S&C Electric CompanyDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 1, 20212020006495 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 2021) 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. 15/605,356 05/25/2017 Richard G. SMITH SC-5483 8219 24275 7590 09/01/2021 S & C Electric Company Anthony G. Sitko 6601 N. Ridge Blvd. Chicago, IL 60626-3904 EXAMINER SUL, STEPHEN SANGJIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2835 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/01/2021 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): ASitko@sandc.com satoko.nakao@sandc.com tony@anthonysitko.net PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RICHARD G. SMITH and GLENN R. BORCHARDT Appeal 2020-006495 Application 15/605,356 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 8, 10–12, and 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed May 25, 2017 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action dated Feb. 13, 2020 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed June 15, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated Sept. 8, 2020 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Sept. 15, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). 2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies S&C Electric Company as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-006495 Application 15/605,356 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The subject matter on appeal relates to interrupting equipment in power distribution systems, specifically fuse mountings used in connection with such systems. Spec. ¶ 2. According to the Specification, during an overload event, a fusible element within a fuse tube separates and is rotationally released with respect to a hinge pivot providing a visual cue that a power fuse assembly has experienced a fault condition. Id. ¶ 20. Appellant’s hinge assembly 600 is shown in Figure 6 below. Id. ¶ 32. Figure 6 above depicts upper portion 604 and lower portion 606 of hinge assembly 600 wherein diverter structure 612 in lower portion 606 diverts the flow of exhaust as it moves from upper portion 604 to opening 610. Id. ¶ 32. The Specification describes a pressure gradient being produced by redirecting exhaust gases such that each division of flow has a high and low pressure side prior to rejoining at the final exhaust outlet. Id. ¶ 37. Appeal 2020-006495 Application 15/605,356 3 Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief (disputed limitation italicized). 1. A power fuse assembly comprising: a fuse mounting; a fuse unit configured to carry current from a line connection to a load connection; a hinge assembly removably coupling the fuse unit to the fuse mounting to allow rotation of the fuse unit relative to the fuse mounting, the hinge assembly including: an inlet configured to accept incoming gases produced by the fuse unit in response to an overload event, the inlet having a first orientation; an outlet in fluid communication with the inlet, the outlet having a second orientation that is not equal to the first orientation; and a diverter component disposed within the hinge assembly between the inlet and the outlet, the diverter component having a[n] airfoil configuration configured to guide the flow of the gases from the inlet in the first orientation to the outlet in the second orientation. Appeal Br. 16 (Claims Appendix). Claims 10 and 18 are also independent and require a “curved diverter vane” within a curved inner chamber (claim 10) or conduit (claim 18) that is “configured as an airfoil.” Id. at 17, 18. ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues Appellant identifies, 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 Appeal 2020-006495 Application 15/605,356 4 the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering the argued claims and Appellant’s arguments, we are persuaded of reversible error in the appealed rejections. The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 8, 10–12, and 18 as follows for the reasons provided in the Final Office Action.3 Final Act. 4–18. Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1–3, 8, 10–12, 18 103 Scherer4, Morgan5 1–3, 8, 10–12, 18 103 Scherer, Morgan, Nichols6 We need only address claim 1 because independent claims 10 and 18 include similar diverter component limitations. Obviousness of Claim 1 over Scherer and Morgan Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as obvious over Scherer and Morgan, inter alia, because Scherer does not disclose a diverter or any discussion as to how or in what direction exhaust gases are emitted or guided and Morgan discloses flat, planar plates for cooling gas as it flows around the plates and does not disclose a curved configuration let alone an airfoil configuration. Appeal Br. 9–11. Appellant asserts that “neither Scherer nor Morgan say anything about any airfoil being used for 3 The Examiner indicates that Appellant’s amendments to the claims to address the Examiner’s objections will be entered if prosecution continues. Ans. 3. Appellant’s amendments insert into claims 8, 10, and 18 “airfoil configuration,” as recited in claim 1. Response After Final Action filed Apr. 13, 2020, 2–4. 4 US 5,773,777, issued June 30, 1998 (“Scherer”). 5 US 4,857,879, issued Aug. 15, 1989 (Morgan”). 6 US 2014/0151010 A1, published June 5, 2014 (“Nichols”). Appeal 2020-006495 Application 15/605,356 5 any purpose” thus the rejection is based on impermissible hindsight. Id. at 12. We find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of reversible error. During examination, the Examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). To establish prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention, all the claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art. See In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974). “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The Examiner acknowledges that Scherer does not disclose a diverter component. Ans. 5. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to modify Scherer to include a diverter component within the hinge assembly as taught by Morgan to guide exhausted gases and increase the flow speed at which gasses are expelled from the outlet. Id. at 6. Regarding Morgan, the Examiner finds Morgan’s exhausted gas from fuse holder 1 falls into trap 18 which has a plurality of plates that guide the exhausted gas in addition to cooling it. Id. at 5–6 (citing Morgan 1:48–56, 1:60–61). Morgan’s Figure 7 below shows the relationship between fuse holder 1 and trap 18. Appeal 2020-006495 Application 15/605,356 6 Figure 7 above depicts the fuse blown position. Morgan 2:60–61. The Examiner directs us to Morgan’s Figure 3 as support for the Examiner’s finding that Morgan’s plates in trap 18 function to direct/guide the exhausted gas from the inlet to the outlet as the trap moves. Id. at 6. Morgan’s Figure 3 is shown below: Appeal 2020-006495 Application 15/605,356 7 Figure 3 above is an exploded perspective view of ejects trap 18 and tail terminal 14 arrangement. Morgan 2:50–52. The Examiner identifies the top of trap 18 as the inlet and the bottom of trap 18 as the outlet in an annotated version of Morgan’s Figure 3. Final Act. 6. Regarding the airfoil shape recited in claim 1, the Examiner determines change of shape would have been obvious because Appellant’s Specification indicates that shape is not critical. Ans. 7 (citing Spec. ¶ 36). The Examiner’s analysis does not adequately explain why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have selected Morgan’s trap 18 to be disposed within Scherer’s hinge assembly. It is not sufficient for an obviousness analysis to show that each of the elements of claim 1 was independently known in the prior art, regardless of the shape of Morgan’s cooling plates. KSR, 550 US at 418. Claim 1 requires the hinge assembly to Appeal 2020-006495 Application 15/605,356 8 have an inlet and an outlet with a diverter component disposed between the hinge assembly’s inlet and outlet. The Examiner has identified Morgan’s trap as having an inlet and an outlet, but does not adequately explain why Morgan’s trap would have been used to modify Scherer’s hinge assembly between an inlet and outlet of Scherer’s hinge assembly. The Examiner’s finding (Final Act. 6) that Morgan’s trap would increase the flow speed at which the gasses are expelled is not supported by the cited prior art. In the absence of a reason to modify Scherer’s hinge assembly by disposing Morgan’s trap structure between a hinge assembly inlet and an outlet, the combination of prior art references fails to teach or suggest the claimed hinge assembly having the structure of an inlet and an outlet with a diverter components disposed between the inlet and outlet. For these reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 10 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the cited prior art references fail to teach or suggest the diverter component required by each of the independent claims as discussed above in connection with claim 1. We reverse the rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 8, 11, and 12 based on their dependency from claim 1 or 10. Obviousness of Claim 1 over Scherer, Morgan, and Nichols The Examiner alternatively finds Nichols discloses an airfoil for increasing fluid velocity and determines a person having ordinary skill in the art would have modified the diverter element to have an airfoil shape to increase the velocity at which gases are expelled from a power fuse assembly. Final Act. 7. Appeal 2020-006495 Application 15/605,356 9 Because the Examiner relies upon Nichols for disclosing the specific shape of an airfoil as required by claim 1 and not the structure of a diverter component disposed between the inlet and outlet of a hinge assembly as required by claim 1, Nichols fails to cure the deficiencies discussed above in connection with the rejection of claim 1 over Scherer and Morgan. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Scherer, Morgan, and Nichols for the same reasons discussed above in connection with the rejection over Scherer and Morgan alone. We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 10 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the cited prior art references fail to teach or suggest the diverter component required by each of the independent claims as discussed above in connection with claim 1. We reverse the rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 8, 11, and 12 based on their dependency from claim 1 or 10. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. Appeal 2020-006495 Application 15/605,356 10 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 8, 10– 12, 18 103 Scherer, Morgan 1–3, 8, 10– 12, 18 1–3, 8, 10– 12, 18 103 Scherer, Morgan, Nichols 1–3, 8, 10– 12, 18 Overall Outcome 1–3, 8, 10– 12, 18 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation