WEBASTO SEDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 17, 202014907796 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2020) 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. 14/907,796 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation