Kevin Mercer et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 23, 201914710158 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 14/710,158 05/12/2015 Kevin Mercer 72731US02 (U301615US2) 6327 87059 7590 10/23/2019 Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier 20 Church Street, 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 EXAMINER NGUYEN, NINH H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/23/2019 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@cantorcolburn.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte KEVIN MERCER, ASAD M. SARDAR, and BARRY W. LEE __________________ Appeal 2018-008693 Application 14/710,158 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before JAMES P. CALVE, BRETT C. MARTIN, and WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Office Action rejecting claims 1, 2, 4–9, 12–17, and 20. Claims 3, 10, 11, 18, and 19 are cancelled. See Supp. Appeal Br. (filed Apr. 12, 2018) at 2–4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Carrier Corporation. Br. 3. Appeal 2018-008693 Application 14/710,158 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 8, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. An acoustic treatment for an indoor HVAC component comprising: an inner liner; at least one aperture formed through the inner liner; an acoustic absorber positioned adjacent the inner liner; a gap, including a width dimension, formed between the inner liner and the acoustic absorber; and a rail extending through the inner liner. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 4–8, 12–16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by King (US 3,537,544, iss. June 11, 1968).2 Claims 2, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over King. ANALYSIS Anticipation of Claims 1, 4–8, 12–16, and 20 by King The Examiner finds that King discloses an acoustic treatment for a component including an inner liner (perforated disc member 36), at least one aperture (sectional perforations 42), an acoustic absorber (sound absorbing disc 72) positioned adjacent the inner liner with a gap formed therebetween, and a rail (annular rib 52) extending through the inner liner 36 by separating planar portions of the liner. Final Act. 4. The Examiner also finds that the claimed rail functions as a base to attach other elements, and King’s rib 52 acts as a rail by supporting bracket 66 and acoustic absorber 72. Ans. 4. 2 The rejection also includes claims 11 and 19, which were cancelled by an Amendment filed February 21, 2018. Appeal 2018-008693 Application 14/710,158 3 Appellant argues that the claims require “a rail extending through the inner liner” and the downwardly formed rib 52 of disk 36 does not extend through disc 36. Appeal Br. 7–8.3 Appellant argues that even if disc 36 is an “inner liner” and annular rib 52 is “a rail,” rib 52 is a downwardly curved portion of disc 36. It does not extend through disc 36. Id. at 7–9, 11. The Examiner’s finding that King’s annular rib 52 corresponds to “a rail extending through the inner liner,” as recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 16, is an unreasonably broad interpretation. An ordinary meaning of “extending through” includes “to stretch out in distance, space, or time” (Definition of extend by Merriam-Webster at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extend (accessed Oct. 9, 2019)) and “to indicate passage from one end or boundary to another” (Definition of through by Merriam-Webster at http://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/through (accessed Oct. 9, 2019)). This meaning is consistent with the claim language, which recites “a rail extending through the inner liner” and “at least one aperture formed through the inner liner.” Both limitations convey that the rail and aperture are elements that pass entirely through the inner liner, i.e., from one side of the inner liner to the other side of the inner liner. This meaning is consistent with the Specification, which describes an embodiment in which “the inner liner 122 is not contiguous” because “the inner liner 122 includes a rail 130 formed therethrough.” Spec. ¶ 17. In addition, the “inner liner 122 includes at least one aperture 132 extending therethrough” such that “[t]he at least one aperture 132 is configured to allow sound waves to pass through the inner liner 122.” Id. ¶ 18. 3 Refers to the Appeal Brief that was filed February 21, 2018. Appeal 2018-008693 Application 14/710,158 4 Appellant illustrates this configuration in Figure 2 reproduced below. Figures 2 is a schematic front view of an acoustic treatment for an indoor HVAC component. Spec. ¶ 10. Figure 2 illustrates rail 130 as an element that extends through inner liner 122 and separates inner liner 122 into non-contiguous portions. Id. ¶ 17. In contrast to “a rail extending through the inner liner,” King forms disc member 36 “as a sheet metal stamping” with flat portion 30 and rim portion 40, which includes “a downwardly formed annular rib 52.” King, 1:55–65. Figure 1 of King, reproduced below, illustrates disc member 36. Appeal 2018-008693 Application 14/710,158 5 Figure 1 above illustrates disc member 36 formed with flat portion 38 and rim portion 40, which “has a downwardly formed annular rib 52.” Id. at 1:55–65. As illustrated in Figure 1, disc 36 is a unitary member comprising flat portions 30, 40 and annular rib 52. Rib 52 is not a separate element that extends through disc member 36, as claimed, because rib 52 is formed as a part of unitary disc member 36. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 16, or their respective dependent claims 4–7, 12–15, and 20. Unpatentability of Claims 2, 9, and 17 over King Claims 2, 9, and 17 depend respectively from claims 1, 8, and 16 and recite that “the width dimension is less than or equal to approximately 15 millimeters.” The Examiner’s determination that this feature is an obvious matter of design choice (Final Act. 5) does not cure the deficiencies of King discussed above as to claims 1, 8, and 16. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 9, and 17. CONCLUSION We reverse the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4–9, 12–17, and 20. Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference Affirmed Reversed 1, 4–8, 12–16, 20 102(a)(1) King 1, 4–8, 12–16, 20 2, 9, 17 103 King 2, 9, 17 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4–9, 12– 17, 20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation