2020001357 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2020)

United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 21, 2020

2020001357 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 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. 14/616,819 02/09/2015 Lexia Kironn PA34956US; 67097-3153PUS1 9505 54549 7590 10/21/2020 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER FLANIGAN, ALLEN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3763 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/21/2020 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): ptodocket@cgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte LEXIA KIRONN, WENDELL V. TWELVES JR., JOE OTT, and EVAN BUTCHER ____________________ Appeal 2020-001357 Application 14/616,819 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 16, 17, 20–22, 24, and 25. 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. According to Appellant, “United Technologies Corporation is the real party in interest.” Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-001357 Application 14/616,819 2 According to Appellant, the invention is directed “to heat exchanger tubes that have internal features for enhancing thermal exchange.” Spec. ¶ 1. Below, we reproduce independent claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed claims. 1. A heat exchanger article comprising: a hollow monolithic tube that is seamless, the hollow monolithic tube including, a tube wall with an interior surf ace and an exterior surface, the interior surface defines a flow passage through the hollow tube, and a vane cluster in the flow passage, the vane cluster includes a central hub and a plurality of vanes that extend from the tube wall and to the central hub, each of the vanes having an airfoil shape configured to provide a reaction force as fluid flows there over, the airfoil shape defining a rounded leading edge, a tapered trailing edge, and opposed curved sides joining the rounded leading edge and the tapered trailing edge. REJECTION AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 16, 17, 20–22, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Zhu et al. (US 6,481,492 B1, issued Nov. 19, 2002) (“Zhu”), Cao et al. (US 2008/0236803 A1, published Oct. 2, 2008) (“Cao”), Asami (US 4,296,539, issued Oct. 27, 1981), and Romero et al. (US 5,915,463, issued June 29, 1999) (“Romero”). ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “each of the vanes having an airfoil shape configured to provide a reaction force as fluid flows there over, the airfoil shape defining a rounded leading edge, a tapered trailing edge, and opposed curved sides joining the rounded leading edge and the tapered trailing edge.” Appeal Br., Claims App. Appellant argues Appeal 2020-001357 Application 14/616,819 3 that the Examiner’s rejection is in error because the references do not disclose the claimed airfoil shape. Id. at 3–5. Based on our review of the record, however, the Examiner adequately supports the rejection, while Appellant does not persuade us that the Examiner errs. The text of claim 1 recites the claimed airfoil shape is a shape “configured to provide a reaction force as fluid flows there over,” and a shape “defining a rounded leading edge, a tapered trailing edge, and opposed curved sides joining the rounded leading edge and the tapered trailing edge.” Id. at Claims App. As the Examiner indicates, Appellant’s Specification states, in relevant part, that “[a]n airfoil shape is a geometry that provides a reaction force as fluid flows over the airfoil”—thus, the Specification describes the claimed airfoil shape in terms similar to those set forth in claim 1. Answer 6; Spec. ¶ 39; see also Appeal Br. 2 (citing Spec. ¶ 39). Appellant argues that the rejection is in error because “the Examiner’s interpretation is inconsistent with the common understanding of what the reaction force is for an airfoil. The reaction force is typically the aerodynamic lift force perpendicular to the direction of motion.” Appeal Br. 4 (citation to Wikipedia omitted). However, Appellant does not point to any evidence already of record supporting Appellant’s argument, and, consequently, we are left only with unsupported attorney argument. To the extent that a Wikipedia article may be evidence of the proper interpretation of the claim recitation “airfoil shape,” an Appeal Brief “shall not include . . . any new or non-admitted affidavit or other [e]vidence.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(2). Thus, when we properly interpret the claim term “airfoil shape” in view of Appellant’s Specification, the claimed “airfoil shape” is a shape that is “configured to provide a reaction force as fluid flows there Appeal 2020-001357 Application 14/616,819 4 over,” and which “defin[es] a rounded leading edge, a tapered trailing edge, and opposed curved sides joining the rounded leading edge and the tapered trailing edge.” Appeal Br., Claims App. The Examiner adequately supports that “replac[ing] the simple twisted strip baffle of Zhu . . . with the multiple fin member helically twisted baffle of Asami,” and providing “the baffle of Asami . . . with rounded leading/tapered trailing edges on the ends of the vanes as taught by Romero” would have resulted in the claimed airfoil shape—that is, would have resulted in a shape that “provide[s] a reaction force as fluid flows there over” and “defin[es] a rounded leading edge, a tapered trailing edge, and opposed curved sides joining the rounded leading edge and the tapered trailing edge.” Answer 4, 7; Appeal Br., Claims App. Accordingly, Appellant does not show Examiner error, and thus we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1. Appellant does not argue separately against the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 2, 6, 7, 16, 17, 20–22, 24, and 25. Therefore, we also sustain the obviousness rejection of these claims. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s obviousness rejection. Appeal 2020-001357 Application 14/616,819 5 In summary: No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 6, 7, 16, 17, 20–22, 24, 25 103(a) Zhu, Cao, Asami, Romero 1, 2, 6, 7, 16, 17, 20–22, 24, 25