Eaton CorporationDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 2, 20202019006195 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 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. 15/596,063 05/16/2017 Douglas Michael Brandt 16-VCB-318 CONT. 6140 101730 7590 09/02/2020 ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC EATON CORPORATION 600 GRANT STREET 44TH FLOOR PITTSBURGH, PA 15219 EXAMINER BOLTON, WILLIAM A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2833 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/02/2020 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): ipmail@eckertseamans.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DOUGLAS MICHAEL BRANDT, BRAD ROBERT LECCIA, RICHARD BLAINE FRYE IV, and ZACHARY RYAN JENKINS Appeal 2019-006195 Application 15/596,063 Technology Center 2800 BEFORE ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge. Appeal 2019-006195 Application 15/596,063 2 DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 9–13, 19, and 20. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm in part. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant states the invention relates to a vacuum circuit breaker including a conductive member with an electro-thermally efficient contour. Spec. 1, ll. 11–13. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (Appeal Br., Claims Appendix 16): 1. A conductive member for a circuit breaker high voltage portion conductor assembly, said conductive member comprising: a body; said body includes a transfer portion and a coupling portion; and wherein said body transfer portion has an electrically efficient contour. Claim 11 is also independent and recites a vacuum circuit breaker, the vacuum circuit breaker including a primary first conductor and a primary 1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification filed May 16, 2017 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action mailed January 29, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed April 12, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed July 11, 2019 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed August 16, 2019 (“Reply Br.”). 2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Eaton Intelligent Power Limited. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-006195 Application 15/596,063 3 second conductor, where one of the primary first conductor or primary second conductor includes a body with a transfer portion having an electrically efficient contour. Id. at 18–19. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Cleaveland US 3,829,647 August 13, 1974 Diaz US 7,786,384 B2 August 31, 2010 Kurth et al. (hereinafter “Kurth”) US 2010/0059479 A1 March 11, 2010 REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1–3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Diaz. Final Act. 2–3. 2. The Examiner rejected claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Diaz in view of Cleaveland. Final Act. 3–4. 3. The Examiner rejected claims 11–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kurth and Diaz. Final Act. 4–6. OPINION Rejection 1 Appellant presents separate arguments with respect to claims 1 and 2. See Appeal Br. 6, 11–12. We select claims 1 and 2 as representative for disposition of this rejection, with the patentability of the other claims standing or falling with claims 1 and 2. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2019-006195 Application 15/596,063 4 The Examiner’s Rejection In rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Diaz, the Examiner found Diaz discloses a conductive member (bus-bar) for a circuit breaker high voltage portion conductor assembly having a body, a transfer portion, and a coupling portion. Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner found Diaz discloses an “electrically efficient contour” as recited in claim 1, as well as a “thermally efficient contour” and “electro-thermally efficient contour” as recited in claim 2. Id. at 3, citing Diaz, col. 2, ll. 28–34. Appellant’s Contentions Regarding claim 1, Appellant argues Diaz does not disclose a body transfer portion with an “electrically efficient contour” as the term is defined in the Specification. Appeal Br. 6–11. As to claim 2, Appellant argues also that Diaz does not disclose a body transfer portion with a “thermally efficient contour” as the term is defined in the Specification. Id. at 11. Issues The dispositive issues with respect to this rejection are: Did the Examiner err in finding Diaz discloses a body transfer portion with an “electrically efficient contour” as recited in claim 1? Did the Examiner err in finding Diaz discloses a body transfer portion with a “thermally efficient contour” as recited in claim 2? Discussion At the outset, we agree with Appellant that the Specification provides an express definition for the term “electrically efficient contour:” “[a]s used Appeal 2019-006195 Application 15/596,063 5 herein, an ‘electrically efficient contour’ means a conductive member, or a portion of a conductive member, has a contour that distributes current generally evenly across a cross-sectional area of the conductive member, or a portion of the conductive member.” Spec. 10, ll. 13–16; Appeal Br. 6. However, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that such a definition is sufficient to distinguish the arrangement disclosed in Diaz. In this regard, we emphasize that Appellant’s definition uses a term of degree, in particular, the contour distributes current “generally evenly across a cross- sectional area of the conductive member” (emphasis added). Diaz discloses bowl-shaped busbar conductors “achieve better thermal dissipation and current distribution, and mitigate skin effects.” Diaz, col. 1, ll. 55–65. “Skin effect” is a phenomenon “which holds that the current density near the surface of the conductor is greater than at its core.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 27–29; see Spec. 2, ll. 19–22, Appeal Br., Ex. 5. Appellant’s main argument is that Diaz’s use of the term “mitigate” as pertaining to the skin effect disclosed in Diaz, does not necessarily mean that Diaz obtains a “generally evenly” distributed current that is required in the express definition in the Specification of “electrically efficient contour” recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 7–11 citing Second Declaration of Douglas Michael Brandt executed on November 6, 2018, Appeal Br. Ex. 2 (hereinafter “the Brandt Declaration”), Definitions of mitigate, Exs. 3, 4; Reply Br. 4–5. We are not persuaded by this argument. That is, based on the evidence of record, we cannot discern what the practical difference is between a current that is “generally evenly” distributed as required by the definition of “electrically efficient contour” recited in claim 1 and the invention disclosed in Diaz, where the “skin Appeal 2019-006195 Application 15/596,063 6 effect” and “proximity effect” of the current is “mitigated” to obtain a “more uniform and symmetrical current density.” Diaz, col. 2, ll. 2–14. In particular, the Brandt Declaration points to the existence of a thin fin in the middle of a conductor as opposed to the outer perimeter of the conductor as being the feature that gives rise to the generally even current distribution, a feature the Brandt Declaration asserts is not present in the two C-shaped bodies disclosed in Diaz. Brandt Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7. The Brandt Declaration then concludes that because of this, A/C current would still flow mostly over the skin of the planar portions of the C-shaped bodies, and would not generally evenly distribute current. Id. at ¶ 8. The Brandt Declaration also asserts that spacing of fins effects whether optimal cooling air flow is obtained. Id. at ¶ 9. Even crediting this evidence, the Brandt Declaration does not adequately explain what the particular difference is between “generally evenly” distributed current and the current distribution in Diaz. In this regard, Appellant, in the Reply Brief, presents a scenario in an attempt to illustrate the difference between a “generally evenly” distributed current and a “mitigated” skin effect as in Diaz. Reply Br. 4–5. According to Appellant’s scenario, a current “disposed in less than 50% of the schematic busbar cross-section” is not “generally evenly” distributed current. Id. at 5. Our issue with Appellant’s scenario is that we have not been directed to sufficient guidance as to the limit of the relative term “generally” on the term “evenly” in a sufficient manner to distinguish Diaz. Given the purpose of Diaz is to evenly distribute current as discussed above, we cannot say there is a distinction between Diaz and claim 1. To that end, we have Appeal 2019-006195 Application 15/596,063 7 considered the definitions of “mitigate” provided by Appellant, but in view of the express disclosures in Diaz, we do not find these definitions dispositive as to the alleged difference in current distributions as a result of the term “generally” used in the definition in the Specification. Thus, to the extent the Examiner may have disregarded the express definition of “electrically efficient contour” in the Specification (see Appeal Br. 6, Reply Br. 2; Ans. 3), we find such an error to be harmless, as the Examiner sufficiently explained how the use of “generally” in the definition impacts the application of Diaz to the claims. (Ans. 4–5.) Claim 2 We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Diaz fails to anticipate claim 2. As discussed above, claim 2 recites a “thermally efficient contour,” which is expressly defined in the Specification as “a conductive member, or a portion of a conductive member, has contour that is structured to transfer heat via convection.” Spec. 10, ll. 16–18. The Specification further defines “structured to transfer heat via convection” to mean that “the contour is structured to transfer more heat via convection than a substantially solid contour with a similar peripheral shape; thus, a solid conductive member, such as, but not limited to a cylindrical or planar conductive member is not, as used herein, ‘structured to transfer heat via convection.’” Spec. 10, ll. 18–22. The Specification also states “a conductive member that defines a substantially enclosed space, such as, but not limited to, a hollow cylinder, is not, as used herein, ‘structured to transfer heat via convection.’” Spec. 10, ll. 27–29. Appeal 2019-006195 Application 15/596,063 8 Appellant argues the bus bars in Diaz define a “substantially enclosed space” in terms of a “hollow cylinder” and as such are not “structured to transfer heat via convection” as required by the definition of “thermally efficient contour” in the Specification. Appeal Br. 11, Reply Br. 8–9; Brandt Decl. ¶ 11. We are not persuaded by these arguments. That is, Diaz discloses opposite facing bowl-shaped conductors including air gaps that increase cooling efficiency and reduce the overall temperature of the bus system. Diaz, col. 2, ll. 15–26. Thus, despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary, we are not persuaded that the definition and description in the Specification excludes the particular structures in Diaz, where Diaz expressly disclose structures, which are not solid hollow cylinders that provide cooling efficiency. Rejection 2 We select claim 9 as representative for disposition of this rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner’s Rejection Claim 9 depends from claim 1, and further recites “wherein said body is a unitary body.” In rejecting claim 9 as obvious over Diaz and Cleaveland, the Examiner found that Diaz fails to disclose a unitary body, and found Cleaveland discloses a similar conductive member where a body is a unitary body. Final Act. 3, citing Cleaveland, col. 3, ll. 59–63. The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to have modified the body transfer Appeal 2019-006195 Application 15/596,063 9 portion of Diaz with Cleaveland to provide a structure with the required rigidity without an object able increase in electrical resistance of the conductor. Id. at 4. Appellant’s contentions Appellant contends the term “unitary” is defined in the Specification and according to that definition, Cleaveland does not disclose a “unitary body” as recited in claim 9. Appeal Br. 12–13. Appellant also argues it is unclear how a unitary body conductor can be combined with the bifurcated conductor in Diaz. Appeal Br. 13–14. Issue Did the Examiner err in determining it would have been obvious to construct a conductor having a unitary body as recited in claim 9 in view of Diaz and Cleaveland? Discussion We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Specification states “[a]s used herein, the word ‘unitary’ means a component that is created as a single piece or unit. That is, a component that includes pieces that are created separately and then coupled together as a unit is not a ‘unitary’ component or body.” Spec. 7, ll. 22–24. The Examiner acknowledges Appellant can be their own lexicographer, but expressly states that the Examiner’s interpretation of the plain meaning is being used to interpret the claims rather than the term as expressly defined in the Specification. Ans. 6–7. We, like Appellant, Appeal 2019-006195 Application 15/596,063 10 cannot reconcile the Examiner’s position, which appears to be exactly the opposite of controlling case law cited by the Examiner. Reply Br. 10–11; Ans. 6, citing In re Zletz, 893 F.3d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Thus, we interpret unitary body as the term is expressly defined in the Specification as discussed above. As a result, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not adequately explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the busbars of Diaz, which include two conductor halves separated by an air gap (Diaz, col. 3, ll. 42–48; Fig. 1) to be a unitary body in view of the function of the air gaps to provide cooling efficiency as discussed above. In addition, as pointed out by Appellant, Cleaveland discloses a bus bar section 22 and heat dissipating means 24 with fins 26. Appeal Br. 13; Cleaveland, col. 3, ll. 55–64. Cleaveland expressly discloses that the fins 26 are shaped separately and then attached to bus bar section 22. Cleaveland, col. 4, ll. 6–14. Thus, Cleaveland does not disclose a “unitary body” as recited in claim 9. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 19. However, because Appellant relies on the dependency of claims 10 and 20 as a basis for patentability (Appeal Br. 14), we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 20 for the reasons discussed above. Rejection 3 For the rejection of claim 11–13 over Kurth and Diaz, Appellant relies on the arguments made with respect to Diaz in the rejection of claims 1–3. Appeal Br. 14–15. Because we did not find these arguments persuasive as discussed above, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11–13 for similar reasons as discussed above for Rejection 1. Appeal 2019-006195 Application 15/596,063 11 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3 102 Diaz 1–3 9, 10, 19, 20 103 Diaz, Cleaveland 10, 20 9, 19 11–13 103 Kurth, Diaz 11–13 Overall Outcome 1–3, 10–13, 20 9, 19 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED IN PART Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation