Ex Parte Bolger

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2017

12975653 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2017)

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.
12/975,653 12/22/2010 Michael J. Bolger 10-0783 5936
30008 7590 09/28/2017
TtT tort tn f ht tpkf.tt dr at tot
EXAMINER
SCHUBERTSTR. 15A FUQUA, SHAWNTINA T
WUPPERTAL, 42289
GERMANY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2017 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 MICHAEL J. BOLGER1
Appeal 2017-000150
Application 12/975,653
Technology Center 3700
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, BETH Z. SHAW, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 4—6, 8, and 9, which constitute all the claims pending
in this application. Br. 3.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Runtal Holding Company SA is listed as the real party in interest. Br. 1.
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellant’s arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: the Final Action mailed May 29, 2015 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal
Brief filed October 27, 2015 (“Br.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed
May 18, 2016 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2017-000150
Application 12/975,653
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant describes the present invention as “a heating body where
the occurrence of excessive surface temperatures in certain spots or also in
large areas is avoided.” Abstract. According to Appellant, this goal is
achieved through “a heating body . . . wherein the heat source and the body
element are connected with each other by lamellae arranged between them.”
Id.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with formatted adjusted for
clarity, is illustrative of the appealed claims:
1. A radiator comprising body elements, the body elements
each having an interior through which a fluid as a heating
medium circulates, and further comprising a heat source,
wherein the heat source and the body elements extend
parallel to each other in parallel planes, the heat source located
between the body elements, and are connected with each other
by lamellae arranged between the heat source and the body
elements, respectively,
wherein the lamellae and the body elements are welded
together,
wherein the heat source initially heats the lamellae and
then the lamellae heat the body elements,
wherein the lamellae are positioned orthogonally relative
to the parallel planes of the heat source and the body elements,
wherein the heat source is an electric heating film and
wherein the radiator comprises a high temperature control
operatively connected to the electric heating film.
Claims 1, 4—6, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Meng (US 3,396,458; issued Aug. 13, 1968) and Gschwind
(US 2009/0214913 Al; published Aug. 27, 2009).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
2
Appeal 2017-000150
Application 12/975,653
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Meng discloses a heating body radiator with
a body element containing a heating medium, wherein the heat source and
the body element are connected by welded lamellae, and wherein the heat
source and body elements are in parallel and the lamellae are positioned
orthogonally. Final Act. 2 (citing FIGs. 1, la); see also id. at 3 (wherein the
Examiner states in the Response to Arguments section that Meng discloses a
radiator that is welded, as claimed). The Examiner finds that Meng does not
disclose the body elements having an interior through which fluid circulates,
an electric heating film, or a temperature control. Final Act. 2. The
Examiner further finds that Gschwind teaches these missing elements (id.
citing Gschwind Tflf 72, 108) and concludes that motivation existed to
combine Gschwind’s teachings in Meng’s radiator. Id. at 2—3.
Appellant asserts, inter alia, that “Meng et al. nowhere teaches that
the lamellae 26, 26' of the heating element 10 are welded to the front panel
56 and back panel 57 of the baseboard radiator of Fig. la.” Br. 4. Appellant
argues that Meng “only teaches that the blank for producing the finned
heating element may be welded instead of being extruded.” Id.
In response, the Examiner appears to change position on whether
Meng teaches that the fins 27 (or “lamellae”) are welded to the front and
back covers (or “body elements”):
Although Meng et al does not disclose the lamellae as being
welded to the body element, the end result is still the same. How
the components are coupled (i.e. welded or glued) does not affect
the transfer of heat from the lamellae to the body element. It is
obvious and within the level of ordinary skill to surmise heat
from the heater (12a, 17, 18, 11) will initially heat lamellae (27)
and then will be transferred to body element (55, 56, 57).
Ans. 3.
3
Appeal 2017-000150
Application 12/975,653
ANALYSIS
We understand the Examiner’s clarification in the Answer to be an
admission that Meng’s fins are not welded to Meng’s front and back covers.
A review of Meng’s Specification likewise indicates that Meng’s heating
elements are supported by plates 55—not welded to the covers. See Meng
col. 7,11. 43^47 (“the heating element 10 may be supported in parallel,
horizontal stacked form on a conventionally supported plate or the like 55 by
the front panel 56 and back panel 57 of a baseboard radiator of any
conventional configuration”). That is, we understand the Examiner to be
acknowledging that the combined teachings of Meng and Gschwind do not
teach all of the elements of independent claim 1.
As such, on this record, Appellant persuades us of error in the
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of that claim or of claims 4—6, 8, and 9, which depend
from claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4—6, 8, and 9 is reversed.
REVERSED
4