Tai-Her YANGDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 24, 20202020001887 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 24, 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. 13/541,830 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation