Persson, Lars Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 20, 20202019004911 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2020) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation