Christopher Migliaccio et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 16, 2020

2020000878 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 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.
14/583,830 12/29/2014 Christopher Phillip Migliaccio ARL 14-34 5280
21364 7590 07/16/2020
U S ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY
ATTN: RDRL-LOC-I
2800 POWDER MILL RD
ADELPHI, MD 20783-1138
EXAMINER
HINCAPIE SERNA, GUSTAVO A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/16/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER PHILLIP MIGLIACCIO and
NATHAN SCOTT LAZARUS
____________________

Appeal 2020-000878
Application 14/583,830
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 8–10, and 17–22.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies “the United States of America, as
represented by the Secretary of the Army,” as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
2 Although claims 6, 7, 11–14, 23, and 24 are pending, claims 7 and 11–14
are withdrawn from consideration, while claims 6, 23, and 24 recite
allowable subject matter. Appeal Br., Claims App.; Final Action 1, 5;
Advisory Action 1–2.
Appeal 2020-000878
Application 14/583,830

2
We REVERSE.
According to Appellant, the “invention relates to [heat transfer
through] excitation of the resonant frequency of condensate drops that have
condensed on a surface[,] and shedding those drops from the surface.” Spec.
¶ 3. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal. Below, we reproduce
claim 1 as representative of the appealed claims.
1. A heat transfer apparatus, comprising:
a body defining an inner volume;
an inlet coupled to a vapor source;
a vertical condensing surface on which a vapor
condenses, wherein the condensing surface is configured to
cause the vapor to form as one or more drops on the condensing
surface; and
an actuator proximate to the condensing surface
configured to vibrate drops on the condensing surface,
wherein the one or more drops are removed by operation
of the actuator at an excitation frequency of the drops before the
one or more drops reaching the size in which gravitational
forces overcome the capillary forces holding the drops to the
condensing surface resulting in an improvement in heat transfer
over an un-excited dropwise condensation system; and
wherein the excitation frequency by the actuator is equal
to a resonant frequency of each of the one or more drops.
REJECTION AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 8–10, and 17–22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Shyy et al. (US 2004/0093887 A1, published
May 20, 2004) (“Shyy”) and Xiao et al. (US 8,865,297 B2, issued Oct. 21,
2014) (“Xiao”).

Appeal 2020-000878
Application 14/583,830

3
ANALYSIS
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant, part, “[a]
heat transfer apparatus, comprising . . . a vertical condensing surface on
which a vapor condenses, wherein the condensing surface is configured to
cause the vapor to form as one or more drops on the condensing surface.”
Appeal Br., Claims App. According to the Examiner, Shyy’s condenser
surface 24 discloses the claimed “vertical condensing surface.” Answer 3.
Shyy shows condenser surface 24 as horizontal in Shyy’s thermal
management device. Shyy Fig. 3.
Nonetheless, the Examiner determines that “[i]f Shyy’s device is
simply rotated 90 degrees, not operating, [Shyy’s horizontal condensing
surface] still meets the claimed structural limitations [of a vertical
condensing surface]. . . . [C]laim 1 does not require the condensing surface
to be vertical during operation, that is, the condensing surface just needs to
be capable of being vertical.” Answer 3. We disagree with the Examiner.
The above claim recitation expressly recites what happens during operation
of the claimed heat transfer apparatus—that a vapor condenses on the
vertical condensing surface. Appeal Br., Claims App.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 8–10 and 17–22 that depend from, and the Examiner
rejects with, claim 1.

Appeal 2020-000878
Application 14/583,830

4
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1,
8–10, and 17–22.
In summary:
REVERSED

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1, 8–10,
17–22
103 Shyy, Xiao 1, 8–10,
17–22