Carrier Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 4, 2020

14890236 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 4, 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.
14/890,236 11/10/2015 Michael F. Taras 73267US02 2403
87059 7590 09/04/2020
Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
HOLLY, LEE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3726
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/04/2020 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte MICHAEL F. TARAS, BRUCE J. POPLAWSKI,
ARINDOM JOARDAR, JACK LEON ESFORMES,
TOBIAS H. SIENEL, and MEL WOLDESEMAYAT
___________________

Appeal 2019-006833
Application 14/890,236
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2019-006833
Application 14/890,236

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–11 and 16. Final Act. 2–16; Ans. 3.
Although claims 12–15 and 18–20 remain pending in the application, the
Examiner has withdrawn all pending rejections entered against those claims.
Ans. 3. Claim 17 is cancelled. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The claims relate generally to multiple tube bank heat exchangers
comprising first and second manifold assemblies connected by means of
tube bank assemblies. Spec. ¶¶ 1–4, 17–18, Figs. 1–2. Claim 1 is the only
independent claim subject to a pending rejection in this appeal. Ans. 3. We
reproduce claim 1 below with emphasis on the limitation at issue.
1. A method for manufacturing a manifold assembly with internal
fluid communication between a first manifold defining a first fluid
chamber and a second manifold defining a second fluid chamber of
said manifold assembly, the first manifold and the second manifold
joined in parallel relationship along a longitudinally extending
interface between a wall of the first manifold and a wall of the second
manifold, said method comprising:
forming a first access port in a wall of one of the first manifold
and the second manifold diametrically opposite the interface;
forming a first fluid communication port extending through a
wall of the first manifold and a wall of the second manifold at the
interface, said first fluid communication port defining a first fluid
passage between the first and second fluid chambers; and
sealingly plugging the access port;

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Carrier
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-006833
Application 14/890,236

3
wherein each of the first and second manifolds has an internal
diameter and the first fluid communication port has a diameter sized
such that a ratio of the manifold internal diameter to the
communication port diameter has a value in the range from 3 to 13
for each of the first and second manifolds.

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Iino2 and Locke.3 Final Act. 2–8.
II. Claims 3–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Iino, Locke,4 and Jenkins.5 Final Act. 8–14.
IV. Claims 7–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Iino, Locke, and Beamer.6 Final Act. 14–16.

2 Iino (EP 1 657 513 B1, issued Jan. 2, 2008).
3 Locke (US 2011/0288512 A1, published Nov. 24, 2011).
4 In the Final Office Action, the Examiner concludes that claims 3–6 are
unpatentable over “Iino as applied to claim 1, and further in view of
Jenkins.” Final Act. 8. This is inconsistent with the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 2, 10, 11, and 16 over “Iino [as] evidenced by Locke” (Final
Act. 2) on the basis that the Examiner uses Locke as evidence that the ratio
of the diameter of fluid passageway 6 or 7 to the diameter of communication
path 14 is a “result-effective variable” (Ans. 5). We caption the rejection of
claims 3–6 as being over Iino, Locke, and Jenkins, rather than over Iino and
Jenkins, so as to identify all reference whose teachings are relied on in
rejecting those claims.
5 Jenkins (US 2013/0220562 A1, published Aug. 20, 2013).
6 Beamer (US 2008/0023184 A1, published Jan. 31, 2008).
Appeal 2019-006833
Application 14/890,236

4
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The dispositive issue in this case relates to the ratio range between the
internal diameter of the first and second manifold (the manifolds have the
same diameter) and the communication port diameter. Specifically, claim 1
recites that the ratio “has a value in the range from 3 to 13.” To help
illustrate this ratio, we reproduce Figure 4C below.

Figure 4C is a perspective view of a dual-barrel embodiment of an integral
manifold assembly. Spec. ¶ 14. The embodiment includes first manifold
104, second manifold 204, and fluid communication port 230. Id. at ¶¶ 25
26.
The Examiner concludes that the subject matter of independent
claim 1 would have been obvious from the combined teachings of Iino and
Locke. Final Act. 2–5. Regarding the ratio range, the Examiner
acknowledges that Iino does not disclose the ratio between the manifold
internal diameter (fluid passages 6, 7 of header 2) and the communication
Appeal 2019-006833
Application 14/890,236

5
port (communication path 14).7 Final Act. 3; Iino ¶¶ 17, 18, Fig. 3. We
reproduce Figure 3 of Iino below.

Figure 3 of Iino is a cross-sectional view of a header, showing an example
method of forming a communication path in the header. Iino ¶¶ 17, 18,
Fig. 3.
The Examiner determines that the claimed ratio would have been
understood to be result-effective; and concludes that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have discovered the optimum or workable range of the ratio by
routine experimentation. Final Act. 3–4. Specifically, the Examiner
contends that the ratio is a variable that achieves the recognized result of
increasing or decreasing the velocity of flow as evidence by Locke. Id.
(citing Locke ¶ 24). For the reasons that follow, we disagree with the
Examiner’s determination.
The Federal Circuit has held that discovery of an optimum value of a
variable in a known process is normally obvious. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,
456 (CCPA 1955). Here, the Examiner tells us that a person of ordinary
skill would have varied the ratio of the diameter of the manifolds to the
diameter of the communication port to discover the claimed range because
changing the ratio increases or decreases the velocity of flow. Yet, as the

7 Parenthetical nomenclature is Iino’s.
Appeal 2019-006833
Application 14/890,236

6
Examiner acknowledges, Iino does not disclose any value for the ratio of
diameters (Final Act. 3), and, more importantly, Iino fails to disclose using
the ratio of diameters to effect velocity. See Appeal Br. 7; In re Antonie,
559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977) (finding an exception to the rule of In re
Aller that the discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known
process is normally obvious, in the case where a parameter optimized was
not recognized to be a result-effective variable). Consequently, even if we
agree with the Examiner that there is some relationship between velocity of
flow and a ratio of diameters, the Examiner has not demonstrated
sufficiently that it was known to use the ratio of diameters to manipulate
velocity.
Because the Examiner has not articulated persuasive reasoning with
sufficient factual underpinning to support the conclusion that the subject
matter of claim 1 would have been obvious, we do not sustain the rejection
of independent claim 1 or dependent claims 2, 10, 11, and 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.

Rejection II
Claims 3–6 depend from independent claim 1. The Examiner
concludes that the subject matter of claims 3–6 would have been obvious
from the combined teachings of Iino, Locke, and Jenkins. Final Act 8–14.
The Examiner relies on Iino and Locke for the claimed ratio in the same
manner as the first rejection, and consequently, we do not sustain this
rejection.

Appeal 2019-006833
Application 14/890,236

7
Rejection III
Claims 7–9 depend from independent claim 1. The Examiner
concludes that the subject matter of claims 7–9 would have been obvious
from the combined teachings of Iino, Locke, and Beamer. Final Act. 14–16.
The Examiner relies on Iino and Locke for the claimed ratio in the same
manner as the first rejection, and consequently, we do not sustain this
rejection.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 10, 11,
16
103 Iino, Locke 1, 2, 10, 11,
16
3–6 103 Iino, Locke,
Jenkins
3–6
7–9 103 Iino, Locke,
Beamer
7–9
Overall
Outcome
1–11, 16

REVERSED