Ex Parte Belady et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 24, 2013

11111066 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CHRISTIAN L. BELADY, WADE D. VINSON,
ERIC C. PETERSON, and DAVID ALLEN MOORE
____________________

Appeal 2011-011188
Application 11/111,066
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LYNNE H. BROWNE and
RICHARD E. RICE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-011188
Application 11/111,066

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
9 and 17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an air mover with thermally coupled guide
vanes. Claims 1 and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. An air mover comprising:
a housing with an inlet and an exhaust;
a plurality of blades rotatably disposed
within said housing, wherein the plurality of blades
are inset from the inlet by an unobstructed channel
formed by the housing; and
a plurality of guide vanes fixed within said
housing between the plurality of blades and the
exhaust,
wherein the plurality of guide vanes extend
into a primarily axial airflow generated by rotating
said plurality of blades, and wherein said guide
vanes are thermally coupled to an electronic
component such that heat generated by the
electronic component is transferred through said
guide vanes into said airflow.

PRIOR ART
Larson
Herbert
US 3,976,393
US 5,297,617
Aug. 24, 1976
Mar. 29, 1994

GROUND OF REJECTION
Claims 1, 9 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Herbert and Larson.

Appeal 2011-011188
Application 11/111,066

3
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Herbert discloses every limitation of
independent claim 1 except for “the recitation of the ‘blades . . . inset from
the inlet by an unobstructed channel formed by the housing.’” Ans. 4. The
Examiner further finds, however, that “both the vane elements 243 in the
inlet and those 257 downstream of the fan for air rectification,” of Herbert’s
embodiment, “may be made thermally conductive (i.e. ‘optimized for heat
transfer’).” Ans. 4. The Examiner then reasons that “if there were fewer
components 237 requiring cooling, or their location were desired to be in the
center of the casing rather than towards the ends, it would have been obvious
. . . to omit the end fins 243 and leave the ends of the casing unobstructed.”
Ans. 4-5 (citing MPEP § 2144.04 for the proposition that “the elimination of
an element from a device with the consequent loss of its function when not
desired” is generally an obvious modification). The Examiner further finds
that Larson “shows that it is known in the art to provide bell shaped,
unobstructed entranceways for axial flow fan having straightening vanes
downstream of the axial fan.” Ans. 5. The Examiner additionally reasons
that:
it can be considered that HERBERT
teaches/suggests that axial fan casings such as that
shown in LARSON can be employed to cool
electronic components, and it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make
some or all of the flow straightening vanes 46 of
LARSON thermally conductive so that the fan
could be employed for component cooling
purposes as taught in HERBERT by thermally
contacting components to be cooled to the housing
58 which surrounds the fan and the airflow duct.
Id.
Appeal 2011-011188
Application 11/111,066

4
We understand the Examiner to have formulated the rejection using
multiple rationales, with the first rationale relying on Herbert alone. With
respect to the Examiner’s first rationale, Appellants argue that “[t]he
omission of heat conductive fins from Herbert's fan assembly 231, as
suggested by the Examiner, to meet the claimed unobstructed channel
limitation is improper since claim 1 also requires thermally-coupled guide
vanes and thus Herbert's heat conductive fins are desired.” App. Br. 10. In
support of this argument, Appellants contend that “the alleged applicability
of MPEP § 2144.04 is incorrect since the issue is the position of Herbert's
heat-conductive fins, not their omission. Id. In the Reply Brief, Appellants
further explain their position stating: “[a]s is made clear by the text of
2144.04, if the function of a structure in the prior art is not desired for
purposes of the instant claims, omission of the structure in the claims is
obvious,” and that that the Examiner’s rejection “does not follow the
requirements laid out.” Reply Br. 1.
The rejection identifies both Herbert’s heat conducting fins 243 and
air directing baffles 257 as structures meeting the “plurality of guide vanes”
requirement. See Ans. 4 (emphasis added). Herbert states that “[w]hile the
air directing baffles 257 may direct the air as in a multi-stage fan of
conventional design, they may also be optimized for heat transfer rather than
optimized for fan performance.” Herbert, col. 9, ll. 33-36 (emphasis added).
Thus, the Examiner’s finding that the claimed plurality of guide vanes read
on air baffles 257 is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Since
the rejection proposes elimination of only one of Herbert’s heat conducting
structures, fins 243, while retaining Herbert’s other heat conducting
structures, air baffles 257, Appellants’ argument that the principles set forth
Appeal 2011-011188
Application 11/111,066

5
in MPEP § 2144.04 are inapplicable is not convincing. Furthermore, air
baffles 257 are fixed within the housing “between the plurality of blades and
the exhaust” and thus located as required by claim 1.
Accordingly, Appellants have not apprised us of error in the rejection
of claim 1 based on Herbert alone, and we sustain the rejection. Appellants
have not presented separate arguments for claim 9, which depends from
claim 1. Accordingly, we likewise sustain the rejection of claim 9.
With respect to claim 17, Appellants argue that, “[c]laim 17 is
allowable over Herbert and Larson for much the same reasons as given for
claim 1. Appellants’ arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 17
based on Herbert alone are not persuasive for the reasons discussed supra.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 17.
Having sustained the rejection of claims 1, 9 and 17 based on Herbert
alone, we need not reach Appellants’ arguments with respect to Larson or
the combined teachings of Herbert and Larson.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 9 and 17 is AFFIRMED.
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) (2009).

AFFIRMED

Klh