WEBASTO SE

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 17, 2020

14907796 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 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.
14/907,796 01/26/2016 Volodymyr Ilchenko 153718.00026 1786
26710 7590 04/17/2020
QUARLES & BRADY LLP
ATTN: IP DOCKET
411 E. WISCONSIN AVENUE
SUITE 2350
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-4426
EXAMINER
LAU, JASON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3762
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/17/2020 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):
pat-dept@quarles.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VOLODYMYR ILCHENKO, VITALI DELL,
MARTIN ZOSKE, and KLAUS MÖSL

Appeal 2019-004989
Application 14/907,796
Technology Center 3700

Before ANTON W. FETTING, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, 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 decision to reject claims 1–5, 8, 10–12, and 15. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Under the Appeal Brief section heading Real Party in
Interest, Appellant identifies “Webasto SE.” Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-004989
Application 14/907,796

2
According to Appellant, the “invention relates to a burner
arrangement for a mobile heater operated with liquid fuel.” Spec. 1, ll. 3–4.
Below, we reproduce claim 1:
1. A burner arrangement for a mobile heater operated
with liquid fuel, said arrangement comprising:
a combustion chamber converting fuel with combustion
air in a flaming combustion, said combustion chamber extending
along a longitudinal axis in a main flow direction;
a pre-mixing chamber in which a flame does not form
during regular heating operation, arranged upstream of the
combustion chamber, formed separate from the combustion
chamber and generating a fuel-combustion air-mixture, said pre-
mixing chamber including a side wall tapering in the main flow
direction;
a fuel evaporation surface arranged in the pre-mixing
chamber and provided by an absorbent material evaporator body
being arranged in the premixing chamber;
a fuel supply supplying liquid fuel to said pre-mixing
chamber; and
a first combustion air supply having a swirl body and
supplying a combustion air flow into the pre-mixing chamber
with a swirl such that the combustion air is guided along the fuel
evaporation surface with a tangential flow component, wherein a
neck portion is formed at a transition from the pre-mixing
chamber to the combustion chamber at which a flow cross-
section abruptly widens in the main flow direction.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 1, 3–5, 10, 12, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable based on Langen2 and Graves3;

2 Langen et al. US 5,707,227, issued Jan. 13, 1998 “(Langen”).
3 Graves et al., US 2005/0241319 A1, published Nov. 3, 2005 (“Graves”).
Appeal 2019-004989
Application 14/907,796

3
II. Claims 2 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable based on
Langen, Graves, and Gaysert4; and
III. Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable based on
Langen, Graves, and Monro5.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I—Obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 10, 12, and 15
Based on our review of the record, the Examiner does not support
adequately that it would have been obvious to combine Langen and Graves
as the Examiner proposes. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 10, 12, and 15.
Specifically, we agree with Appellant that “[e]ven if the combined
references did disclose all of the elements of [the] claim[s] . . . , the
Examiner has not established a logical reason to combine the references.”
Appeal Br. 8; see also id. 9–12.
With regard to the references, Langen is directed to a vehicle heater’s
burner. See, e.g., Langen, Title, Abstract. In Langen,
[the] burner . . . includes a blower for supplying the combustion
air, a combustion chamber having a lining which is porous at
least in some areas on part of its inner surface, a means for
supplying fuel to the porous area of the lining[,] and an electric
glow plug for igniting the fuel or fuel-air mixture evaporated
from the lining.

Id., Abstract. Langen explains that

4 Gaysert et al., DE 4243712 C1, published June 16, 1994 (“Gaysert”). We
note that throughout the record, the Examiner and Appellant refer to this
document as “Goetz.”
5 Monro, US 5,365,865, issued Nov, 22, 1994.
Appeal 2019-004989
Application 14/907,796

4
[t]he burner . . . is intended for use in vehicle heaters,
especially vehicle heaters for installation in passenger cars,
trucks, ships, campers, trailer-type recreational vehicles,
bulldozers, etc. In the case of installation of the vehicle heaters
in motor vehicles driven by internal combustion engines, the
heater can be connected into the liquid circuit, which is usually
provided for cooling the internal combustion engine and for
heating the interior space of the vehicle. In general, the vehicle
heater may be either a so-called water heater, which releases the
heat generated onto a liquid circuit, or a so-called air heater,
which releases the heat generated directly as a warm air flow.
Gasoline or diesel fuel is primarily used as the fuel.

Id. col. 2, ll. 36–48.
In contrast, Graves “relates to a fuel/air mixer for a combustor” that
may be “used in [a] gas turbine engine[] of [a] high performance aircraft.”
Graves ¶¶ 2–3. In Graves,
[a] fuel injector system provides an air assist fuel
nozzle[,] which includes a fuel shroud and an air portion. Air
passes around the fuel shroud to air jets in the air portion to
provide a focused application of air directly onto a fuel spray
from each of a multiple of main fuel jets[,] to impart additional
velocity to the fuel as it is flowing out of the fuel nozzle.

Id., Abstract.
In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007),
the Supreme Court indicated that the analysis supporting an obviousness
rejection should be made explicit. Further, the Federal Circuit stated that
“rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory
statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR, 550
U.S. at 418.
Appeal 2019-004989
Application 14/907,796

5
According to the Examiner,
[i]t would have been obvious . . . to modify Langen to . . .
comprise . . . [a] pre-mixing chamber side wall [that] tapers in
the main flow direction; a first combustion air supply having a
swirl body ([i.e.,] the premixing chamber sidewall of Langen is
modified to be a swirl body and the fuel evaporation surface
would be positioned on . . . the swirl body) and supplying a
combustion air flow into the pre-mixing chamber with a swirl
such that the combustion air is guided along the fuel
evaporation surface with a tangential flow component[, as
Graves discloses].

Final Action 3. The Examiner determines that this modification of Langen
would “promote evaporation of the liquid fuel, promote mixing of the fuel
with air for more complete combustion, and . . . promote flame control.” Id.
at 4 (citation to Graves ¶ 39 omitted).
We do not sustain the rejection, however, because the Examiner does
not adequately support that the proposed modification would result in the
above-stated advantages. First, while Langen’s burner ignites evaporated
fuel, for example to heat a vehicle interior (Langen, Abstract, col. 2,
ll. 43–44), Graves’s system uses “an air assist fuel nozzle” to inject fuel into
a combustor that is part of an aircraft’s gas turbine engine, for example
(Graves Abstract, ¶¶ 2–3). Thus, it is unsurprising that Graves’s
paragraph 39 does not explain that using components from Graves
“promote[s] evaporation of . . . liquid fuel.” Final Action 3 (citation to
Graves omitted). Consequently, the Examiner does not provide any
evidentiary support, or a sufficient line of reasoning, supporting this
determination.
Further, even if Graves’s paragraph 39 explains that using
components from Graves “promote[s] mixing of the fuel with air for more
Appeal 2019-004989
Application 14/907,796

6
complete combustion, and . . . promote[s] flame control,” the Examiner does
not provide sufficient reason to expect that because such advantages occur in
Graves’s gas-turbine-engine combustor, the same advantages would occur in
Langen’s vehicle-heater burner. There are too many differences between
Grave’s combustor and Langen’s burner for us to determine, without further
explanation or citation to the references by the Examiner, that using
Graves’s components in Langen, as the Examiner proposes, would result in
the advantages stated by the Examiner.

Rejections II and III—Obviousness rejections of claims 2, 8, and 11
Claims 2, 8, and 11 depend from independent claim 1. As discussed
above, we do not sustain claim 1’s rejection. The Examiner does not rely on
either Gaysert or Monro to disclose anything that would remedy the above
deficiency in claim 1’s rejection. Thus, we also do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejections of these dependent claims.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–5, 8,
10–12, and 15.

Appeal 2019-004989
Application 14/907,796

7
In summary:

REVERSED
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 10,
12, 15
103 Langen, Graves 1, 3–5, 10,
12, 15
2, 8 103 Langen, Graves, Gaysert 2, 8
11 103 Langen, Graves, Monro 11
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 8, 10–
12, 15