13890885 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2018)

Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 11, 2018

13890885 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2018)

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. 13/890,885 05/09/2013 Jun-Lon Chen 83344678 7362 28395 7590 01/16/2018 RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER 1000 TOWN CENTER ARANT, HARRY E 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/16/2018 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): docketing @brookskushman. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JUN-LON CHEN, JONATHAN RAVER, and SYED K. ALI Appeal 2017-001254 Application 13/890,885 Technology Center 3700 Before JILL D. HILL, LISA M. GUIJT, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. HILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Jun-Lon Chen et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, “[t]he real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies, LLC.” Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claims 4 and 15 have been withdrawn from consideration. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2017-001254 Application 13/890,885 CLAIMS Independent claims 1 and 12 are the pending independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter. 1. A heat exchanger comprising: first and second headers having a plurality of elongate tubes extending there between, the tubes cooperating with an array of fins, wherein the tubes have a plurality of dimpled sections having a non-uniform dimple density followed by one of a plurality of smooth sections, in order to effectively transfer heat between a liquid flowing through each tube, and a tube wall at laminar, transitional, and turbulent flow conditions. REJECTIONS I. Claims 1-3, 6, 9, and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Viswanathan (US 2012/0180991 Al, pub. July 19, 2012) and Huet (US 3,154,141, iss. Oct. 27, 1964). Final Act. 3. II. Claims 5, 7, 8, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Viswanathan, Huet, and Le (US 6,321,832 Bl, iss. Nov. 27,2001). Final Act. 6. III. Claims 10, 11, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Viswanathan, Huet, and Geskes (US 7,942,137 B2, iss. May 17, 2011). Final Act. 7. OPINION Rejection I The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Viswanathan discloses the claimed heat exchanger as recited in claim 1, except for the dimpled sections of the tubes having a non-uniform dimple density. Final Act. 3. The 2 Appeal 2017-001254 Application 13/890,885 Examiner finds that “Huet teaches that it is old and well known to use a non- uniform dimple density” -or varied density dimples - in heat exchanger tubes. Id. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious, to one skilled in the art, “to modify the dimpled section of Viswanathan with the varying density dimples, as taught by Huet, to increase heat transfer by creating a turbulent flow in the fluid but optimizing the dimple density to reduce the amount of pressure that is lost through the tube.” Id. Appellants argue claims 1-3, 6, 9, and 12-14 as a group. Appeal Br. 5. We select claim 1 as the representative claim. Claims 2, 3, 6, 9, and 12- 14 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellants argue that there is no motivation to combine Viswanathan and Huet, because Viswanathan teaches away from “varying or non-uniform density dimples” in disclosing that its dimple spacing is constant, and “Viswanathan necessarily requires a non[-]varied or uniform dimple density to obtain the desired ratio that inventors in Viswanathan have found to provide the especially favorable trade-off between heat transfer performance and pressure drop.” Appeal Br.4-5. The Examiner responds that Viswanathan discloses the dimple spacing between dimples 2a and dimples 2b may vary, and, therefore, does not require a uniform dimple spacing and density. Ans. 9 (citing Viswanathan 33, Fig. 5). The Examiner further responds that, “[e]ven if Viswanathan explicitly taught a uniform dimple density this would still not constitute teaching away, as Viswanathan does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.” Id.; see In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 3 Appeal 2017-001254 Application 13/890,885 Appellants reply that Viswanathan’s paragraph 33 discloses only that that a spacing of a second set of dimples 2b may differ from spacing of a first set of dimples 2a, and consideration of this statement in view of Figure 5 shows that the section of dimples including set 2a has a uniform spacing, and the section of dimples including set 2b also has a uniform spacing. Reply Br. 2. Thus, Appellants contend, Viswanathan does not state that its dimple spacing can be varied or non-uniform within a single dimpled section. Id. at 3. Appellants do not explain where Viswanathan criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages non-uniform dimple spacing; rather, Appellants contend that the Examiner’s stated reason for combining Viswanathan and Huet (Final Act. 3 (“to increase heat transfer by creating a turbulent flow in the fluid but optimizing the dimple density to reduce the amount of pressure that is lost through the tube”)) is conclusory rather than providing an “articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Reply Br. 4. As stated supra, the Examiner provides an articulated reasoning for determinining that combining Viswanathan and Huet would increase heat transfer by creating a turbulent flow in the fluid while optimizing the dimple density to reduce the amount of pressure that is lost through the tube. See Final Act. 4. Appellants do not explain why this articulated reasoning lacks a rational basis. Further, it is unclear why substituting Huet’s non-uniform dimples for the uniform dimple sections in Viswanathan involves more than a simple substitution of one known element (non-uniform dimples) for another (sections of uniform dimples) to obtain predictable results. See KSR 4 Appeal 2017-001254 Application 13/890,885 Inti Co, v. Teleflex Inc,, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). We are not persuaded that the Examiner failed to establish prima facie obviousness. Rejections II and III Appellants make no argument that claims 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 16-20 would be patentable over the applied references, if claim 1 is not patentable over Viswanathan and Huet. For the reasons set forth above regarding Rejection I, we sustain Rejections II and III. DECISION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 9, and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Viswanathan and Huet. We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 5, 7, 8, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Viswanathan, Huet, and Fe. We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 10, 11, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Viswanathan, Huet, and Geskes. 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. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 5