Ex Parte Henriksson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 15, 2018

14404536 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/404,536 11/28/2014
23117 7590 10/17/2018
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Timo Henriksson
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
BHD-1497-155 1096
EXAMINER
LEO, LEONARD R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/17/2018 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMO HENRIKSSON
Appeal2017-010896
Application 14/404,536
Technology Center 3700
Before MEREDITH C. PETRA VICK, NINA A. MEDLOCK, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 6. We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 "The real party in interest is the owner of the subject application, namely
V ahterus Oy." ( Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal2017-010896
Application 14/404,536
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant's claimed invention "relates to a method for repairing a
leaking point in a plate pack of a plate heat exchanger comprised of a plate
pack and a shell surrounding the plate pack." (Appeal Br. 4.)
Sole Independent Claim on Appeal
1. A method for repairing a leaking point in a plate pack of a plate
heat exchanger comprised of a plate pack and a shell surrounding
the plate pack, wherein the method comprises:
(a) providing a plate pack comprised of heat exchange plates
stacked on top of each other, the heat exchange plates
having at least two openings and an outer perimeter which
defines an outer surface of the plate pack, and wherein the
heat exchange plates are attached to each other at least at
the outer perimeter thereof to establish plate pairs such that
the at least two openings of adjacent plate pairs are fluid-
connected to each other and such that the plate pairs define
inner plate-side spaces therebetween and adjacent plate
pairs define outer shell-side spaces therebetween,
(b) arranging the inner plate-side spaces the plate pairs so as
to be fluid-connected with each other through flow
channels formed by the at least two openings of the heat
exchange plates to thereby establish a primary circuit of
the heat exchanger to the inner plate-side spaces of the
plate pairs,
( c) arranging the outer shell-side plate spaces between the
plate pairs so as to be fluid-connected with each other
through the outer surface of the plate pack to thereby
establish a secondary circuit of the heat exchanger in the
outer shell-side spaces between adjacent plate pairs,
( d) opening an end of the shell so as to allow access to and an
identification of a leaking point in the plate pack;
( e) closing a respective one of the outer shell-side spaces
between adjacent plate pairs of the plate pack which is
associated with the leaking point of the plate pack
identified in step ( d) by:
2
Appeal2017-010896
Application 14/404,536
(i) positioning a separate repair strip on the entire outer
perimeter of the plate pack within the respective one
of the outer shell-side spaces between the plate pairs
on the outer perimeter of the plate pack associated
with the leaking point so as to close the respective
one of the outer shell-side spaces between the
adjacent plate pairs associated with the leaking
point, and
(ii) sealing the respective one of the outer shell-side
spaces between the adjacent plate pairs associated
with the leaking point by welding the separate repair
strip to the heat exchange plates of the adjacent plate
pairs around its entire outer perimeter to thereby
provide a repaired plate pack; and thereafter
(f) closing the end of the shell with the repaired plate pack
therewithin.
Rejection2
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Mathur3 in view ofUchiyama. 4 (Final Action 2.)
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites "[a] method for repairing a leaking point"
in a "heat exchanger" (Appeal Br., Claims App.); and the Examiner
determines that this method would have been obvious over the combined
teachings of Mathur and Uchiyama (see Final Action 2). The Appellant
2 The Final Action includes a rejection under 35 U.S.C. ,r 112 and lists
claims 2, 9, and 10 in the heading of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection. (See
Final Action 3.) The record reflects that the § 112 rejection has been
withdrawn, and that claims 2, 9, and 10 have been cancelled. (See Advisory
Action mailed January 1, 2017.)
3 US 2003/0000688 Al, published January 2, 2003. Quotations from this
reference will omit bolding and/or italicizing of drawing-related numerals.
4 JP 357037154A issued March 1, 1982.
3
Appeal2017-010896
Application 14/404,536
argues that this determination by the Examiner is not supported sufficiently
by the record. (See Appeal Br. 6-9.) We are persuaded by the Appellant's
position.
In the leak-repair method recited in independent claim 1, the heat
exchanger includes "a plate pack" that is comprised of "heat exchange
plates" that "are attached to each other" to "establish plate pairs." (Appeal
Br., Claims App.) "[O]uter shell-side spaces between the plate pairs" are
arranged "so as to be fluid-connected with each other through the outer
surface of the plate pack to thereby establish a secondary circuit of the heat
exchanger." (Id.). In other words, the secondary-fluid circuit "is formed by
spaces between adjacent plate pairs." (Final Action 3.)
The Examiner finds that Mathur discloses a heat exchanger 10 having
the "plate pack" and the "outer shell-side spaces" recited in independent
claim 1. (Final Action 3.) This prior art heat exchanger 10 is shown in our
below annotated versions of Mathur' s Figures 2 and 9.
spaces 58
4
Appeal2017-010896
Application 14/404,536
The above annotated drawings show that Mathur' s heat exchanger 10
comprises "a series of cassettes 12 enclosed within a housing" to form a
"plate pack" of cassettes. (Mathur ,r,r 24, 29.) Each cassette 12 consists of
"a pair of heat exchanger plates" that are "connected to each other," and
"[s]paces 58" are "located adjacent the periphery of each of the
cassettes 12." (Id. ,r,r 28, 30.) The spaces 58 are fluidly connected with each
other via chambers 34 and 36 (see id. ,r 26); and a "secondary fluid [BJ
flows" (id. i-f25) through these spaces 58 (see id., Figs 1, 2, 9). In other
words, in Mathur's heat exchanger 10, the secondary-fluid circuit is formed
by the spaces 58 between adjacent plate pairs.
In the claimed leak-repair method, "one of the outer shell-side spaces"
is "associated with the leaking point of the plate pack." (Appeal Br., Claims
App.) Background information provided by the Appellant conveys that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have known that, in a plate-type heat
exchanger, a problematic leaking point could be "formed in the flow
channels passing through the plate pack." (Spec. 2, 11. 4--8.) The Examiner
implicates that, in Mathur' s heat exchanger 10, such a problematic leaking
point could be associated with a space 58. (See Final Action 4.)
The leak-repair method recited in independent claim 1 comprises the
step of "sealing" the leak-associated outer shell-side space by "welding [a]
separate repair strip to the heat exchange plates of the adjacent plate pairs
around its entire outer perimeter to thereby provide a repaired plate pack."
(Appeal Br., Claims App.) Thus, in the claimed leak-repair method, a space
through which the heat-exchange fluid (i.e., the secondary fluid) originally
flowed, is sealed.
5
Appeal2017-010896
Application 14/404,536
The Examiner finds that Uchiyama discloses a technique for
"repairing a leak in a space between two surfaces." (Final Action 3.) As
shown in our below annotated versions ofUchiyama's Figures 1 and 2, this
reference is concerned with the repair of a partially-damaged gasket located
between two housing parts.
As shown in the above annotated drawings, "[i]n equipment such as [a] heat
exchanger, the connected part of [a] shell plate is provided with [a]
gasket 14 between a tube plate 6 and a shell flange 7 and [is] fastened with
bolts 11." (Uchiyama, Translated Abstract.) In Uchiyama's illustrated heat
exchanger, the primary and secondary fluids, and the surfaces for
exchanging heat therebetween, are located within the housing parts sealed by
the gasket 14.
Uchiyama's leak-repair method addresses the situation "[w]hen the
gasket 14 is partially damaged." (Uchiyama, Translated Abstract.) To
repair this partially-damaged gasket 14, "a new gasket 15 is inserted into the
6
Appeal2017-010896
Application 14/404,536
damaged part from the connection periphery between the tube plate 6 and
the shell flange 7 without removing the bolts 11." (Id.; see also Fig. 4.) 5
Thus, in Uchiyama's leak-repair method, a space through which a heat-
exchange fluid originally flowed is not sealed. Rather, a leak-associated
space, previously sealed completely by gasket 14, is re-sealed to prevent
escape of a heat-exchange fluid.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to employ
Uchiyama's method to repair leakage in Mathur's heat exchanger 10. (See
Final Action 3.) The Examiner explains that this determination "is based on
the premise" of Mathur's plate pack "being repaired by arranging a separate
strip into the space [58] between leaking plate pairs on the whole length of
their perimeters for the purpose of repairing the leakage there between."
(Answer 5.) According to the Examiner, Uchiyama discloses a "known
technique" for repairing leakage between two surfaces, and Mathur's heat
exchanger 10 is a "known device ready for improvement" in this regard.
(Final Action 3.)6
The Appellant argues that "one of ordinary skill in this art would not
adopt the teachings of Uchiyama in order to repair a leaking point of
5 After insertion of the gasket-repair piece 15, "[a] wire 16 is fastened
around the periphery of the new and old gaskets 14 and 15 so that the old
gasket 14 may not move out." (Uchiyama, Translated Abstract see also
Fig. 5.) Thereafter, "[a] jig 17 is attached to the connection periphery
between the tube plate 6 and the shell flange 7," and "[a] curing agent is
injected into the periphery of the wire 16 from an injection nozzle 18." (Id.)
6 See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007) (In order for
claimed subject matter to be considered non-obvious, it must involve more
than "the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready
for the improvement"). See also MPEP §2143 Rationale (D).
7
Appeal2017-010896
Application 14/404,536
adjacent plates in a plate pack thereof." (Appeal Br. 6.) The Appellant does
not dispute that the one of ordinary skill in the art might use Uchiyama's
technique to repair a leak in Mathur's heat exchanger. (See id. 6-7.) But,
according to the Appellant, this to-be-repaired leak would be associated with
a previously sealed space through which a fluid of the heat exchanger never
flowed, such as the flanges of housing parts. (See id.) Put another way, the
Appellant contends that it would not have been obvious to use Uchiyama's
leak-repair technique to seal a space through which a heat-exchange fluid
originally flowed.
We agree with the Appellant that, here, the Examiner does not explain
adequately why one of ordinary skill in the art would infer that Uchiyama's
method could be used to repair leakages in fluid-flow-through spaces of a
heat exchanger, such as a leak-associated space 58 in Mathur's heat
exchanger 10. (See Answer 4--6.) Inasmuch as the Examiner's reasoning
rests upon Mathur's heat exchanger 10 and Uchiyama's illustrated heat
exchanger being "similar devices" (id. at 4), such similarity only implicates
the obviousness of using Uchiyama's technique to repair leaks in the
corresponding structure of Mathur' s heat exchanger 10. And, as argued by
the Appellant (see Appeal Br. 6-7), this corresponding structure would not
include the fluid-flow-through spaces 58 of Mathur's heat exchanger 10.
Moreover, the Examiner does not explain adequately what
"improvement" would be gained by applying Uchiyama's technique to
repair a leak-associated space 58 in Mathur's heat exchanger 10. For
example, the Examiner says that the proposed combination of the prior art
would be "for the purpose of repairing the leakage" between two surfaces
"without disassembly as recognized by Uchiyama." (Final Action 3.) But
8
Appeal2017-010896
Application 14/404,536
as argued by the Appellant (see Appeal Br. 7), the "disassembly" recognized
by Uchiyama involves disassembly of housing parts enclosing the heat-
exchanging surfaces. (See Uchiyama, Abstract.) This alleged improvement
is not affiliated with the claimed method, as it specifically includes the steps
of "opening an end of the shell so as to allow access to and an identification
of a leaking point in the plate pack," and then "closing the end of the shell
with the repaired plate pack therewithin." (Appeal Br., Claims App.)
The Examiner also seems to imply that an "improvement" gained by
the proposed combination of the prior art would be eliminating the step of
"painstakingly determining the exact location of the leakage between the
leaking structures." (Answer 5.) Yet, as argued by the Appellant (see
Appeal Br. 7), Uchiyama's leak-repair technique appears to require this
supposedly painstaking step, so that its gasket-repair piece 15 can be
"inserted into the damaged part" of the circumference of the gasket 14. (See
Uchiyama, Translated Abstract, see also Fig. 4.)
Thus, we are persuaded by the Appellant's position that the Examiner
does not establish sufficiently that independent claim 1 would have been
obvious over the applied art. The Examiner's further findings with respect
to the dependent claims (see Final Action 4) do not compensate for the
shortcomings in the rejection of independent claim 1. We do not, therefore,
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Mathur in view of Uchiyama.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 6.
REVERSED
9