Ex Parte Wolfe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2016

12487709 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2016)

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.
12/487,709 06/19/2009 Edward Wolfe IV 15491-069 (E07095 US-1) 7752
80711 7590 09/20/2016
BGL/Ann Arbor
524 South Main Street
Suite 200
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
EXAMINER
SCHERMERHORN, JON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2016 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 EDWARD WOLFE IV, PRASAD SHRIPAD KADLE,
CARRIE M. KOWSKY, and JAMES ALAN BRIGHT
____________

Appeal 2014-006958
Application 12/487,709
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

The Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 10–12.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We AFFIRM.

1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as “Delphi Technologies,
Inc.” (Appeal Br. 2.)
2 “Claims 1–9 and 13–20 were canceled” in an amendment submitted on
October 21, 2013, “in response to the [Final] Office Action.” (Appeal
Br. 5.)
Appeal 2014-006958
Application 12/487,709

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants’ invention “relates to an internal heat exchanger
assembly for an automotive air conditioning system.” (Spec. ¶ 1.)
Illustrative Claim3
10. An internal heat exchanger assembly for an air
conditioning, comprising:
a housing having a first end, a second end axially
opposed to said first end, and an interior surface therebetween
defining a substantially cylindrical cavity having a cylindrical
cavity diameter about an axis;
a tube helically disposed about said axis within said
cylindrical cavity to define a helical coil outer diameter,
wherein tube includes first and second tube ends extending in
opposing directions substantially parallel to said axis beyond
said first and second ends of said housing;
a first end cap adapted to seal said first end of said
housing, wherein said first end cap includes a first port in
hydraulic communication with said cylindrical cavity and a first
tube coupling adapted to support said first tube end; and
a second end cap adapted to seal said second end of said
housing, wherein said second end cap includes a second port in
hydraulic communication with said cylindrical cavity and a
second tube coupling adapted to support said second tube end;
and
an elongated strip coaxially disposed within said
cylindrical cavity extending from said first end to said second
end, wherein said elongated strip is twisted along said axis;
wherein said helical coiled tube includes a plurality of
adjacent coils having a predetermined pitch defining a gap
between adjacent coils;
wherein said elongated strip includes opposing edges
having a plurality of radially extending fingers defining a
double helix; and

3 This illustrative claim is quoted from the Claims Appendix (“Claims
App.”) set forth on pages 14–15 of the Appeal Brief.
Appeal 2014-006958
Application 12/487,709

3
wherein each of said fingers includes two opposing sides
substantially perpendicular to said axis abutting said adjacent
coils, thereby inhibiting lateral movement of coils.

References
Malcosky US 3,875,759 Apr. 8, 1975
Dewulf US 4,286,140 Aug. 25, 1981
Kite US 2006/0124285 A1 June 15, 2006
Kidwell US 2008/0209933 A1 Sept. 4, 2008

Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 10–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kite, Kidwell, Malcosky, and Dewulf.

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 10 requires 1) “an elongated strip” to be “coaxially
disclosed within [a] cylindrical cavity,” 2) the elongated strip to be “twisted
along [an] axis,” 3) the elongated strip to include “opposing edges,” 4) the
opposing edges to have “a plurality of radially extending fingers,” 5) the
plurality of radially extending fingers to “define[e] a double helix,” 6) each
of the fingers to include “two opposing sides,” 7) the opposing sides to be
“substantially perpendicular to said axis,” and 8) the opposing sides to be
“abutting [adjacent coils] thereby inhibiting lateral movement of coils.”
(Claims App., see also Appeal Br. 15.) The Examiner provides an annotated
drawing mapping each of these features (except for feature 5) to elements in
Malcosky’s Figure 1. (See Answer 5, 7.)
With respect to features 1–3, the Appellants do not point, with
particularity, to flaws in the Examiner’s finding that Malcosky discloses an
elongated strip coaxially disclosed within a cylindrical cavity, twisted along
Appeal 2014-006958
Application 12/487,709

4
an axis, and including opposing edges. (See Appeal Br. 10–12, see also
Reply Br. 2–3.)
With respect to feature 4, the Appellants argue that Malcosky teaches
vanes, not fingers. (See Appeal Br. 11.) We are not persuaded by this
argument because a dictionary definition for the word “finger” is “any of
various projecting parts of machines.” (http://www.dictionary.com
/browse/finger (last visited Sept. 17, 2016)). As such, we agree with the
Examiner that “absent any additional claimed structure or special definition”
(Answer 8), “the end regions of [Malcosky’s] vanes can be read as fingers”
(Final Action 5).
With respect to feature 5, the Appellants argue that a “double helix” is
not shown or suggested by Malcosky. (See Reply Br. 2.) We are not
persuaded by this argument because the Examiner relies upon Kidwell to
teach a double helix. (See Answer 5; see also Kidwell ¶ 125.) The
Appellants do not adequately address why the combined teachings of the
prior art do not show or suggest a plurality of radially extending fingers
defining a double helix.
With respect to features 6 and 7, the Appellants question how the
opposing sides of Malcosky’s fingers “can be combined” with the fingers (5)
of Kite’s heat exchanger assembly. (Reply Br. 3.) We are not persuaded by
this argument because the Examiner finds that Malcosky, alone, discloses
fingers (i.e., the end regions of its vanes) that each include two opposing
sides substantially perpendicular to the pertinent axis. (See Answer 5, 7.)
Thus, the rejection does not require the combination of Malcosky’s opposing
sides with Kite’s fingers 5.
Appeal 2014-006958
Application 12/487,709

5
With respect to feature 8, the Appellants argue that Malcosky’s vanes,
“if equated to fingers, are not abutting the coils as called for in claim 10.”
(Appeal Br. 11.) We are not persuaded by this argument because, as
arrowed by the Examiner in the annotated drawing, Malcosky’s vanes touch
top and/or bottom borders of the coils. (See Answer 5, 7.)
The Appellants also argue that Malcosky’s heat exchanger “does not
permit the lateral flow of fluid through the cavity” and is not bendable “into
an arch or semi-circular shape for packaging.” (Appeal Br. 11–12.) We are
not persuaded by these arguments because they do not correspond to
limitations in the claim language. Independent claim 10 does not require
lateral flow through the cavity; and independent claim 10 does not require a
bendable structure.
Accordingly, the Appellants do not establish that the Examiner errs in
determining that the heat exchanger assembly recited in independent
claim 10 would have been obvious over the applied prior art references.
Claim 11 depends from independent claim 10 and requires that “each
of said radially extending fingers includes a distal end abutting [the] interior
surface of [a] housing.” (Claims App.) Claim 12 depends from claim 11
and requires that the elongated strip “includes an edge portion substantially
parallel to said axis between two adjacent extending fingers, wherein said
edge portion abuts said coil, thereby inhibiting radial movement of coils
toward said axis.” (Id.) As shown in the annotated drawing, the Examiner
also finds that these features (i.e., features 9 and 10) are present in
Malcosky’s heat exchanger. (See Answer 7.) The Appellants do not point,
with particularity, to flaws in these findings by the Examiner.
Appeal 2014-006958
Application 12/487,709

6
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10–12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kite, Kidwell, Malcosky, and
Dewulf.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10–12.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED