Ex Parte Taras et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 9, 2018

13988568 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 9, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/988,568 05/21/2013 Michael F. Taras
87059 7590 07/11/2018
Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
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.
56344US02 (U350260US2) 1886
EXAMINER
JONES, GORDON A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/11/2018 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):
usptopatentmail @cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte MICHAEL F. TARAS, ARINDOM JOARDAR,
JACK L. ESFORMES, and KEVIN B. DUNSHEE
Appeal2017-008931
Application 13/988,568
Technology Center 3700
Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 19
and 33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (b).
We affirm.
Appeal2017-008931
Application 13/988,568
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a multiple tube bank flattened tube finned
heat exchanger. Claim 19, reproduced below, with emphasis added, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
19. A heat exchanger comprising:
a first tube bank including at least a first and a second
flattened tube segments extending longitudinally in spaced
parallel relationship;
a second tube bank including at least a first and a second
flattened tube segments extending longitudinally in spaced
parallel relationship, said second tube bank disposed
downstream with respect to airflow over said first tube bank with
a leading edge of the second tube bank spaced from a trailing
edge of the first tube bank; and
a continuous folded plate fin extending between the first
and second flattened tube segments of both of said first tube bank
and said second tube bank;
wherein the air flow passes first transversely across the
flattened tube segments of said first tube bank and then passes
transversely across the flattened tube segments of said second
tube bank, and the refrigerant flows first through a first pass of
the first tube bank, then through a first pass of the second tube
bank, then through a second pass of the second tube bank, and
then through a second pass of the first tube bank;
wherein the first plurality of heat exchange tube segments
of the first pass of the first tube bank collectively define a first
refrigerant flow area, the first plurality of heat exchange tube
segments of the first pass of the second tube bank collectively
define a second refrigerant flow area;
the second plurality of heat exchange tube segments of the
second pass of the second tube bank collectively define a third
refrigerant flow area, and the second plurality of heat exchange
tube segments of the second pass of the first tube bank
collectively define a fourth refrigerant flow area, the respective
refrigerant flow areas becoming progressively larger from the
first refrigerant flow area to the second refrigerant flow area to
the third refrigerant flow area to the fourth refrigerant flow area.
2
Appeal2017-008931
Application 13/988,568
REJECTION
Claims 19 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Shinmura (U.S. 5,086,835), Lee (U.S.
Pub. 2003/0066633) and Berthome 1 (FR 2914407 Al).
OPINION
The Examiner relies on Shinmura as disclosing the basic structure
claimed, but without the refrigerant flow sequence described in the first
limitation emphasized above, or the progressive area increase described in
the second limitation emphasized above. Final Act. 2--4. The Examiner relies
on Lee and Berthome to cure those deficiencies, respectively. Id. at 4--7.
Appellants first argue that Berthome discloses a different refrigerant
flow sequence. App. Br. 4 (reproducing Berthome Figs. 4, 5). Appellants
correctly anticipate the Examiner's response to this argument: that Lee, not
Berthome was cited for this particular teaching. Id. at 4--5; Ans. 2. However,
the only further arguments on this point appear to be premised on Appellants
proposing to incorporate the teachings of Berthome into Shinmura and Lee
in a manner that conflicts with the express teachings of Berthome:
It is important to note th[ at] Berthome provides the larger
refrigerant flow area by increasing the width of a tube bank in
the air flow directions. Figure 4 of Berthome shows one tube
bank having a width Rl less than the width of the other tube bank,
R2.
[Lee2 Fig. 3 omitted]
1 References herein are to the machine translation of record.
2 Appellants incorrectly label figure 3 of Lee as a figure of Shinmura.
3
Appeal2017-008931
Application 13/988,568
If one of tube banks 51 and 52 [ of Lee] was made wider
than the other, then the refrigerant would not travel through
progressively larger refrigerant flow areas.
App. Br. 5 ( emphasis added). The Examiner correctly responds to this issue
by pointing out that it is not the "airflow direction" in which Berthome
teaches it is important to progressively increase the flow area, but the
"refrigerant flow direction". See Ans. 3 ( citing and quoting from Berthome
1: 16-39); see also Berthome 2:26-36. It is undisputed that incorporating
Berthome's teaching of increasing volume in the "refrigerant flow direction"
depicted in the Figure 3A embodiment of Lee, would yield the claimed
subject matter. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that combining Shinmura,
Lee, and Berthome according to their express teachings would yield the
subject matter of claim 19. 3
Appellants' next argument mischaracterizes Berthome' s technique as
teaching "expanding the width" in order to conclude that Berthome' s
3 Additionally, we note, albeit without placing significant reliance on these
facts, that, although an imperfect English translation, Berthome appears to
contemplate a modification whereby area varies among rows, as opposed to
banks, as illustrated in Figure 4. See Berthome 3 :20-21. This, of course,
would make Berthome' s technique even further lend itself to incorporation
into Shinmura and the Figure 3A embodiment of Lee, for example, by
modifying the flow areas of adjacent rows forming the flow paths (Lee 5 la
and 54a; Lee 52a and 53a). We also note, again without significant reliance,
that the tube-group division provided by baffles 16, 26 in the Figure 3A
embodiment of Lee appears, at least from the figure, to depict a
progressively increasing flow area by increasing the number of tubes in
paths 53a and 54a as compared to paths 51a and 52a. Although not expressly
discussed in connection with the Figure 3A embodiment, such an
arrangement, similar in many respects to what the Examiner cited Berthome
for, and Appellants' own preferred embodiment (Fig. 13; Spec para. 45),
would be consistent with Lee's discussion of the progressive decrease in
refrigerant volume, and therefore required flow pipe volume, during cooling.
See, e.g., Lee paras. 107-116; Figs. 16-18A.
4
Appeal2017-008931
Application 13/988,568
technique is inconsistent with vehicular heat exchangers of Shinnmra
because they must operate in limited space. App. Br. 6. However, Berthome
teaches it is the relative width, or more precisely, flow volume, that is
important. Berthome 2:26-27. This does not require increasing the tube size
as Appellants suggest but can also be achieved by reducing the size of tubes
as well, which would make the overall design more compact. See e.g., Lee
Fig. 16; paras. 109-112 (discussing how an embodiment using tube width
variation allows for more compactness, not less). We note that Berthome
recognizes that this could alternatively be achieved by altering the number of
tubes in a pass. See, e.g., Berthome 3 :23-24. Regardless, Berthome clearly
contemplates vehicular usage (Berthome 1 :3) so there appears to be no
factual basis for concluding that Berthome' s teachings would be inapplicable
to vehicular heat exchangers.
Appellants' arguments concerning the rejection of claim 33
demonstrate that Appellants fail to appreciate that the Examiner's rejection
is predicated on combining the teachings of both the embodiments depicted
in respective Figures 2 and 3A of Lee in order to arrive at the claimed
subject matter. App. Br. 7 ("The flow of refrigerant in Figure 2 of Lee is not
equivalent to that recited in claim 33."); see Final Act. 7-12. As the
Examiner correctly points out, Lee expressly suggests such combination.
Ans. 4--8 ( citing Lee para. 79 ("The preferred embodiments of the present
invention as shown in FIGS. 3A and 3B ... can be adopted in the preferred
embodiment of FIG. 2.")). As Appellants' remarks do not address the
Examiner's position, the ground of rejection for claim 33 stands essentially
uncontroverted. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 ("The arguments shall explain why
the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by appellant. ..
5
Appeal2017-008931
Application 13/988,568
any arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief will be refused
consideration by the Board for purposes of the present appeal.").
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6