Olesen, Klaus et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 13, 2019

14680282 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 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.
14/680,282 04/07/2015 Klaus Olesen 6495-0677WOUS 2272
35301 7590 12/13/2019
MCCORMICK, PAULDING & HUBER LLP
CITY PLACE II
185 ASYLUM STREET
HARTFORD, CT 06103
EXAMINER
DIAZ, MIGUEL ANGEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2019 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):
patentdocket@ip-lawyers.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KLAUS OLESEN, LARS PAULSEN, RUDIGER BREDTMANN,
and HOLGER ULRICH
Appeal 2019-003021
Application 14/680,282
Technology Center 3700
Before DANIEL S. SONG, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–15, 20, and 21. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Danfoss Silicon
Power GmbH. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003021
Application 14/680,282
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “a flow distribution module for distributing
a flow of fluid over a surface to be cooled.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1 and 21 are
the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A flow distribution module for distributing a flow of fluid
over a surface to be cooled, said flow distribution module
comprising:
a housing defining at least one flow cell, each flow cell
having an inlet opening arranged to receive fluid to the flow cell
and an outlet opening arranged to deliver fluid from the flow cell,
the flow cell(s) being positioned in such a way that a flow of fluid
flowing through a flow cell from the inlet opening to the outlet
opening is conveyed over the surface to be cooled, each flow cell
including at least one raised structure formed to cause at least one
change in the direction of flow of the fluid flowing through the
flow cell, and
a cover plate arranged adjacent to the flow cell(s), said
cover plate including the surface to be cooled and a module
mounting surface opposite the surface to be cooled, the cover
plate being mounted to the housing in a fluid-tight manner with
the surface to be cooled positioned over the flow cell(s),
wherein at least a part of the surface to be cooled included
in the cover plate is provided with a surface pattern of raised and
depressed surface portions, said surface pattern defining a sub-
pattern that is repeated along at least two directions of the surface
pattern, the raised surface portions and the depressed surface
portions of the sub-pattern having the same shape, and
wherein the module mounting surface is configured to
have at least one power module mounted thereon.

Appeal 2019-003021
Application 14/680,282
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Olesen US 2007/0062673 A1 Mar. 22, 2007
Matsuzaki US 2007/0000654 A1 Jan. 4, 2007
Nilsson US 2011/0120687 A1 May 26, 2011

REJECTIONS2
I. Claims 1–5, 10–15, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Olesen and Matsuzaki.
II. Claims 7, 8, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Olesen, Matsuzaki, and Nilsson.
OPINION
Rejection I
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Olesen
discloses, inter alia, a flow distribution module, as claimed, including a
cover (i.e., cooled plate 3) with a surface to be cooled (i.e., the lower surface
of cooled plate 3), as claimed. Final Act. 4. The Examiner determines that
Olesen’s cooled surface does not include a surface pattern of raised and
depressed surface portions, as claimed, and relies on Matsuzaki’s disclosure
of a surface pattern on a heat exchange plate. Id. at 5 (citing Matsuzaki,
Figs. 1, 2). The Examiner proposes modifying Olesen’s cooled plate 3 to
include a surface pattern, as taught by Matsuzaki, such that “the modified
cover plate would have an increased surface area that is in contact with the

2 The Examiner’s objections to the drawings is a petitionable, not
appealable, matter. Final Act. 2–3.
Appeal 2019-003021
Application 14/680,282
4
fluid, which effectively increases the amount of heat transfer provided by the
cover plate.” Ans. 11; Final Act. 5. The Examiner reasons, inter alia, that
the proposed modification would be obvious because “including the surface
pattern of Matsuzaki within the cover plate of Olesesn would . . . increase
the heat transfer area of the cover plate, since it would effectively ‘extend’
the area over which the fluid would have to flow while traversing the cover
plate,” and that “one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize [this
benefit],” because “it is common knowledge that the amount of heat transfer
is directly proportional to the surface area for heat transfer.”3 Ans. 11
(citations omitted).
As an initial matter, to the extent Appellant is arguing that Matsuzaki
is not analogous art, we find that the field of endeavor4 of Appellant’s
claimed invention is heat exchangers, which is the same field of endeavor of
Matsuzaki’s invention. Appeal Br. 11 (arguing that “one of ordinary skill in

3 Appellant’s arguments addressing the Examiner’s reliance on increasing
turbulence within the cooling fluid as a rationale for modifying Olesen’s
cooling plate to incorporate Matsuzaki’s surface pattern are not persuasive
to overcome the rejection, in view of the Examiner’s alternative reliance on
increasing the heat transfer surface area of Olesen’s cooling plate as a
rationale for such modification, which is presented in the Examiner’s
Answer. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 11–15; Ans. 11. Notably, Appellant does not
address increasing heat transfer surface area as a motivation for patterning
Olesen’s cooling plate in the Reply Brief. See Reply Br.
4 A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination when it
is analogous to the claimed invention. Innovention Toys, LLC. v. MGA Ent.,
Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Two separate tests define the
scope of analogous art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of
endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not
within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appeal 2019-003021
Application 14/680,282
5
the art would not look to Matsuzaki when designing such a heat exchanger
[(i.e., a heat exchanger that transfers heat from a solid body into a cooling
fluid, such as the type of heat exchanger disclosed in Olesen)]”); cf. Reply
Br. 2 (“Matsuzaki’s heat exchanger[] is designed for a different purpose
tha[n] Olesen’s heat exchanger,” which “results in a variety of design and
structural differences that are not transferable to Olesen’s heat exchanger.”).
Alternatively, we find that a problem addressed by Appellant is improving
the flow distribution of fluid over a surface to be cooled (Spec. ¶ 4), wherein
a solution to the problem is to provide a surface pattern on the surface to be
cooled, whereby “the surface area of the surface to be cooled is enlarged as
compared to a similar surface which is substantially plane” (id. at ¶ 15).
Matsuzaki is reasonably pertinent to this particular problem, because
Matsuzaki discloses designing the patterns on heat exchange plates to
accommodate different fluids and fluid flows, “so that such an entire area
can serve as an effective heat transfer section, . . . thus increasing
remarkably an amount of heat transfer per area and achieving a high
performance.” ¶ 16. Thus, Matsuzaki is analogous art properly relied on by
the Examiner.
Appellant argues that “Matsuzaki is directed to an entirely different
type of heat exchanger than Olesen.” Appeal Br. 11. In support, Appellant
submits that (i) in Olesen’s heat exchanger, “heat is transferred from a solid
body into a cooling fluid,” as compared to Matsuzaki’s heat exchanger,
“which is designed to transfer heat from one fluid to another”; and (ii)
Matsuzaki’s heat exchanger uses “stacks [of] stamped metal sheets to form
suitable fluid passages,” wherein “each side of each of its stamped plates
includes a pattern of projections and recesses, which are formed by press
forming,” which are “not suitable for use” in a flow distribution unit, as
Appeal 2019-003021
Application 14/680,282
6
disclosed in Olesen, because Olesen’s flow distribution unit requires
“comparatively massive construction for stability” and patterning both sides
of Olesen’s cooled plate would result in a pattern on the outer surface where
power modules are mounted. Id. at 11–12; see also Reply Br. 2–3, 5–6.
Appellant concludes the Examiner impermissibly relied on hindsight.
Appeal Br. 12.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Olesen expressly
discloses that “the cooling unit may be employed to cool various other
sources of heat such as a hot gas or liquid flowing along the exposed surface
of the cooled plate 3.” Olesen ¶ 52; see Ans. 5 (“Olesen indeed suggests
embodiments wherein the heat exchanger is used to transfer heat from fluid-
to-fluid”) (citing Olesen 52). In addition, the Examiner’s modification
involves employing the surface pattern of Matsuzaki’s heat exchange plate
solely on the inner (or lower) surface of Olesen’s cooled plate to thereby
increase surface area and heat transfer, such that Appellant’s argument does
not address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner.
Appellant also argues that
[s]ince Olesen already teaches the formation of flow passages
through its baffle 4, . . . one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have modified Olesen to include Matsuzaki’s projection-recess
surface pattern in addition to the flow passages formed by
Olesen’s baffle 4. Rather, at best, the modified Olesen would
have replaced the baffle with the Matsuzaki[] surface pattern to
provide the desired flow passage in Olesen, since that is the
purpose of Matsuzaki’s projection-recess surface pattern.
Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 4–5. Appellant contends that “the Examiner’s
reliance on Matsuzaki with regard to the use of a surface pattern to improve
fluid flow while ignoring the remaining teachings of Matsuzaki is
improper.” Appeal Br. 13.
Appeal 2019-003021
Application 14/680,282
7
We do not agree with Appellant. Rather, as argued by Appellant
supra, Olesen’s flow distributing unit with a distributing baffle is designed
differently than Matsuzaki’s heat exchanger constructed from stacked apart
plates, such that one skilled in the art would not be led to replace Olesen’s
distributing baffle with stacked plates. Indeed, the Examiner is not
proposing a bodily incorporation or substitution of Matsuzaki’s stacked
plates into or in place of Olesen’s distributing baffle. Rather, as relied on by
the Examiner, Olesen’s cooled plate corresponds in function and structure to
a plate used to transfer heat as disclosed in Matsuzaki, wherein the plate
transfers heat between fluids (or a solid semiconductor in certain
embodiments of Olesen) flowing on either side of the cooled plate.
Regarding such heat transfer plates, Matsuzaki teaches that “[a] pattern of
irregularity of herringbone type has conventionally and widely applied to the
heat transfer plates of the plate-type heat exchanger.” Matsuzaki ¶ 6
(emphasis added). Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s reasoning, which is supported by sufficient rational
underpinning.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1. Appellant chose not to present arguments for the patentability of
independent claim 21, or dependent claims 2–5 and 10–15, apart from the
arguments presented for claim 1 supra. Appeal Br. 9–16; Reply Br. 2–6.
Therefore, for essentially the same reasons as set forth supra, we also sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–5, 10–15, and 21.
Rejection II
Appellant relies on the arguments presented for the patentability of
independent claim 1, from which claims 7, 8, and 20 ultimately depend, for
the patentability of claims 7, 8, and 20, and submits that the Examiner’s
Appeal 2019-003021
Application 14/680,282
8
reliance on Nilsson does not overcome the deficiencies in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 16–17; Reply Br. 2–6. Because we do not
agree the Examiner’s rejection is deficient for the reasons argued by
Appellant, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 8, and 20
for essentially the same reasons as set forth supra.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–15, 20, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are AFFIRMED.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 10–15,
21
103(a) Olesen, Matsuzaki 1–5, 10–15,
21

7, 8, 20 103(a) Olesen, Matsuzaki,
Nilsson
7, 8, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7, 8,
10–15, 20,
21

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED