Ex Parte Brunschwiler et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 30, 2012

11598497 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/598,497 11/13/2006 Thomas J. Brunschwiler CH920050013US1 9344
7590 07/31/2012
Anne Vachon Dougherty
3173 Cedar Road
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
EXAMINER
WALBERG, TERESA J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3785
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte THOMAS J. BRUNSCHWILER, URS KLOTER,
RYAN JOESPH LINDERMAN, BRUNO MICHEL, and
HUGO E. ROTHUIZEN
____________________

Appeal 2010-001610
Application 11/598,497
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
BENJAMIN D.M. WOOD, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-001610
Application 11/598,497

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1 and 3-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chu (US
5,269,372, issued Dec. 14, 1993), Gruber (US 5,388,635, issued Feb. 14,
1995), and Messina (US 5,309,319, issued May 3, 1994). Claim 2 was
cancelled. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
appealed subject matter.
1. An impingement cooling device comprising:
at least a first level structure adjacent an
impingement gap, the impingement gap being
located between the cooling device and at least one
heat source to be cooled, the first level structure
comprising:
a layer of substantially parallel inlets and
outlets in a distributed array adjacent the
impingement gap for supplying and removing fluid
for impinging directly on at least one surface of the
heat source, wherein outlet diameters are 25-30%
larger than inlet diameters,
a channel layer of interdigitated branched
channels to supply the inlets with a fluid and drain
the outlets of the fluid, said channels being formed
by at least one lateral wall separating inlet and
outlet paths in the channel layer; and
a second level structure in contact with the
first level structure, wherein the second level
structure comprises a scaled replica of the first
level structure, wherein the second level structure
is larger than the first level structure by a
Appeal 2010-001610
Application 11/598,497

3
predetermined factor selected to optimize fluid
flow.
Independent claim 19 is directed to a cooling system comprising an
impingement cooling device similar to that recited in claim 1. Independent
claim 20 is directed to a method for transferring heat away from a heat
source comprising steps of providing an impingement cooling device similar
to that recited in claim 1, and impinging coolant fluid through the
impingement cooling device and onto the heat source.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found Chu discloses an impingement cooling device
including a first level structure (plate 10) comprising a layer of substantially
parallel inlets (supply conduits 17) and outlets (return conduits 18) adjacent
an impingement gap, and a layer of interdigitated branched channels to
supply the inlets with a fluid and drain the outlets of fluid. (Ans. 3, see also
Chu col. 3, ll. 62-64, col. 4, ll. 23-27, Figs. 1, 2). The Examiner found Chu
does not disclose, inter alia, a second level structure comprising a scaled
replica of the first level structure, which is larger than the first level structure
by a predetermined factor. (Ans. 4).
The Examiner found Gruber discloses a cooling device including a
first level structure, and a second level structure in contact with the first
level structure and larger than the first level structure by a predetermined
factor. (Ans. 5). The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious
in view of Gruber to provide a second level structure comprising a scaled
replica of the first level structure, and being larger than the first level
structure by a predetermined factor for the cooling system of Chu "to
improve the fluid distribution to the points of cooling." (Ans. 6). The
Appeal 2010-001610
Application 11/598,497

4
Examiner stated that Figure 2 of Gruber shows "second and third levels of
branching structures (from 28 to 30 to 32). The term 'scaled' in this context
is interpreted to mean changed in size. Gruber et al[.] shows each level of
the branching becoming smaller, or being scaled, as it approached the
surface to be cooled." (Ans. 9).
Appellants contend that Gruber does not teach or suggest the claim
limitation, "a second level structure in contact with the first level structure,
wherein the second level structure comprises a scaled replica of the first
level structure, wherein the second level structure is larger than the first level
structure by a predetermined factor selected to optimize fluid flow." (App.
Br. 20-21). Appellants state that the claim recites that the second level
structure is larger than the first level structure, and also that the second level
structure is a "scaled replica" of the first level structure. (Reply Br. 10).
Appellants contend that "recitation of a scaled replica is clearly not intended
to simply mean changed in size, but accurately describes the invention as
depicted in the original Fig. 2 with features exactly replicated at a consistent
scale factor." (Id.). Appellants contend that Figure 2 of Gruber is only a
"schematic representation of the topology of fluid flow" (citing Gruber col.
8, ll. 55-56), showing the fluid flow path through the illustrated flow
passages. (App. Br. 21). We note Gruber further describes that Figure 2
shows only one plane. (Gruber col. 9, ll. 13-14). We agree with Appellants
that the Examiner did not provide a finding supported by a preponderance of
the evidence that Gruber discloses a second level structure that is both larger
and a "scaled replica" of a first level structure, much less the claimed first
level structure. As such, the Examiner has not established that the combined
Appeal 2010-001610
Application 11/598,497

5
teachings of Chu, Gruber, and Messina would result in an impingement
cooling device that includes every limitation recited in claim 1. Hence, we
do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 3-18 which depend from
claim 1.
We also do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 19 and 20
for reasons similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-20 is reversed.

REVERSED

MP