RITTAL GMBH & CO. KG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 23, 2020

2019006397 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2020)

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.
15/565,397 10/09/2017 Christoph SCHREIER 16416D-000037-US-NP 2039
27572 7590 12/23/2020
HARNESS DICKEY (TROY)
5445 Corporate Dr.
Suite 200
Troy, MI 48098
EXAMINER
PATEL, MUKUNDBHAI G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2835
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2020 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):
sto-ptomail@hdp.com
troymailroom@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHRISTOPH SCHREIER, STEFAN EIBACH,
CHRISTOPH REITZ, STEFFEN WAGNER, and MICHELE VALLANI
____________

Appeal 2019-006397
Application 15/565,397
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.

SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 11–18. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies RITTAL GMBH & CO. KG as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-006397
Application 15/565,397

2
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to an electrical enclosure arrangement. Spec.
¶ 2. According to the Specification, known positioning of a cooling device
between separate electrical enclosures increases space and installation cost,
and necessitates providing an externally located busbar to connect the
enclosures. Id. ¶ 4. The Specification describes an arrangement in which
two electrical enclosures are separated by a cooling device which houses the
busbar connection. Id. ¶¶ 6, 8. Claim 11 is the sole independent claim on
appeal and reads as follows:
11. An electrical enclosure arrangement comprising:
a first electrical enclosure having upright side walls;
a second electrical enclosure having upright side walls;
and
a cooling device located between the first electrical
enclosure and the second electrical enclosure; the cooling
device having upright side walls adjacent the side walls of the
first electrical enclosure and the second electrical enclosure;
opposite side walls of the cooling device having aligned
openings; a busbar transfer area in the cooling device having at
least one busbar extending from the first electrical enclosure to
the second electrical enclosure through one of the aligned
openings in one side wall of the cooling device and through an
opposite aligned opening in another side wall; a hot air intake
opening in the cooling device for receiving hot air from the first
and second electrical enclosures, with the cooling device
blowing cooled air back into the first and second electrical
enclosures..
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims Appendix).

Appeal 2019-006397
Application 15/565,397

3
REJECTION
Claims 11–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Eriksson2 and Murakami.3

OPINION
Appellant presents arguments addressing claim 11 and does not
separately argue any other claim. We select claim 11 as representative of
the rejected claims. Each of claims 12–18 stands or falls with claim 11.
Relevant to Appellant’s arguments on appeal, the Examiner finds
Eriksson discloses a plurality of electrical enclosures connected by a busbar
and an end-located cooling enclosure. Final Act. 2–3 (citing Eriksson Fig.
1). The Examiner acknowledges Eriksson does not disclose the cooling
enclosure being positioned between two electrical enclosures such that the
busbar passes through the cooling enclosure. Id. at 3. However, the
Examiner finds Murakami discloses positioning a cooling enclosure between
and servicing adjoining electrical enclosures. Id. In light of the foregoing
disclosures, the Examiner determines one of ordinary skill would have had a
reason to re-position Eriksson’s cooling enclosure between adjoining
electrical enclosures to improve cooling efficiency and equalize cooling air
distribution. Id. at 4.
We reproduce Eriksson’s Figure 1 below.

2 US 5,481,429, issued January 2, 1996.
3 US 7,447,022 B2, issued November 4, 2008.
Appeal 2019-006397
Application 15/565,397

4

Eriksson’s Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of a series of electrically
connected cubicles adjoining an end-unit air treatment cubicle.

Eriksson’s depicted arrangement includes apparatus cubicles 1a–1d
containing electric equipment. Eriksson 4:40–51. Apparatus cubicles 1a–1d
are electrically interconnected by busbars 3. Id. Air treatment unit 2 is
“housed in a cubicle with the same exterior as the apparatus cubicles 1a–1d.”
Id.
Murakami also discloses a plurality of electronic equipment
enclosures serviced by a cooling apparatus. Murakami 1:61–65.
Murakami’s Figure 1 is reproduced below.

Appeal 2019-006397
Application 15/565,397

5
Murakami’s Figure 1 is a schematic top view of a cooling enclosure located
between adjoining electronic equipment enclosures.

As shown in Murakami’s Figure 1, Murakami discloses electronic
equipment racks 104, 106 adjoining opposite sides of cooling rack 102, such
that heated air from equipment racks 104, 106 is received, cooled, and
returned by cooling rack 102. Murakami 2:44–54.
Appellant argues Eriksson’s cooling device is not located between
first and second electrical enclosures as is called for in claim 11. Appeal Br.
5. Appellant similarly argues Eriksson does not provide a busbar transfer
area in the cooling device. Reply Br. 2. Each of these arguments disregards
the Examiner’s reliance on the combined disclosures of Eriksson and
Murakami. The fact that Eriksson does not independently teach that which
the Examiner determines would have been obvious from the collective
teachings of Eriksson and Murakami does not identify error in the
Examiner’s rejection.
Appellant also argues Eriksson’s busbars are disclosed as being
enclosed by busbar boxes whereas, according to Appellant, “the busbar
transfer area of the present invention corresponds to an open space with the
busbars extending therethrough.” Id. at 7. Claim 11 recites “a busbar
transfer area in the cooling device.” We find no language in claim 11 that
would exclude busbar boxes. Appellant’s argument concerning features not
recited in the claims does not demonstrate reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection.
Lastly, Appellant argues Murakami provides no teaching regarding
busbars and, for that reason, one skilled in the art would not have been
motivated to combine Eriksson and Murakami. Appeal Br. 8. However, the
Appeal 2019-006397
Application 15/565,397

6
Examiner relies on Eriksson, not Murakami, for evidence regarding busbars
interconnecting the electronic enclosures. The Examiner finds one skilled in
the art would have adopted Murakami’s cooling cabinet positioning in
Erikkson’s arrangement “to improve cooling efficiency by providing [the]
shortest path to cool air and return hot air” and to provide “equal distribution
of cooling air” to the electronic enclosures. Final Act. 4. Eriksson supports
the Examiner’s finding in that regard. See Eriksson 5:53–56 (“It is
important that the air flow through each cubicle 1a–1d can be controlled and
influenced to avoid that any cubicle in the series receives too small an air
flow or that back flows occur.”). Appellant does not address the Examiner’s
articulated reason for combining the disclosures of Eriksson and Murakami.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not persuade us of
reversible error. The Examiner’s rejection is sustained.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 11–18 is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
11–18 103 Eriksson,
Murakami
11–18

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