Ex Parte Wadle et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

13263166 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017)

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.
13/263,166 10/06/2011 Stephen M. Wadle PA-0010020-US-AA 8372
87059 7590 03/02/2017
Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
ZERPHEY, CHRISTOPHER R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN M. WADLE, ROBERT K. NEWTON,
PETER F. MCNAMEE, and GEORGE C. BOYER
Appeal 2015-002680
Application 13/263,166
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, JAMES P. CALVE, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Stephen M. Wadle et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the final rejection of claims 1—7, 9, and 16. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2015-002680
Application 13/263,166
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to an apparatus for
dispensing a semi-frozen product. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative:
1. A semi-frozen product dispensing apparatus having at least
one freezing barrel defining a freezing chamber having an inlet
at one end for receiving a supply of product and an outlet, a
product dispensing valve operatively associated with the outlet
of the at least one freezing barrel for dispensing semi-frozen
product, and a refrigeration system for circulating chilled
refrigerant in heat exchange relationship with the product
within the freezing chamber;
said freezing barrel having an inner cylinder bounding the
freezing chamber and extending longitudinally along a central
axis and a longitudinally extending outer cylinder disposed
coaxially with and circumscribing in radially spaced
relationship said inner cylinder, characterized in that said inner
cylinder has an outer surface comprising a plurality of channels
disposed at circumferentially spaced intervals in alternating
relationship with a plurality of fins about the circumference of
said inner cylinder;
wherein each channel of said plurality of channels defines a
flow passage having a cross-sectional flow area having a
hydraulic diameter in the range of about 0.02 inch to 0.10 inch.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejects:
(i) claims 1—7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Schwitters (US 6,253,573 Bl, issued July 3, 2001) in view of Johnson
(US 6,082,123, issued July 4, 2000); and
2
Appeal 2015-002680
Application 13/263,166
(ii) claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Schwitters in view of Johnson and Schlosser (US 2006/0288725 Al,
published Dec. 28, 2006).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—7 and 9—Obviousness—Schwitters/Johnson
Appellants argue claims 1—7 as a group, with no arguments for the
separate patentability of any of these claims. We take claim 1 as
representative, and claims 2—7 and 9 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Schwitters discloses a semi-frozen product
dispensing apparatus having all features set forth in claim 1, with the
exception of a product dispensing valve, and a lack of an explicit disclosure
of a hydraulic diameter of the channels between adjacent fins and between
the outer and inner cylinders. Final Act. 4—5. The Examiner relies on
Johnson as disclosing a product dispensing valve, and concludes that it
would have been obvious to provide such a valve on the Schwitters
apparatus. Id. at 4. Appellants do not traverse that finding or conclusion.
See 'Qx., passim.
The Examiner finds, with respect to the hydraulic diameter of the
Schwitters channels, that Schwitters provides an “idea” as to what the
hydraulic diameter of its channels should be, citing to column 7, lines 1—12,
which sets forth parameters allowing a value for the hydraulic diameter of
channels illustrated in Figure 6 to be calculated, and notes that a value of
0.11 inches is yielded by the appropriate calculation. Final Act. 5. The
Examiner, further noting Schwitters’ disclosure that increasing the surface
area of heat transfer, which can be obtained by reducing the hydraulic
diameter of the channels and providing more channels in the same amount of
3
Appeal 2015-002680
Application 13/263,166
space, will increase the rate of heat transfer. Id. The Examiner thus
concludes that it would have been obvious to have sized the channels of
Schwitters to have a hydraulic diameter of 0.0625 inches, in order to
increase channel surface area and bring about increased heat transfer. Id.
The Examiner additionally points out, in this regard, that the cited passage of
Schwitters evidences that the hydraulic diameter of the channels is a result-
effective variable that may be optimized by a person of ordinary skill in the
art through routine experimentation. Id. at 10.
Appellants principally argue that the Examiner errs in relying on the
parameter values presented at column 7, lines 1—12, for calculating the
hydraulic diameter for the channels disclosed in the embodiment in
Schwitters that correspond to the claimed dispenser apparatus. Br. 4.
Appellants acknowledge that Figures 8—11, cited by the Examiner in the
rejection, illustrate an apparatus having fins and channels arranged as recited
in claim 1, but that the cited disclosure at column 7 is directed to an
apparatus shown in Figures 6 and 7 that has fins and channels oriented
differently to those shown in Figures 8—11. Id. Appellants argue that there
is no disclosure in Schwitters that the same sizes as are disclosed for the
Figure 6 and 7 embodiment would be used for the embodiment shown in
Figures 8—11. Id.
The Examiner acknowledges that the dimensions set forth at column
7, lines 1—12, are directed to a different embodiment than the embodiment of
Figures 8—11, cited to as disclosing the claimed structural elements. Ans. 9.1
1 Notwithstanding Appellants’ argument that there is no disclosure of
commonality of dimensions between the two embodiments, Schwitters
discloses that at least the height of the fins could be the same height of 14
4
Appeal 2015-002680
Application 13/263,166
The Examiner’s position is instead that the hydraulic diameter calculated
from those dimensions provide an “idea” or guidance as to appropriate
hydraulic diameters for dispensing units of this general type, and that a
person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to reduce the hydraulic
diameter of the channels to provide an increase in heat transfer rate. Id.
Schwitters explicitly states, with respect to the disclosed parameter values,
that:
[i]t should be understood however that these dimensions are only
examples, and may be altered in accordance with, and under the
theory that the more surface area exposed to the refrigerant, the
higher the efficiency and the more heat conduction possible from
freezing tube 30 to the fins and thus to the refrigerant.
Schwitters, col. 7,11. 7—12.
The Examiner’s position that hydraulic diameter is a result-effective
variable is further evidenced in the discussion at column 8, lines 5—11 of
Schwitters, in which two dispensers having fins and channels of the type
claimed (Figures 10 and 11) have different numbers of fins and channels,
which results in, for the dispenser having the greater number of channels, an
increase in heat exchange.
The above disclosures provide support, by a preponderance of the
evidence, for the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to
have sized the channels of Schwitters to have a hydraulic diameter of 0.0625
inches, in order to increase channel surface area and bring about increased
heat transfer and thus increased efficiency. Final Act. 10; Ans. 9—10.
We are thus not apprised of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 1,
and the rejection is sustained. Claims 2—7 fall with claim 1.
inch for both embodiments. See, Schwitters, col. 7,1. 2; col. 8,11. 57—58.
5
Appeal 2015-002680
Application 13/263,166
Appellants’ separate argument as to claim 9 is unpersuasive for the
same reasons set forth above, and the rejection is therefore sustained.
Claim 16— Obviousness—Schwitters/'Johnson/Schlosser
Appellants present the same arguments as are advanced with respect
to claim 1. Accordingly, for the reasons expressed above, the rejection of
independent claim 16 is sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject of claims 1—7, 9, and 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is 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).
AFFIRMED
6