Ex Parte Surdeanu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 5, 2017

13424848 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 5, 2017)

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.
13/424,848 03/20/2012 Radu Surdeanu 81374439US03 1850
65913 7590
Intellectual Property and Licensing
NXPB.V.
411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
EXAMINER
ALVARE, PAUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/10/2017 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):
ip. department .u s @ nxp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RADU SURDEANU and DAMIEN LENOBLE
Appeal 2016-002162
Application 13/424,8481
Technology Center 3700
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, MATTHEW S. MEYERS, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 15, and 16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellants, their “invention relates to active thermal
management devices and thermal management methods.” Spec. 12.
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal. Below, we reproduce the
independent claim as illustrative of the appealed claims.
1 According to Appellants, “[t]he real party in interest is . . . NXP B.V.”
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-002162
Application 13/424,848
1. An active thermal management device comprising:
a phase change material unit configured to store thermal
energy;
a first microelectronic mechanical switch configured to
thermally connect the phase change material unit with a first
group of lighting emitting diodes operable as a source of thermal
energy; and
a second microelectronic mechanical switch configured to
thermally connect the phase change material unit to a second
group of lighting emitting diodes operable as a sink of thermal
energy;
wherein the second group of lighting emitting diodes is
different from the first group of light emitting diodes.
REJECTION AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ghoshal (US 6,161,388, iss. Dec. 19, 2000), Chen
(US 5,713,208, iss. Feb. 3, 1998), and Weaver (US 2009/0219726 Al, pub.
Sept. 3, 2009).
ANALYSIS
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in part,
a phase change material unit configured to store thermal
energy;
a first microelectronic mechanical switch configured to
thermally connect the phase change material unit with a first
group of lighting emitting diodes operable as a source of thermal
energy; and
a second microelectronic mechanical switch configured to
thermally connect the phase change material unit to a second
2
Appeal 2016-002162
Application 13/424,848
group of lighting emitting diodes operable as a sink of thermal
energy.
Appeal Br., Claims App. Appellants argue against the Examiner’s rejection,
based on Appellants’ understanding that “it appears that the Examiner is
suggesting to replace [Ghoshal’s] thermo-electric device (20) with the phase
change material as taught by Chen.” Appeal Br. 9. In response, the
Examiner states that Appellants’ understanding is incorrect (Answer 14),
and explains that the Examiner’s proposed combination includes
thermoelectric devices from both Ghoshal and Chen (id. at 14—16). Based
on our review, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner does not provide
an articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning for combining both
Ghoshal and Chen as explained by the Examiner. See, e.g., Reply Br. 5; See
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[R] ejections on
obviousness 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.”).
As explained by Appellants, “Ghoshal discloses Peltier devices (10
and 12). As is known in the field, heat flow in Peltier devices is controlled
by the direction of current flow.” Reply Br. 7; see also Ghoshal col. 7,11. 8—
15; see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_cooling (“A
Peltier cooler ... is a solid-state active heat pump [that] transfers heat from
one side of the device to the other, with consumption of electrical energy,
depending on the direction of the current. Such an instrument is also called
a Peltier device.”) (Emphases omitted). In particular, Ghoshal’s
thermoelectric device 20, which includes Peltier devices 10 and 12, is
operable to “heat[] hot source 14 and cool[] cold sink 16.” Ghoshal col. 5,
11. 28—29 (emphases omitted). Conversely, the Examiner relies on Chen to
3
Appeal 2016-002162
Application 13/424,848
teach a phase change material. Final Action 4 (“Chen teaches a
thermoelectric cooling apparatus (10) containing a eutectic material (34).
Chen states, ‘As is known, a eutectic material changes phase between its
liquid and solid phases at the eutectic temperature.’”). As explained by
Appellants, “[t]he direction of heat flow in a phase change material is not
controlled by the direction of current flow but rather simply by temperature
differentials.” Reply Br. 8. ft is not clear to us why one would combine
Ghoshal and Chen to provide an arrangement in which, for example,
Ghoshal’s Peltier devices are operable to heat hot source 14 and cool cold
sink 16, while Chen’s phase change material constantly exchanges heat
between hot source 14 and cold sink 16, perhaps even in a direction opposite
to Ghoshal’s Peltier devices (i.e., from hot source 14 to cold sink 16 if hot
source 14 is cooler than cold sink 16).
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 1. Further, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 15 and 16 that depend from claim 1, inasmuch as the Examiner does
not demonstrate that any other reference remedies the deficiency in the
rejection of claim 1, discussed above.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,15, and 16.
REVERSED
4