Persson, Lars

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 20, 2020

2019004911 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2020)

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.
13/298,658 11/17/2011 Lars Persson 6495-0508 3825
35301 7590 11/20/2020
McCormick, Paulding & Huber, PLLC
CityPlace II
185 Asylum Street
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
LEO, LEONARD R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/20/2020 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):
cunningham@ip-lawyers.com
patentdocket@ip-lawyers.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LARS PERSSON
Appeal 2019-004911
Application 13/298,658
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, 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, 2, 5–7, and 9–19. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Danfoss A/S.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004911
Application 13/298,658
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is directed to a plate heat exchanger. Spec. ¶ 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below with italics added, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A plate heat exchanger, comprising a plurality of heat
exchanger plates of corresponding design, each heat exchanger plate of
the plurality comprising indentations that are placed against
corresponding indentations of at least one adjacent heat exchanger plate
of the plurality,
wherein the indentations of each heat exchanger plate
of the plurality of heat exchanger plates include at least a first
type of indentations and at least a second type of
indentations,
wherein said first type of indentations and said second
type of indentations extend in opposing directions from a
reference plane of the heat exchanger plate, the first type of
indentations being formed with flat top surfaces and the
second type of indentations being formed with flat bottom
surfaces,
wherein the flat top surfaces and the flat bottom
surfaces are of different shapes,
wherein each first type of indentation located in
at least one section of each heat exchanger plate of the
plurality is bordered on all sides by indentations of the
second type located inside and outside the at least one
section, with curved profiles transitioning between the flat
top surface of the first type of indentation and all of the
flat bottom surfaces of each of the bordering indentations
of the second type, and each second type of indentation
located in the at least one section of each heat exchanger
plate of the plurality is bordered on all sides by
indentations of the first type located inside and outside the
at least one section, with curved profiles transitioning
between the flat bottom surface of the second type of
indentation and all of the flat top surfaces of each of the
bordering indentations of the first type,
Appeal 2019-004911
Application 13/298,658
3
wherein the combined total surface area of the flat top
surfaces is different than the combined total surface area of the
flat bottom surfaces, and
wherein both the flat top surfaces of the first type of
indentations and the flat bottom surfaces of the second type of
indentations of at least one heat exchanger plate of the plurality of
heat exchanger plates are fixed to flat top surfaces and flat bottom
surfaces of the same shape, respectively, of indentations of other
heat exchanger plates of the plurality of heat exchanger plates by
brazing or soldering to form a fluid channel on each side of the at
least one heat exchanger plate, each fluid channel being
configured to receive a pressurized fluid that is a liquid.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Jungerheld US 1,417,387 May, 23, 1922
Persson US 2007/0261829 A1 Nov. 15, 2007

REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5–7, and 9–19 as unpatentable
over Persson and Jungerheld.
OPINION
Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 5–7, and 9–19 as a group. Appeal Br.
12–15. We select claim 1 as representative and claims 2, 5–7, and 9–19
stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(iv)(2018).
The Examiner finds that Persson discloses a plate heat exchanger
satisfying the limitations of claim 1 “but does not disclose the flat top
surfaces 4 and flat bottom surfaces 5 are of different shapes.” Final Act. 3–
6. The Examiner relies on Jungerheld for disclosure of a plate heat
Appeal 2019-004911
Application 13/298,658
4
exchanger with “flat top surfaces 6 and flat bottom surfaces 7 [that] are of
different shapes . . . for the purpose of achieving a desired heat transfer
and/or structural strength.” Id. at 6 (citing Jungerheld, Fig. 4). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan “to
employ in Persson the flat top surfaces and flat bottom surfaces are of
different shapes for the purpose of achieving a desired heat transfer and/or
structural strength as recognized by Jungerheld.” Id. at 7. The Examiner
also concludes that the combination of Persson and Jungerheld is a simple
substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Id.
Appellant’s first contention is that “while Jungerheld may show
indentations having different shaped top and bottom surfaces . . . there is no
section in Jungerheld where each first type of indentation located in the
section is bordered on all sides by indentations of the second type.” Appeal
Br. 13. This contention is not persuasive because the Examiner relies on
Persson for disclosure of the limitations requiring the indentations of one
type to be bordered on all sides by indentations of the second type. Final
Act. 4; Ans. 10. We note that Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s
finding that Jungerheld’s flat top surfaces 6 and flat bottom surfaces 7 have
different shapes. Appeal Br. 13.
Appellant’s second contention is that “Jungerheld does not teach a
plate heat exchanger. Rather, Jungerheld teaches improved tubes for a
radiator.” Appeal Br. 14. The Examiner responds that “Jungerheld is a
‘plate heat exchanger’” and that it “discloses indentations of the first and
second type project from opposite sides of a heat exchanger plate to provide
contact and spacing . . . of similar adjacent heat exchanger plates to form
respective fluid channels.” Ans. 11. Appellant replies that “Jungerheld is
Appeal 2019-004911
Application 13/298,658
5
directed to radiator tubes” and “[a] radiator is an entirely different type of
heat exchanger than a plate type heat exchanger.” Reply Br. 3 (citing
Jungerheld, 1:5–7). Appellant’s second contention is not persuasive for the
following reasons.
The radiator “tubes” disclosed in Jungerheld are not “tubular” in the
sense that they are round or cylindrical in shape but, rather, are “flat radiator
tubes” formed from two flat walls “spaced apart by internal projections 6
formed in the opposing sheets.” Jungerheld 1:26–27, 2:87–90 (emphasis
added); see also id. Figs. 5–10 (illustrating Jungerheld’s tubes formed from
two flat sheets). Appellant’s contention does not apprise us of Examiner
error because it does not persuasively explain why Jungerheld’s flat radiator
tubes are distinguishable from the recited “heat exchanger plates.”
Appellant’s third contention is that “Jungerheld is directed to an
entirely different heat type of heat exchanger than Persson” because
Jungerheld “does not provide a fluid channel formed on each side of the
plate, where each fluid channel is configured to receive a pressurized fluid
that is a liquid.” Appeal Br. 13, 14; see also Reply Br. 3 (Arguing “[a]
radiator is an entirely different type of heat exchanger than a plate type heat
exchanger.”). Based on this, Appellant argues that a skilled artisan “would
not have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Jungerheld with those
of Persson.” Appeal Br. 14. The Examiner responds that Appellant has “not
traverse[d]” the reasons stated in the rejection for combining the teachings
of Jungerheld and Persson. Ans. 9–10. The Examiner interprets this
contention as a non-analogous art argument and further responds that
“Jungerheld is a ‘plate type heat exchanger’” and “discloses indentations of
the first and second type project from opposite sides of a heat exchanger
plate to provide contact and spacing . . . of similar adjacent heat exchanger
Appeal 2019-004911
Application 13/298,658
6
plates to form respective fluid channels.” Id. at 11 (citing Jungerheld 1:87–
91). The Examiner concludes that Jungerheld “is both in the field of
applicant’s endeavor and reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
which applicant was concerned.” Id. Appellant’s third contention is not
persuasive for the following reasons.
First, as discussed above in connection with Appellant’s second
contention, Jungerheld’s radiator tubes are formed from flat plates so we
agree with the Examiner that it discloses a plate type heat exchanger as
claimed. Second, Appellant’s arguments concerning whether Jungerheld
provides a fluid channel on each side of the plate is not responsive to the
rejection because the Examiner relies on Persson for that limitation. Third,
we agree with the Examiner that Appellant has not persuasively addressed
the Examiner’s reasons for combining the teachings of Persson and
Jungerheld. Fourth, we agree with the Examiner that Jungerheld is both in
applicant’s field of endeavor and/or reasonably pertinent to the problem with
which applicant was concerned. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447
(Fed. Cir. 1992) (The analogous art test requires that a “reference must
either be in the field of the applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be
reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was
concerned.”); Furthermore, the scope of analogous art is to be construed
broadly. Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(“The Supreme Court’s decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398 (2007), directs us to construe the scope of analogous art
broadly, stating that ‘familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their
primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the
teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.’ Id. at 402
(emphasis added).”). Based on the findings and reasoning stated by the
Appeal 2019-004911
Application 13/298,658
7
Examiner in the Answer, which we adopt as our own, we are not persuaded
that Jungerheld is not analogous art.
We have considered all of Appellant’s contentions and determine that
Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the Examiner’s factual findings or
rationale, quoted above, for the combination of Persson and Jungerheld,
which we determine to be reasonable and supported by rational
underpinnings. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (“[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.”). We, thus, sustain the rejection of
claim 1. Claims 2, 5–7, and 9–19 fall with claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
More specifically,
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5–7, 9–
19
103 Persson,
Jungerheld
1, 2, 5–7, 9–
19

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