Ex Parte Zaffetti et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 15, 2012

11281137 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 15, 2012)

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.
11/281,137 11/17/2005 Mark Zaffetti 67010-173; H2800-EC 1347
26096 7590 02/16/2012
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
LEO, LEONARD R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3785
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/16/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte MARK ZAFFETTI, KURT STEPHENS, WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS,
IRVING O'STRANDER, MICHAEL SPINETI, and VIRAT SAIDHA
____________________

Appeal 2010-004738
Application 11/281,137
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-004738
Application 11/281,137

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Mark Zaffetti et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from a rejection of claims 1-17 and 19. (App. Br. 2). Claim 18 was
cancelled. (Id.). We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
The invention is directed to a core assembly for a heat exchanger,
which includes features to prevent moisture accumulation within the core
assembly to reduce damage caused by freezing. (Spec. paras. [0001],
[0005]). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
appealed claims (App. Br. 14):

1. A core assembly for a heat exchanger
comprising:
a plurality of parting sheets;
a plurality of fins disposed between the plurality of
parting sheets;
a plurality of closure bars disposed between each
pair of the plurality of parting sheets, where each
of the plurality of closure bars includes an open
channel that is open inward and an outside surface
defining a portion of an outer perimeter of the core
assembly; and
a reinforcing bar including a tab portion received
within and filling the inward open channel of the
closure bar so that no gap exists between the
reinforcing bar and the open channel.

Appeal 2010-004738
Application 11/281,137

3
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Simpelaar (US 2,634,958, issued Apr. 14, 1953).
2. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Simpelaar and Rothman (US 3,517,731, issued June 30,
1970).

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1-14, 17, and 19
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, "a plurality of closure bars disposed
between each pair of the plurality of parting sheets, where each of the
plurality of closure bars includes an open channel that is open inward," and
"a reinforcing bar including a tab portion received within and filling the
inward open channel of the closure bar." (Emphasis added). The Examiner
found Simpelaar discloses a core assembly for a heat exchanger comprising
closure bars (i.e., channel members 62) which receive a tab portion of
reinforcing bars (i.e., reinforcement bars 55, blocks 56). (Ans. 3; citing
Simpelaar, Figs. 2, 4, 5; see also Simpelaar, col. 2, ll. 52-55, col. 3, ll. 66-
72). The Examiner acknowledged that Simpelaar does not disclose that the
closure bars open inwardly (Ans. 3), but concluded that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reverse the closure bars 62 to
open inwardly as a mere reversal of parts which would not destroy the
function of closing and reinforcing the edges (Id. at 4).
Appellants contend that Simpelaar's reinforcing bars 55 and 56 face
outward to provide mounting points for the gas outlet fitting 53. (App. Br.
7; Reply Br. 3). Appellants contend that Simpelaar discloses that reinforcing
Appeal 2010-004738
Application 11/281,137

4
bars 55, 56 are bonded to the core structure so that bolts 54 may be anchored
to bars 55, 56 for attaching gas outlet fitting 53. (Id., citing Simpelaar, col.
3, ll. 60-74). Appellants contend that Figure 3 of Simpelaar shows a
threaded bolt (54) inserted into bar 55. (Reply Br. 5). Appellants contend
that the Examiner's modification of Simpelaar would remove the reason for
placing bars 55, 56 on an outer surface (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 5), and
turning the channel members 62 and bars 55, 56 inward would prevent
access to the bars for attachment purposes (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 5).
Appellants also contend that if Sempelaar's channel members were turned
around, a hole would be required through the channel members for securing
the housing, and the hole would create an undesirable leak path that would
need to be addressed to prevent degradation of heat exchanger operation.
(App. Br. 9). Appellants' contentions are persuasive.
Initially, we disagree with Appellants that Figure 3 of Simpelaar
shows bar 55 having a hole to accommodate bolt 54. (Ans. 6). Rather,
Figure 3 shows block 56 having a hole which accommodates bolt 54. (See
also Fig. 4 of Simpelaar). However, Appellants correctly point out that
Simpelaar describes that bolts 54 may be rigidly anchored to bars 55. (App.
Br. 7). Simpelaar describes "[t]o provide solid connection between the gas
outlet fitting and the core structure, reinforcement bars 55 and blocks 56 are
bonded to the core structure, and the bolts 54 may be rigidly anchored to
said bars 55 and blocks 56 end extend through a bolting flange 57 formed on
the gas outlet fitting." (Simpelaar, col. 3, ll. 65-71). Simpelaar discloses
mounting the gas outlet fitting 53 directly to blocks 56 (and bars 55), as well
as to ends of cross bars 25. (See Simpelaar Figs. 2-4; col. 2, ll. 45-51).
Placing bars 55 and blocks 56 inside of channel members 62 would prevent
Appeal 2010-004738
Application 11/281,137

5
mounting the gas outlet fitting 53 directly to bars 55 and blocks 56 and cross
bars 25, and would require some other mounting arrangement and redesign
of the heat exchanger. The Examiner did not provide any reason why such
redesign of Simpelaar's heat exchanger would be desirable.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner's modification of
Simpelaar would appear to remove the reason for placing bars 55 and blocks
56 on the outside of the channel members 62, i.e., including the bars 55 and
blocks 56 in the heat exchanger. We also agree with Appellants that the
Examiner's modification of Simpelaar would appear to require forming holes
in the channel members 62 and, consequently, creating undesirable leak
paths for fluids in the heat exchanger. In this regard, we note that Simpelaar
does not show bolts 54 extending through channel members 62. For the
foregoing reasons, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner did not
articulate an adequate reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
modified Simpelaar's heat exchanger by turning the channel members 62 and
bars 55 and blocks 56 by 180 degrees so as to face inwardly toward the
liquid passes 16 and gas passes 17. However, a rejection for obviousness
must include "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion." KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007), quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Thus,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-7 which depend
from claim 1.
Independent claim 8 is directed to a core assembly for a heat
exchanger and recites a closure bar and reinforcing bar similar to those
recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 15). The Examiner's findings and Appellants'
arguments for patentability for claim 8 (App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 2-6), are
Appeal 2010-004738
Application 11/281,137

6
substantially similar to those discussed supra with respect to claim 1. Thus,
we also do not sustain the rejection of claim 8, and claims 9-14, 17, and 19
which depend from claim 8.

Rejection of claims 15 and 16
The Examiner's application of Rothman to claims 15 and 16, which
depend from claim 1, does not remedy the deficiencies of the Examiner's
application of Simpelaar for claim 1, as discussed supra. Hence, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 15 and 16.

DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-17 and 19 are reversed.

REVERSED

JRG