Tai-Her YANG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 24, 2020

2020001887 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 24, 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.
13/541,830 07/05/2012 Tai-Her YANG YANG3606/BEU 1232
23364 7590 11/24/2020
BACON & THOMAS, PLLC
625 SLATERS LANE
FOURTH FLOOR
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-1176
EXAMINER
ARANT, HARRY E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/24/2020 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):
MAIL@BACONTHOMAS.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAI-HER YANG
Appeal 2020-001887
Application 13/541,830
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL A. HOELTER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, 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 7–14, 16, 17, 19, and 20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Tai-Her-Yang as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-001887
Application 13/541,830

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed a vibration device that displaces a thermal
energy body within a fluid in order to improve the transfer of thermal
energy. Spec. 1:25–2:4.
Claim 7, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
7. A thermal energy transfer device including an enclosure
(600) filled with a thermal energy transferring fluid (700) and
within which a thermal energy body (101) is situated, the thermal
energy transferring fluid (700) surrounding and exchanging
thermal energy with the thermal energy body (101) and the
enclosure (600), comprising:
an energy transmission interface (900);
an electrically conductive body (800) that connects the
energy transmission interface (900) to the thermal energy body
(101), to electrically connect the energy transmission interface
(900) and the thermal energy body (101);
a vibration actuating device (200, 2001, or 2002) fixed
within the enclosure (600) and connected to the thermal energy
body (101) by at least a connecting arm (102) extending at least
from the vibration actuating device (200, 2001, 2002) to the
thermal energy body (101) for causing the thermal energy body
(101) to vibrate relative to the thermal energy transferring fluid
(700) in response to driving by the vibration actuating device
(200, 2001, 2002) and thereby enhance the exchange of thermal
energy between the thermal energy body (101), the thermal
energy transferring fluid (700), and the enclosure (600) by
causing circulative flow of the thermal energy transferring fluid
(700) with respect to the thermal energy body;
an electric energy driving device (300) for supplying a
driving electrical energy to the vibration actuating device (200).

Supplemental Appeal Br. (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-001887
Application 13/541,830

3
REFERENCES2
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Yazawa JP 2000277959 A Oct. 6, 2000
Takayama JP 2006332377 A July 21, 2010
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 7–14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Yazawa.
II. Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Takayama.
OPINION
Rejection I—Yazawa (Claims 7–14, 16, 17, 19, and 20)
Claims 7–14, 16, 17, and 19
Finding that Yazawa discloses every element recited in claim 7, the
Examiner relies on the elements identified by reference numbers 1 and 163
to meet the requirement for a vibration actuating device fixed within the
enclosure and connected to a thermal energy body by a connecting arm that
extends from the vibration actuating device to the thermal energy body. See
Final Act. 4–5. In this regard, the Examiner determines that the term
“vibration actuating device” should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112,

2 Our citations to the text of these references are to the English language
machine-translations provided by the Examiner.
3 The Examiner does not explain what each of the elements identified by
these reference numbers lacks vis-à-vis the recited vibration actuating device
such that both of these components are required to meet this claim
limitation. See Final Act. 4–5.
Appeal 2020-001887
Application 13/541,830

4
sixth paragraph, and, therefore, should be construed as corresponding to the
structure described in lines 6–17 of page 5 of the Specification. Id. at 2–3.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in relying on fan 1 together
with piezoelectric element 16 to meet the vibration actuating device
limitation in claim 1 because fan 1 and piezoelectric element 16 are separate
components that have different functions. Specifically, Appellant contends
that fan 1 blows air to cool heat generating device 11, but piezoelectric
element 16 causes vibration in order to disrupt a boundary layer around heat
sink 15 (which cools heat generating device 11). Appeal Br. 9–10. Thus,
according to Appellant, the Examiner erred in relying on two different
components in Yazawa for what is recited as a single element in claim 7.
In reply, the Examiner concludes “neither the claims nor the claim
interpretation under [35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph] define the ‘vibration
actuating device’ as a single element.” Ans. 15. The Examiner takes the
position that “elements 1 and 16 perform the recited function in the claims
and meet the structural limitations found in the specification they properly
interpreted as meeting the claim limitation[, and] a ‘device’ may consist of
multiple [elements] adapted to perform a particular purpose.” Id. at 15–16.
Further, the Examiner finds that fan 1 and piezoelectric element 16 “work
together to ensure air circulation” over the heat generating device 11. Id. at
17.
In light of the Specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
the recited vibration actuating device cannot be met by relying on two
distinct components such as fan 1 and piezoelectric element 16 of Yazawa.
Claim 7 explicitly recites a “device” (singular). Further, lines 6–17 of page
5 of the Specification imply that the disclosed device is a singular vibratory
Appeal 2020-001887
Application 13/541,830

5
component, along with its power supply. For example, the Specification
states, “vibration actuating device [is] constituted by a physical structural
device capable of converting electric energy to perform vibration
displacement, directly driven by the electric energy from a driving electric
energy source . . . or driven by the electric energy outputted by an electric
energy driving device.” Spec. 5:6–10. Although we agree with the
Examiner that fan 1 and piezoelectric element 16 relate to air circulation,
these components perform different, independent, and stand-alone functions
inasmuch as fan 1 acts as a blower whereas piezoelectric element 16 moves
an object that is intended to be cooled in order to disrupt a boundary layer
around it. See Yazawa ¶¶ 15, 35. In other words, one component primarily
moves fluid, and the other primarily moves an object. Thus, we do not agree
with the Examiner that the combination of these devices would be
considered a vibration actuating device as recited in claim 7. Consequently,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 7, and claims 8–14, 16, 17, and 19
depending therefrom, as anticipated by Yazawa.
Claim 20
Independent claim 20 is a method claim reciting some structure
similar to that required by claim 7. In particular, claim 20 recites “supplying
a driving electrical energy to a vibration actuating device (200, 2001, or
2002) connected to the thermal energy body (101) by a connecting arm
(102) extending at least from the vibration actuating device (200, 2001,
2002) to the thermal energy body (101) to vibrate the thermal energy body.”
Supplemental Appeal Br. (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds Yazawa discloses “supplying a driving electrical
energy to a vibration actuating device (1, 16) connected to the thermal
Appeal 2020-001887
Application 13/541,830

6
energy body (fig 1).” Final Act. 9. Thus, the Examiner again relies on two
distinct, autonomous, elements to meet the requirement for a vibration
actuating device, implying the use of the same unreasonably broad claim
interpretation as was applied to claim 7. For the same reasons discussed
above regarding claim 7, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 20 as
anticipated by Yazawa.
Rejection II—Takayama (Claims 7 and 11)
The Examiner finds that Takayama discloses all the elements required
by claim 7, including a connecting arm extending from a vibration actuating
device to a thermal energy body. Final Act. 11–12 (citing Takayama ¶¶ 19–
25, Fig. 1). The Examiner explains the rejection of claim 7 with an
annotated version of Figure 1 of Takayama, which we reproduce below.

Appeal 2020-001887
Application 13/541,830

7
Annotated Figure 1 of Takayama includes both a front view and a top
view of circuit board 100 including heat sink 400, heat generating part 200,
cooling fan 500, and speaker 600. See id. at 12; Takayama ¶¶ 27–28.
The Examiner finds that elements 200, 300, and 410, together, equate
to a thermal energy body as recited. Id. at 11. The Examiner relies on
speaker 600 of Takayama to meet the requirement for a vibration actuating
device that causes circulative flow of the thermal energy transferring fluid
with respect to the thermal energy body. Id. As is apparent from the
Examiner’s annotated Figure 1 of Takayama, but not explicitly stated in the
Examiner’s discussion of claim 7, the Examiner relies on heat sink 400 as
the recited connecting arm. See id. at 11.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that speaker 600
performs the functional limitations recited in claim 7 because speaker 600
does not cause circulation of fluid within Takayama’s enclosure.4 Appeal
Br. 14–15. Specifically, Appellant argues Takayama fails to disclose the
recited vibration actuating device “because a speaker that vibrates a heat
sink to remove dust, as described in Takayama, cannot reasonably be
deemed to be equivalent to an arrangement that uses a cantilever arm to
vibrate a thermal energy body so as to enhance circulation of cooling
fluid as described in lines 6-17 on page 5 [of the Specification].” Id. at 14.

4 Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s findings that elements 200, 300,
and 410, together, equate to a thermal energy body or that heat sink 400 is an
arm. See Appeal Br. 14–15. Rather, Appellant states “cooling fan 500 and
speaker 600 are not connected to the heat sink 400 by any sort of arm and
does not cause any relative movement of the heat sink 400, and the air
caused to flow by cooling fan 500 does not circulate around the heat sink
400.” Id. at 15 (emphasis omitted, emphasis added).
Appeal 2020-001887
Application 13/541,830

8
Although Appellant admits “Takayama uses a fan to circulate air, and a
device other than the fan to vibrate a thermal energy body,” Appellant
asserts that in Takayama, “vibrations are disclosed as being exclusively for
dust removal.” Id. at 15.
In response, the Examiner refers to page 5 of the Specification and
determines that the recited “the vibration actuating device is ‘constituted by
a physical structure capable of converting electrical energy to perform
vibration displacement, directly driven by the electric energy from a driving
electric energy source,’” and speaker 600 satisfies this requirement. Ans.
22. The Examiner finds that vibration of thermal energy body 200, 300, 410
by speaker 600 allows dust to be removed from the thermal energy body and
also allows circulative flow over it. See id. at 23.
The Examiner has the better position because Appellant’s argument
amounts to a contention that speaker 600 of Takayama removes dust from
thermal energy body 200, 300, 410 without causing any air circulation
around thermal energy body 200, 300, 410. We are not apprised of any
reason vibration that is able to shake dust from a component would not also
provide air circulation over that component. In this regard, paragraphs 19
and 21 of Takayama state, “[o]n the heat sink, a magnetostrictive element
composed of a ferromagnetic metal and a coil is disposed, and dust adhering
to the heat sink is blown up by vibration obtained by driving the
magnetostrictive element, and cooling for blowing off the dust raised by the
cooling fan [s]tructure [sic],” and “it is possible to blow off dust adhering to
the heat radiation fins of the heat sink by the vibration of the air and the
direct vibration from the frame of the speaker by the speaker disposed on the
heat sink, and to maintain the initial cooling efficiency it can [sic].”
Appeal 2020-001887
Application 13/541,830

9
Emphasis added. Thus, Takayama discloses using both direct and indirect
vibrations to remove dust from its thermal energy body, which supports a
finding that speaker 600 causes circulative flow with respect to the thermal
energy body as recited in claim 7. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is
unavailing and we sustain the rejection of claim 7 as anticipated by
Takayama. As Appellant makes no additional arguments for claim 11, this
claim falls with claim 7 from which it depends.
CONCLUSION
We reverse Rejection I and sustain Rejection II.

Appeal 2020-001887
Application 13/541,830

10
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
7–14, 16,
17, 19, 20
102(b) Yazawa 7–14, 16,
17, 19, 20
7, 11 103(a) Takayama 7, 11
Overall
Outcome
7, 11 8–10, 12–
14, 16, 17,
19, 20
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).
AFFIRMED IN PART