Leo J. Veilleux et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 9, 201915715485 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2019) 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. 15/715,485 09/26/2017 Leo J. Veilleux JR. 79606US02; 67036-789US2 4620 26096 7590 09/09/2019 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. 400 WEST MAPLE ROAD SUITE 350 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 EXAMINER LEO, LEONARD R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3763 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/09/2019 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): cgolaw@yahoo.com ptodocket@cgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte LEO J. VEILLEUX JR. and LUBOMIR A. RIBAROV ____________________ Appeal 2019-002325 Application 15/715,4851 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, MICHAEL W. KIM, and PHILIP J. HOFFMANN Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. According to Appellants, their invention “relates to a heat exchanger wherein a honeycomb structure is utilized.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1 is the sole 1 “The real party in interest is . . . Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation.” Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-002325 Application 15/715,485 2 independent claim under appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as representative of the appealed claims. 1. A method of forming a heat exchanger comprising the steps of: using additive manufacturing to form a honeycomb structure from a plurality of cells, with a first subset of said cells extending for a lesser distance along an axis of said cells and a second subset of said cells extending for a greater axial distance, with said second subset of cells extending through two separator plates which are formed beyond axial ends of said first subset of cells, and a first inlet manifold formed between a first inlet one of said separator plates and one axial end of said first subset of cells, and a first outlet manifold formed between a first outlet one of said two separator plates and a second axial end of said first subset of cells, and a second inlet manifold formed beyond a second inlet one of said two separator plates and a second outlet manifold formed beyond a second outlet one of said two separator plates, and said heat exchanger being formed such that a single wall segment is formed between adjacent ones of said first subset of cells and said second subset of cells and said separator plates and said first and second subset of cells all being formed as a one-piece structure of a common material. REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: I. Claims 1–3, 5, 6, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sweed et al. (US 4,101,287, iss. July 18, 1978) (“Sweed”) and Kington et al. (US 2013/0236299 A1, pub. Sept. 12, 2013) (“Kington”); and II. Claims 4 and 7–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sweed, Kington, and Li et al. (CN 101008557 A, pub. Aug. 1, 2007) (“Li”). Appeal 2019-002325 Application 15/715,485 3 ANALYSIS Rejection I We have carefully review the record, including the Examiner’s Final Office Action and Answer, and Appellants’ Appeal Brief and Reply Brief. The Examiner adequately supports the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. See, e.g., Answer 2–3. Conversely, because Appellants do not persuade us that the Examiner errs, we sustain claim 1’s rejection. As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “said separator plates and said first and second subset of cells all being formed as a one-piece structure of a common material.” Appeal Br., Claims App. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection of the independent claim is based on “hindsight reconstruction . . . [because] [n]othing would support Sweed . . . wanting its sealant (which the Examiner appears to be equating to the separator plates of the claims) formed of a common material with other portions.” Id. at 3. Further, according to Appellants, “Sweed discloses a structure having two types of materials to form channels.” Id. We disagree with Appellants, however, that Sweed expressly discloses forming any of its sealant or channels of different materials from one another. We do agree with Appellants that “as an example, at column 4 at the paragraph beginning at line 29, . . . Sweed . . . discloses a number of materials which may form the honeycomb structure.” Id. But, this portion of Sweed does not expressly disclose forming different portions of its heat exchanger from different materials, as one reasonably may understand this portion as disclosing the formation of the entire heat exchanger from any of a variety of different materials. See Sweed col. 4, ll. 29–40. Appeal 2019-002325 Application 15/715,485 4 Also, Appellants correctly note that Sweed discloses that the honeycomb may be “dipped into a cement.” This may plug certain channels, which may then have the plugging material removed. (See paragraph bridging columns 5 and 6). In a specific example described in columns 7 and 8 the ends of the channels are proposed to be sealed by Parafilm, and then rubber is “poured into” a dish to form the manifold. The paragraph bridging columns 7 and 8 again mentions ceramic cement or mortar to form the manifold. Appeal Br. 3. Appellants do not persuade us of error, however, because the “paragraph bridging columns 5 and 6” of Sweed clearly refers to an optional manufacturing step—the paragraph begins with “[w]hen manifolding (when manifolding is not performed as an integral step in the molding or extruding process) the extended channels are dipped into a readily removal material, be it liquid or solid to close the ends.” Sweed col. 5, ll. 59–62. Further, as Appellants acknowledge, the “paragraph bridging columns 7 and 8” of Sweed refers to “a specific example.” Appeal Br. 3. Regardless, Appellants’ argument lacks details sufficient to establish why it is relevant that “[t]he paragraph bridging columns 7 and 8 again mentions ceramic cement or mortar to form the manifold.” Id. Finally, we disagree with Appellants that because Sweed discloses at “column 6, the paragraph beginning at line 43, the walls of ‘one set of tubes’ are coated,” this “impl[ies] that a single material being utilized to form all of the cells is simply not contemplated.” Id. This portion of Sweed appears to refer to a specific alternative, as the cited portion states “[t]he reactions can be catalytic (either heterogeneous or homogeneous) or not. If hetero- catalytic, the walls of one set of tubes, say the extended ones, are coated with an active catalyst as is done for auto exhaust honeycomb catalysts.” Sweed col. 6, ll. 42–46. Appeal 2019-002325 Application 15/715,485 5 Conversely, as we state above, we agree with the Examiner that [i]t would have been obvious . . . to employ in Sweed . . . additive manufacturing to form the honeycomb structure for the purpose of reducing costs as recognized by Kington . . . . Further, it would have been obvious . . . to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Answer 3. Thus, based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1. Inasmuch as Appellants do not argue separately against the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 11 that depend from, and the Examiner rejects with, claim 1, we also sustain the dependent claims’ rejection. Rejection II Appellants do not argue separately against the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 7–10 that depend from claim 1. Thus, inasmuch as we sustain claim 1’s rejection, we also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of these dependent claims. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–11. Appeal 2019-002325 Application 15/715,485 6 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation