Leo J. Veilleux et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 9, 2019

15715485 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2019)

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