Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2022

2021000789 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2022)

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. 14/701,121 04/30/2015 Wooram HONG PNK1331US 4070 23413 7590 03/02/2022 CANTOR COLBURN LLP 20 Church Street 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 EXAMINER HORTON, DUJUAN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1721 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2022 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): usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WOORAM HONG, EUNKYUNG LEE, and BYOUNGLYONG CHOI Appeal 2021-000789 Application 14/701,121 Technology Center 1700 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BEVERLY A FRANKLIN, and SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, 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 1-4, 6, and 10-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2012). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-000789 Application 14/701,121 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal and is set forth below: 1. A thermoelectric device comprising: a heat supplier; a thermoelectric element disposed on the heat supplier; and a heat exchanger disposed opposite to the heat supplier, wherein the thermoelectric element is disposed between the heat supplier and the heat exchanger, wherein the heat exchanger has a medium adsorptive part defined by a plurality of recesses, a plurality of protrusions or a combination thereof formed at a surface portion of the heat exchanger, wherein the surface portion of the heat exchanger defining the medium adsorptive part and the remaining portion of the heat exchanger are integrally formed with each other as a single unitary unit without having any interface therebetween, and wherein the medium adsorptive part is exposed outside in a way such that a first medium of air is directly supplied into the medium adsorptive part without passing through a channel, and has an adsorptive property to a second medium comprising a fluid and different from the first medium. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Wada US 5,833,679 Nov. 10, 1998 Vistakula US 8,397,518 B1 Mar. 19, 2013 Appeal 2021-000789 Application 14/701,121 3 REJECTION Claim 1-4, 6, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Vistakula in view of Wada. OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal (including the Examiner’s Answer and the Appeal Brief), we are persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection essentially for the reasons provided by Appellant in the record, and add the following primarily for emphasis. We refer to the Examiner’s statement of the rejection set forth on pages 3-7 of the Answer. Therein, the Examiner views the heat exchanger in Vistakula as being defined by the medium adsorptive part (46), wherein part (46) facilitates the exchange of heat between the adsorbed liquid and the atmosphere. Vistakula, col. 7, ll. 11-14, Figure 2. Ans. 3. Appellant states that claim 1 recites that the “heat exchanger has a medium adsorptive part defined by a plurality of recesses . . . at a surface portion of the heat exchanger, wherein the surface portion of the heat exchanger defining the medium adsorptive part and the remaining portion of the heat exchanger are integrally formed with each other as a single unitary unit without having any interface therebetween.” Appeal Br. 12. Appeal 2021-000789 Application 14/701,121 4 Appellant’s Figures 2-5 illustrate recesses in the surface of the heat exchanger 30 forming the medium adsorptive part and how the recesses and the remaining portion of heat exchanger 30 are integrally formed with each other as a single unitary structure according to Appellant’s invention. Appellants argue that Vistakula does not teach the aforementioned claim feature. Appeal Br. 12. Therein, Appellant explains how surface portion 46 in Vistakula (which the Examiner views as the heat exchanger) does not have “a medium adsorptive part defined by a plurality of recesses…. . at a surface portion of the heat exchanger, wherein the surface portion of the heat exchanger defining the medium adsorptive part and the remaining portion of the heat exchanger are integrally formed with each other as a single unitary unit without having any interface therebetween” as recited in claim 1. We agree. Vistakula’s Figure 2 and Figure 4 make evident that item 46 is a wetting material that is merely disposed on a portion of a wet side 50 of heat sink 44. See also Vistakula, col. 5, ll. 34-35. Moreover, we agree with Appellant’s argument (Appeal Br. 13) that Wada is silent regarding the adsorptive properties of its material. While the Examiner is correct (Ans. 7) that the application and Vistakula both recognize cotton as a suitable material, and that the application indicates it is adsorptive (Spec. 15:4-6; Vistakula 7:1-3), the Examiner then focuses on the absorptive nature of Wada’s material. Ans. 7. The Examiner has not sufficiently established, however, that substituting out Vistakula’s material for that of Wada would have been a predictable simple substitution of one known element for another. Appeal 2021-000789 Application 14/701,121 5 In view of the above, we reverse the rejection. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-4, 6, 10-20 103 Vistakula, Wada 1-4, 6, 10-20 REVERSED