is reproduced below. 3 Appeal2014-008341 Application 13/264,744 FIG. 2 232 ~ __ _r:! ____ _ Figure 2 illustrates an electrical energy-generating system including an integrated circuit package 218 "that produces heat," Tadayon col. 7, 11. 37- 3 8, thermal interface 222, a hollow chamber base 210, compressor 204, and turbine 206. See Tadayon col. 7, 11. 24--66. According to the disclosure in Tadayon, col. 7, 11. 30-35, the hollow chamber base includes "a fluid 214" and a vapor chamber heat sink 202 "used to conduct heat 213 away from a heat generating device, such as the integrated circuit package 218." See also Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 3. The "fluid 214 exits the heat sink 202 as a vapor 224." Tadayon col. 7, 11. 61---63 (emphasis added); Ans. 2-3. We agree with the Examiner's finding of the disputed claim element in the foregoing Figure 2 and the associated disclosures in Tadayon. Figure 2 illustrates the claimed "fluid movement" by directional arrows showing fluid 214 moving through the chamber base 210 and "exit[ ing] the heat sink 4 Appeal2014-008341 Application 13/264,744 as a vapor."2 Ans. 2-3 (emphasis added); Tadayon col. 7, 11. 61-62. As additionally required in the disputed claim element, Tadayon discloses the fluid movement is "induced by convection," indicated by Tadayon's heat- producing integrated circuit 218 and thermal interface 222, as well as heat sink 202 drawing heat away from the fluid source 214. See Ans. 3; Tadayon Fig. 2, col. 7, 11. 32---62. Finally, as recited in the disputed claim element, Tadayon's disclosure includes a turbine configured to generate electricity (electrical energy 230) "from [the] fluid movement," albeit with additional elements. See id.; see also Tadayon col. 7, 11. 60-66. Appellants' argument is premised upon these additional elements in Tadayon (not recited in the claim, and not relied upon by the Examiner), particularly, the pressurization of the vapor just before reaching the turbine. App. Br. 9. Appellants argue that driving a turbine by pressurized, propelled vapor is not "fluid movement induced by convection." Id. As the Examiner explains, however, Tadayon's vapor pressurization element is an additional teaching of the reference, irrelevant to claim 1. See Ans. 3. Appellants' claim language, "[turbine configured to generate electricity] from fluid movement induced by convection," does not require convection to be the exclusive cause of fluid movement, nor does it require the convection-induced fluid movement directly to drive the turbine. App. Br. 11. Appellants' Specification similarly leaves open the possibility for 2 Vapor is a fluid, so "exiting as a vapor" is further disclosure of fluid movement. See Random House Dictionary http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fluid? &o= 10007 4&s=t; http://www.dictionary.com/browse/vapor? &o= 10007 4&s=t (Last viewed May 4, 2016) (defining "fluid" as "a substance, [such] as a liquid or gas, that is capable of flowing," and defining "vapor" as a gas). 5 Appeal2014-008341 Application 13/264,744 other elements in the system, as it repeatedly refers to the structures disclosed therein as mere "embodiments" that are "example[ s ]," and states that the "claims are not necessarily limited to the specific features or acts described" in the Specification. Spec. i-f 43; see also Spec. i-fi-12---6, 8-23, 27- 42. We, therefore, discern no basis for narrowing the claim in the manner argued by Appellants (i.e., to exclude a turbine configured to generate electricity from fluid movement induced by convection and other causes). See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted) (claims in an application are "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification" and "read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art"). For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner has erred. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim I. The Remaining Claims Appellants do not argue the remaining claims separately, asserting they are patentable for the same reasons as claim 1. App. Br. 6. For the reasons recited above, we sustain the rejection of the remaining claims. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4--7, and 9-14 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2013). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation