Ex Parte MonroeDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 9, 201712757944 (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2017) 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. 12/757,944 04/09/2010 Ronald J. Monroe SR. 3851 70256 7590 05/09/2017 MICHAEL DREW 1814 SmokeRise Summit Stone Mountain, GA 30087 EXAMINER AVILES BOSQUES, ORLANDO E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/09/2017 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RONALD J. MONROE, SR. ____________ Appeal 2015-005969 Application 12/757,944 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and ANTHONY KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judges. KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Ronald J. Monroe, Sr., Appellant, appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1–12, 14–17, 19, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. Appeal 2015-005969 Application 12/757,944 2 Claims 1–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Snavely (US Patent No. 2,093,853, iss. Sept. 21, 1937, hereinafter “Snavely”) and Bate (US Patent No. 222,122, iss. Dec. 2, 1879, hereinafter “Bate”). Claims 6–8, 10–12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Snavely, Bate, and Andros (US Patent No. 2,129,255, iss. Sept. 6, 1938, hereinafter “Andros”). Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Snavely, Bate, Andros, and Bratcher (US 2007/0000277 A1, pub. Jan. 4, 2007, hereinafter “Bratcher”). Claims 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Snavely, Bate, and Crete (US Patent No. 6,843,062 B2, iss. Jan. 18, 2005, hereinafter “Crete”). CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a portable air conditioner. Claim 1, reproduced below, is reflective of the claimed subject matter: 1. A portable air conditioner comprising: a substantially upright housing enclosing a heat-transfer chamber, a loading chamber; a substantially horizontally-disposed removable tray separating said heat-transfer chamber from said loading chamber, having depending from a perimeter thereof at least one substantially vertically-oriented heat-transfer cell comprising an elongated cell housing for retaining a phase- Appeal 2015-005969 Application 12/757,944 3 changeable substance, said elongated cell housing extending substantially within said heat-transfer chamber having an upper open end accessible from an upper region and terminating in a lower closed end, and having at least one venting aperture that places said heat-transfer chamber and said loading chamber in air-flow communication with one another wherein said heat-transfer chamber and said loading chamber are separated from one another except for said at least one venting aperture; at least one air-intake opening for receiving an air flow into said heat-transfer chamber; at least one air-outlet opening for venting air from said heat-transfer chamber; and an air-flow mechanism disposed proximate one of said air-intake opening and said air-outflow opening for urging air into said heat-transfer chamber into contact with said at least one heat-transfer cell and then through said at least one air-outlet opening outwardly of said heat transfer chamber. Br. 8–9 (Claims Appendix) OPINION The Examiner bears the initial burden of factually supporting any prima facie conclusion of obviousness. The key to supporting any prima facie conclusion of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should be made explicit. The Federal Circuit has stated that Appeal 2015-005969 Application 12/757,944 4 “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 decision). Each of Appellant’s independent claims 1, 11, and 17 requires a removable tray separating a heat-transfer chamber from a loading chamber, the tray “having at least one venting aperture that places said heat-transfer chamber and said loading chamber in air-flow communication with one another.” Appeal Br. 8, 10, 12. The Examiner found that “Snavely fails to explicitly teach the removable tray [(tray 33)] having at least one venting aperture as claimed,” but that Bate teaches a partition including at least one venting aperture. Final Act. 3, 7, 10. The Examiner pointed out that “Bate further teaches that this arrangement allows for a smaller quantity of ice required to sufficiently reduce the temperature to any given degree.” Id. at 3, 7; see id. at 10–11. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to include at least one venting aperture in Snavely’s tray 33 that places the heat transfer chamber (refrigerating chamber A) and the loading chamber (chamber B) in air flow communication with one another “in order to maximize cooling capacity for a given amount of heat exchange medium such as ice in view of the teachings of Bate.” Id. at 3–4, 7–8, 11. Appellant argues that Bate attributes the benefit of reduction in the quantity of ice required to provide sufficient cooling (which was relied on by the Examiner as a reason to provide an aperture) not to the aperture, but to the removal of air from refrigerating chamber A by air-pump E. Br. 5 (citing Bate, p. 1, col. 2, ll. 24–35; p. 1, col. 2, l. 50–p. 2, l. 25). Appellant’s Appeal 2015-005969 Application 12/757,944 5 characterization of Bate’s teachings is correct. In particular, Bate teaches that “[i]nasmuch as the attenuated atmosphere within the chamber includes only one-half (more or less) the actual quantity of air that the chamber would contain of the ordinary unattenuated atmosphere, it follows that a proportionately smaller quantity of ice is sufficient to reduce the temperature to any given degree.” Bate, p. 2, col. 1, ll. 16–23.. In reviewing the combination of Snavely and Bate, it is not clear why a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify Snavely to include an aperture. Snavely states that the dry ice refrigerant is sealed and a radiator is used to conduct the heat transfer. Snavely, p. 1, col. 1, l. 24–p. 1, col. 2, l. 11. Snavely’s chamber A is insulated on the enclosing walls, top, and bottom, respectively, and an aperture would run counter to the purpose of Snavely’s insulated chamber. Id., p. 1, col. 1, ll. 24–55. Furthermore, it is not clear how providing an aperture in Snavely’s tray 33 could result in the quantity of air within Snavely’s loading chamber and heat transfer chamber being reduced so that a lesser quantity of ice would be required. Snavely’s heat transfer chamber is open to the atmosphere so that the fan moves air through the ingress and egress openings 35 and 36 provided in the walls of the receptacle through air passage C. Id., p. 1, col. 2, ll. 17–20. Sealing of the passage C, or ingress and egress openings, to allow for the quantity of air to be reduced by half so that a lesser quantity of ice would be required would be counter to the teachings of Snavely. For the above reasons, the reason articulated by the Examiner for combining Snavely and Bate is not supported by a rational underpinning as required in KSR, supra. Moreover, the Examiner does not rely on Andros, Appeal 2015-005969 Application 12/757,944 6 Bratcher, or Crete for any teaching that might make up for the deficiency in the combination of Snavely and Bate. Accordingly, the rejections of independent claims 1, 11, and 17, and their dependent claims 2–10, 12, 14– 16, 19, and 20 are not sustained. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–12, 14–17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation