DANFOSS MICRO CHANNEL HEAT EXCHANGER (JIAXING) CO. LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 27, 2020

14777607 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 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.
14/777,607 09/16/2015 Jianlong Jiang 6495-0714WOUS 4386
35301 7590 05/27/2020
McCormick, Paulding & Huber, PLLC
CityPlace II
185 Asylum Street
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
LEO, LEONARD R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2020 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):
cunningham@ip-lawyers.com
patentdocket@ip-lawyers.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JIANLONG JIANG, LIUHUA YANG, XIANGXUN LU,
YANDONG TANG, JEFFREY LEE TUCKER, and KAIQUAN LI
____________

Appeal 2019-006145
Application 14/777,607
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1, 9–13, 15, and 17 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Beamer (US 2008/0023183 A1, pub. Jan. 31, 2008), Nishishita
(US 5,076,354, iss. Dec. 31, 1991) and Jianlong (US 2011/0061844 A1, pub.
Mar. 17, 2011).2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Danfoss Micro Channel Heat
Exchanger (Jiaxing) Co. Ltd. as the applicant and real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
2 A rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn by
the Examiner. Ans. 7.
Appeal 2019-006145
Application 14/777,607
2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to heat exchangers. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A collecting pipe comprising:
an axially extending inner chamber comprising a refrigerant inlet
chamber and a refrigerant distribution chamber which are separated
from each other and in fluid communication with each other; and
a plurality of axially extending individual components, wherein
at least one of said refrigerant inlet chamber, said refrigerant
distribution chamber and said collecting pipe is formed by
successively placing and connecting the plurality of axially
extending individual components in an assembling direction
perpendicular to the axial direction;
wherein said plurality of axially extending individual
components comprises individual first and second components, at
least a portion of the first component forms one of said refrigerant
inlet chamber and refrigerant distribution chamber, and at least a
portion of a wall of said first component and the second component
form the other of said refrigerant inlet chamber and refrigerant
distribution chamber by placing and connecting the first and second
components in said assembling direction;
wherein when viewed in cross section, said first component
comprises: a first U-shaped wall part, step parts extending outwardly
from two ends of the first U-shaped wall part, and second wall parts
extending from outer ends of said step parts towards the side remote
from the first U-shaped wall part;
wherein when viewed in cross section, said first component has a
central angle approximately equal to or less than 180 degrees, the
central angle corresponding to an arc defined by free ends of the
second wall parts, which forms an outer wall of the collecting pipe;
wherein when viewed in cross section, said first component
further comprises: a partition wall part extending from an inner end
of a first step part of said step parts to an inner end of a second step
part of said step parts; and
wherein a surface of said partition wall part on the side remote
from said refrigerant distribution chamber is integrally formed with a
refrigerant pipeline, and the refrigerant pipeline is spaced apart from
said first U-shaped wall part.
Appeal 2019-006145
Application 14/777,607
3
OPINION
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Beamer discloses the invention substantially
as claimed except for: (1) a first component having a central angle less
than 180 degrees; and (2) a partition that is integrally formed with a
refrigerant pipeline. Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner relies on: (1) Nishishita
as teaching the central angle; and (2) Jianlong as teaching an integrally
formed wall and pipeline. Id. at 5–6. The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to combine the teachings of Beamer, Nishishita, and
Jianlong to achieve the claimed invention. Id. at 7. According to the
Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to
conserve fluid and minimize effects from the distribution chamber. Id.
Appellant first argues that the prior art fails to disclose a partition wall
as claimed. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant contends that Beamer’s partition wall
does not extend from an inner end of a first step part to an inner end of a
second step part within the meaning of claim 1. Id. at 12.
In response, the Examiner supports a finding that Beamer does satisfy
the claim limitation by providing an annotated version of Figure 8 of
Beamer with annotations indicating the location of steps 52 and the inner
end of Beamer’s partition wall. Ans. 8.
In reply, Appellant argues that the claimed “step parts” must extend
outwardly from the end of a first U-shaped wall part. Reply Br. 3.
According to Appellant, the alleged step parts of the Examiner’s annotated
version of Figure 8 do not extend outward from the ends of a U-shaped wall
part. Id.
Appeal 2019-006145
Application 14/777,607
4
Beamer is directed to a heat exchanger assembly. Beamer, Abstract.
Beamer’s heat exchanger features an inlet manifold 22 that defines an
interior volume. Id. ¶¶ 31–32. The outer structure of manifold 22 is
comprised of two components that resemble what may be referred to as half-
pipes. Id. Fig. 2. One of the half-pipes is defined by outer wall 56. Id.
Outer wall 56 includes a pair of opposed longitudinal edges 50. Id. ¶ 35,
Fig. 2. Each longitudinal edge features a flange 62 forming a seat 52. Id.
The second of the two half-pipes is identified as header 36. Id. ¶ 32, 38,
Figs. 2–11. The two half-pipes are joined lengthwise to form what may be
referred as a completed “pipe.” Id. Fig. 2. The joint between header 36 and
tank 30 is formed when the lengthwise lateral edges of header 36 are fitted
into seat 52 and flange 62 of tank 30. Id. ¶ 35, Figs. 2–11. When header 36
is fitted into seat 52 and flange 62, an interior volume is created that is
identified as cavity 38. Id. ¶ 38, Figs. 2, 7, 8. Tank 30 features an inner
partition wall 60 that separates distribution channel 66, which is formed
entirely within tank 30, from the remainder of cavity 38. See Id. ¶ 35,
Figs. 2–4, 6–11. A review of Figures 2–11 of Beamer reveals a wide variety
of cross-sectional configurations of cavity 38 with varying shapes, sizes, and
locations of channel 66 disposed within cavity 38. Id. Inner partition
wall 60 is variously depicted as concave, convex, and linearly straight. Id.
The claim limitations in dispute between Appellant and the Examiner
read, in pertinent part, as follows:
step parts extending outwardly from two ends of the first U-
shaped wall part, and second wall parts extending from outer
ends of said step parts towards the side remote from the first U-
shaped wall part;
wherein when viewed in cross section, said first component
further comprises: a partition wall part extending from an inner
Appeal 2019-006145
Application 14/777,607
5
end of a first step part of said step parts to an inner end of a
second step part of said step parts.
Claims App. Whether or not this limitation is satisfied by Beamer depends,
for the most part, on construction of the term “step part.” During
examination of a patent application, pending claims are given their broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest
reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and
customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Appellant does not direct us to any language in the Specification that
purportedly furnishes an explicit definition of “step part.” See generally
Appeal Br. Neither does Appellant argue that the Specification defines such
term by implication. See Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383
F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (explaining that the Specification may
define a term by implication). Consequently, we will apply a broad, but
reasonable, construction of the term. Construing claims broadly during
prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the
opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. Am.
Acad., 367 F.3d at 1364.
According to Appellant’s Specification, step parts 112 are elements
that “extend outwardly” from “ends” of arc-shaped wall part 111, when
viewed in cross section. Spec. ¶ 42, Fig. 2. Moreover, a second set of arc-
shaped wall parts 113 extend from the outer end of step parts 112. Id. We
can infer from this description that a “step part” extends from the end of wall
part 111 to the beginning of wall part 113. Id. The Specification further
Appeal 2019-006145
Application 14/777,607
6
teaches that partition wall 114 extends between “inner ends” of step
parts 112. Id. In Appellant’s Figure 2, partition wall 114 joins arc shaped
wall part 111 at more-or-less the same location of pipe 1 where step part 112
departs from the arcuate shape of arc shaped wall part 111. Id. Thus,
Appellant’s own Specification contemplates that step part 112 includes
structure that is common to partition wall 114 and arc shaped wall part 111.
Due to the fact that art shaped wall 111, step part 112, and partition wall 114
all have a certain, but unspecified thickness, it is difficult, if not impossible,
to discern, with any precision, where each of these parts begin and end with
respect to each other. Appellant’s arguments fail to take thickness of the
various walls and the consequent commonly shared joint structure of the
walls into consideration. Thus, it is not clear from the Specification, or
Appellant’s briefing, whether elements 111, 112, and 113 include or exclude
commonly shared structure that exists at the joints between these elements.
Turning our attention now to the Examiner’s rejection, Figures 2–11
of Beamer all show partition wall 60 separating distribution channel 66 from
the remaining volume of cavity 38. Beamer, Figs. 2–11. The same figures
show a wide variety of shapes of distribution channel 66, which is defined
by a wide variety of configurations of inner partition wall 60. Id. The same
figures show a wide variety of configurations with respect to how the walls
of inlet manifold 22 and tank 30 interact and join with partition wall 60. Id.
In much the same manner as Appellant’s invention, the joining of partition
wall 60 into wall 56 shares common structure. Id. Fig. 7 (showing arcuate
walls that gradually merge into each other). In view of the foregoing, we
construe the “end” of “step part” in claim 1 as broad enough to encompass
shared structure at or near the joints with adjacent wall structures.
Appeal 2019-006145
Application 14/777,607
7
Construing “end” of “step part” in a broad, but reasonable manner and
applying such construction to the prior art, we determine that the Examiner
does not err in finding that Beamer satisfies the limitations of claim 1
directed to step parts.
Furthermore, and without changing the thrust of the Examiner’s
rejection, we note that the particular geometric configuration regarding step
parts argued by Appellant as distinguishing over Beamer does not appear to
be critical to the invention. In the case of Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725
F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), the Federal Circuit upheld a determination by
the District Court that certain dimensional limitations were “essentially
meaningless” and amounted to no more than “window dressing,” rather than
contributing to any beneficial or advantageous operation of the claimed
invention. Id. at 1346. Similarly, even assuming arguendo that Appellant’s
configuration is somehow distinct from Beamer (we do not, however, so
find), we are at a loss to understand how the recited locations of the “ends”
of the “step parts” of Appellant’s invention vis-à-vis wall 111 and partition
wall 114 provide any non-obvious, operational improvement or advantage
over any of the plurality of configurations depicted in Beamer.
Appellant next argues that the prior art fails to disclose the “central
angle” as claimed. Appeal Br. 13. We find the Examiner’s response to this
argument to be persuasive and adopt the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions on this issue as our own. Ans. 9–11; see In re Cree, Inc., 818
F.3d 694, 698 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that it is commonplace in
administrative law for a reviewing body within an agency to adopt a fact-
finding body’s findings). Furthermore, it bears mention that, when joining
two half-pipes together, it is understood at least one of the half-pipes will
Appeal 2019-006145
Application 14/777,607
8
define an interior central angle of 180 degrees or less. Appellant provides
no evidence or argument as to how the claimed central angle benefits the
invention, achieves unexpected results, or requires more than ordinary skill
to accomplish. Thus, we are again at a loss to understand how this
geometric limitation is anything more than just additional “window
dressing” in the claim. Gardner, 725 F.2d at 1346.
Finally, Appellant argues that the prior art fails to satisfy the
“integrally formed” limitation in claim 1. Appeal Br. 16–18. In particular,
Appellant argues that Jianlong’s distribution tube is merely “connected to”
partition 4. Id. at 17. The Examiner responds that the term “integral” is
sufficiently broad to encompass assemblies of components united by
fastening or welding. Ans. 11, citing In re Hotte, 475 F2d 644, 177 USPQ
326 (CCPA 1973). In reply, Appellant argues that “integrally formed” may
be construed more narrowly than “integral.” Reply Br. 7 citing Ex parte
Oddsen, Appeal 2009–001452, (BPAI, December 17, 2009).
The Examiner is generally correct that “integral” can contemplate a
plurality of components that are fastened together. See In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In Morris, the court explained that the
term “integral” can cover more than unitary construction. Id.
Appellant’s “integrally formed” argument does not persuade us that
the Examiner erred. Appellant provides neither evidence nor persuasive
technical reasoning that using one piece of construction instead of an
assembly of components fastened together is anything more than a matter of
obvious engineering choice. Ex parte Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968
(CCPA 1965). In the instant case, Beamer explicitly discloses that tank 30 is
formed by extrusion. Beamer ¶ 35. Tank 30 includes inner partition wall 60
Appeal 2019-006145
Application 14/777,607
9
that defines distribution channel 66. Id. ¶ 35, 44, Figs. 2, 7, 8. From the
standpoint of manufacturing process, the structure of Appellant’s claimed
refrigerant pipeline lends itself to being integrally formed by the same
extrusion process used to form Beamer’s tank 30 and, therefore, Appellant’s
“integrally formed” limitation does not require more than ordinary skill.
Compare Beamer, Figs. 2–11, with Appellant’s Fig. 2.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine the Examiner’s
findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and that
the Examiner’s legal conclusion of unpatentability is well-founded. We
sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of claim 1.
Claims 9–13, 15, and 17
Appellant does not argue for the separate patentability of claims 9–13,
15, and 17 apart from arguments presented with respect to claim 1 which we
have previously considered. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 9–13, 15, and 17. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (failure to
separately argue claims constitutes a waiver of arguments for separate
patentability).
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
§ Reference(s) Aff’d Rev’d
1, 9-13, 15,
17
103 Beamer, Nishishita, Jianlong 1, 9-13, 15,
17

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED