Ex Parte Van Decker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 11, 2019

13566649 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/566,649 08/03/2012
62008 7590 01/15/2019
MAIER & MAIER, PLLC
345 South Patrick Street
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gerald W.E. Van Decker
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.
Ol 780117COA 1052
EXAMINER
FLANIGAN, ALLEN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/15/2019 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):
patent@maierandmaier.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GERALD W.E. VAN DECKER and COLIN M. WATTS
Appeal2017-001824
Application 13/566,649
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Gerald W.E. Van Decker and Colin M. Watts ("Appellants") 1 appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting
claims 1-15, which are all the pending claims. Appeal Br. 2, 3. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). An oral hearing,
scheduled for September 20, 2018, was waived.
We AFFIRM.
According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Renewability
Energy, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-001824
Application 13/566,649
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' disclosed invention "relates generally to heat exchange
devices," and, more particularly, "relates to coil-on-tube heat exchangers."
Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is the sole
independent claim appealed and is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method for heating fresh water using heat recovered
from drain water, the method comprising:
providing a center tube for receiving the drain water;
providing a plurality of conduits for receiving the fresh
water, the conduits of the plurality being helically wrapped in
side-by-side relation along at least a portion of the length of the
center tube, each of the plurality of conduits being in contact
with the center tube to permit heat transfer therebetween;
urging the drain water to flow through the center tube to
thereby cause heat from the drain water to be transferred to the
plurality of conduits via the center tube; and
urging the fresh water to flow through the plurality of
conduits to thereby heat the fresh water.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Cardone
Nobile
Kida
us 4,304,292
us 5,791,401
JP 2005061771 A
2
Dec. 8, 1981
Aug. 11, 1998
Mar. 10, 2005
Appeal2017-001824
Application 13/566,649
REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review: Claims 1-15 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nobile,
Cardone, and Kida. Final Act. 2--4; Ans. 2-5.
ANALYSIS
Appellants present arguments against the rejection of independent
claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 3-19), and rely on the same arguments for
dependent claims 2-15 (see id. at 19). We select claim 1 as representative of
the issues that Appellants present in the appeal of this rejection, with
dependent claims 2-15 standing or falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner determined that a combination of teachings from
Nobile, Cardone, and Kida renders obvious the subject matter recited in
claim 1. See Final Act. 2--4; Ans. 2-5. Appellants argue that the claimed
method is in some way patentably distinct from the teachings of this
combination of references, based on assertions that Nobile and Cardone are
directed to a different problem than the recited method (see Appeal
Br. 5-14 ), and that Kida predominantly discloses a different type of heat
exchanger than that used in the recited method (see id. at 14--17).
After careful consideration of the record before us, Appellants'
arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's factual findings from
Nobile, Cardone, or Kida, which are supported by a preponderance of the
evidence, or the Examiner's reasonable conclusion of obviousness, which is
rationally articulated based on prior art teachings. In short, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection based on the reasoned positions set forth therein and in
3
Appeal2017-001824
Application 13/566,649
light of the Examiner's thorough responses to Appellants' arguments. See
Final Act. 2--4; Ans. 2-5, 6-11.
In particular, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's position that,
at least with respect to the method recited in claim 1, Nobile and Cardone
are essentially interchangeable, each disclosing helically-wrapped conduits
that surround a central pipe to recover drain water heat, and each missing
only the provision of a plurality of such conduits helically wrapped in side-
by-side relation along at least a portion of the length of the center tube
(Nobile and Cardone both disclose a single wrapped conduit). See Ans. 2-3.
Further, Appellants do not identify error in the Examiner's reliance on an
embodiment of Kida that discloses an arrangement where a plurality of
conduits are helically wrapped in side-by-side relation along at least a
portion of the length of the tube. See id. at 3--4. Although Appellants urge
that the predominant disclosure of Kida's "actual invention" relates to a
different type of heat exchanger (coil-in-tube rather than coil-on-tube)
(Reply Br. 2-3; see Appeal Br. 14--17), this does not diminish the teachings
from Kida relied on by the Examiner.
As the Examiner explains in the Answer, Kida discloses (whether as
known prior art or as Kida's "actual invention" is immaterial) alternative
arrangements of a single wrapped helical coil (see Kida, Fig. 14; essentially
the same as the arrangements of Nobile and Cardone) and a plurality of
conduits helically wrapped in side-by-side relation along at least a portion of
the length of the center tube (see Kida, Fig. 15). Ans. 2--4. As the Examiner
logically reasons, because Kida discloses these two known alternatives for
wrapped coil arrangements, "it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the instant invention was made to utilize the
4
Appeal2017-001824
Application 13/566,649
multiple helical pipe exchanger of Fig. 15 of Kida ... in the wastewater heat
recovery method disclosed in either Nobile or Cardone." Id. at 4--5.
Appellants do not apprise us of error in this reasoned conclusion.
Moreover, as the Examiner correctly notes, where "a known device is
'altered by the mere substitution of one element [ or arrangement] for another
known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable
result,"' or "'if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a
person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill."' Ans. 5 ( quoting KSR Int 'l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-417 (2007)). Appellants have not
provided factual evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to explain why
modifying a single helically-wrapped conduit (as in Nobile or Cardone (or,
for that matter, Kida's Fig. 14)) to include a plurality of helically-wrapped
conduits in side-by-side relation (as in Kida's Fig. 15), as proposed by the
Examiner (see Final Act. 2--4; Ans. 2-5), would yield anything other than a
predictable result, or that doing so would be somehow beyond the level of
ordinary skill in the art.
After careful consideration of the evidence of record, Appellants'
arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's findings or reasoning
in support of the conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2-15 falling therewith, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nobile, Cardone, and Kida.
5
Appeal2017-001824
Application 13/566,649
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nobile, Cardone, and Kida.
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