Ex Parte Dunn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 24, 2017

13206596 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 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.
13/206,596 08/10/2011 William Dunn MAN2241-097B 4173
8698 7590 04/26/2017
STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP
6300 Riverside Drive
Dublin, OH 43017
EXAMINER
GLICK, EDWARD J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2871
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2017 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):
standley docketing @ standleyllp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM DUNN and TIM HUBBARD
Appeal 2016-004155
Application 13/206,5961
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JULIA HEANEY, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1—5 and 7—18. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Manufacturing
Resources International, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-004155
Application 13/206,596
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Appellants describe the invention as relating to a heat sink system for
cooling components of an electronic display such as, for example, an LCD
or LED display. Spec. Tflf 7—8. The heat sink system is depicted in Figure
IB, reproduced below:
100-N.
Figure IB is a detailed front perspective section view of an exemplary
embodiment of the cooling component. Id. at 113. The figure depicts front
plate 180, rear plate 125, and continuous conductive sheet 500. Id. at 131.
Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added to certain key
recitations, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An expanded heat sink for transferring heat from an
electronic display component to a path of cooling air, the
expanded heat sink comprising:
a continuous sheet when viewed along the path of the
cooling air and oriented horizontally, defines a series of four-
2 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed September 12,
2014 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed April 17, 2015 (“Appeal Br.”),
and the Examiner’s Answer mailed September 30, 2015 (“Ans.”).
2
Appeal 2016-004155
Application 13/206,596
sided polygons having top, bottom, left side, and right side
portions where either the top or bottom portions are absent from
each polygon; and
a front thermally-conductive plate placed above the
continuous sheet to define a series of air channels between
the front plate and the continuous sheet; and
a rear thermally-conductive plate place below the
continuous sheet to define a series of air channels between the
rear plate and the continuous sheet.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App’x).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Harris et al.
(hereinafter “Harris”)
Lee et al.
(hereinafter “Lee”)
Sagi et al.
(hereinafter “Sagi”)
Kim et al.
(hereinafter “Kim”3)
US 5,748,269
US 2006/0082271 Al
US 2008/0283234 Al
KR 1020050033986 A
May 5, 1998
Apr. 20, 2006
Nov. 20, 2008
Apr. 5, 2014
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
Rejection 1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 11—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by Sagi. Ans. 2.
Rejection 2. Claims 3 and 15 under U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Sagi in view of Kim. Id. at 6.
3 The Examiner refers to this reference as “KR.” Ans. 6.
3
Appeal 2016-004155
Application 13/206,596
Rejection 2. Claims 8—10 and 16 under U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Lee in view of Sagi. Id. at 7.
Rejection 3. Claims 17 and 18 under U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Lee in view of Sagi and further in view of Harris. Id. at 9.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by the Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to
identity the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”)). After considering
the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellants’ contentions,
we are not persuaded that Appellants identity reversible error. Thus, we
affirm the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office
Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants argue all rejections together and argue all claims as a
group. See Appeal Br. 12. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013), we limit our discussion to claim 1, and
all other claims on appeal stand or fall together with claim 1.
4
Appeal 2016-004155
Application 13/206,596
The Examiner finds that Figure 3 of Sagi, reproduced below, discloses
the claimed heat sink structure sufficiently to meet the requirements of
§ 102. Ans. 2.
FIG.3
Figure 3 of Sagi is a perspective view of Sagi’s heat sink in a second
preferred embodiment. Sagi 138. The Examiner finds that portions 3m and
3v in the shape of a rectangular wave together correspond to claim 1 ’s
continuous sheet, metallic foil 32 corresponds to claim 1 ’s front plate and
“defme[s] a series of air channels between the front plate and the continuous
sheet,” and holding board 5 corresponds to claim 1 ’s rear plate. Ans. 2—3.
A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s findings and the
Examiner’s anticipation conclusion.
Appellants’ sole argument on appeal is that Sagi’s metallic foil 32
cannot correspond to the front plate of claim 1 because foil 32 “is to be
5
Appeal 2016-004155
Application 13/206,596
formed over the continuous sheet 3v/3m, not retaining its planar shape
shown in this Figure [(Sagi Fig. 3)], but instead conforming to the precise
shape of the radiation fins 3v/3m.” Appeal Br. 8—9. The Examiner
disagrees because “nowhere in Fig. 3 or the disclosure of the Second
Embodiment ([corresponding to] Fig. 3) does it disclose the conforming of
the metal foil 32 to the precise shape of the radiation fins 3v/3m.” Ans. 10.
Thus, the Examiner maintains that, as shown in Figure 3, the foil 32 is flat
(planar) and defines channels as recited in claim 1. Id. at 3.
Both Appellants and the Examiner cite paragraph 92 of Sagi as
supporting their position. Appeal Br. 9-10; Ans. 10. This paragraph
describes the second embodiment of Sagi as depicted in Figure 3 and states:
“Further, the heat sink 31 is constructed such that a metallic foil 32 [is]
formed of A1 [(aluminum)] etc. with high heat radiation property is attached
covering all the radiation fins 3 and the heat source H disposed on the
holding board 5.” Sagi 192. This paragraph, standing alone, can be read to
support either side’s position. The paragraph refers to foil 32 as “covering”
the fins 3 and the heat source H, and covering could mean being placed
flatly over the apparatus (as the Examiner finds) or could mean tightly
covering like wrapping paper wraps a present (as proposed by Appellants).
Both Appellants and Examiner also present different views regarding
the meaning of metallic foil 32 being depicted with dashed lines in Figure 3.
Appeal Br. 10 (asserting that dashed lines “only indicate the presence of the
element generally, but not in the specific location or even having that
specific shape”); Ans. 10 (asserting that “it is common in an exploded view
drawing to show elements or features by dashed lines”). Neither side
presents evidence to support their argument regarding the meaning of the
6
Appeal 2016-004155
Application 13/206,596
dashed lines. Both sides’ views are plausible, and the dashed lines of Figure
3, considered in isolation, therefore, do not resolve the underlying dispute.
The evidence as a whole, however, presents at least three facts
supportive of the Examiner’s finding as to how to best interpret Figure 3 and
paragraph 92. First, Sagi explains how the second embodiment heat sink
distributes heat by stating: “since the heat sink 31 is provided with the foil
32, heat generated from the heat source H can be radiated conducted through
the heat pipe 2 and the radiation fin 3 to the foil 32.” Sagi 195. We find
that this statement is best understood as stating that the fins conduct heat
from the heat pipe to the foil.
This flow of heat is inconsistent with Appellants’ proposed reading of
Sagi. If the foil tightly covered the fins it would also cover or at least be
immediately adjacent to heat pipe 2, so that heat would be conducted
directly from the heat pipe to the foil without going through the fins. In
contrast, if foil covers the fins by being attached to the top of the fins (i.e.,
attached to the valley portion surfaces 3v and not the mountain portion
surfaces 3m) as the Examiner proposes (Ans. 10), then heat in the heat pipe
would flow through the fins before reaching the foil.
Second, as noted above, Sagi refers to the foil as “covering” all the
radiation fins 3 and the heat source H. Sagi 192. In describing a first
embodiment (i.e., a different embodiment than the second embodiment
addressed by Figure 3 and 192), Sagi again uses the word “covering” by
stating: “[t]he heat sink 1 is composed of a holding board (or base) 5 that is
bonded onto the mountain portions 3m of the radiation fin 3 while covering
the heat pipe 2 retained and fitted up by each of the step portions 4 of the
radiation fin 3 (See FIG. 1).” Id. at | 69 (emphasis added). Sagi’s claim 5
7
Appeal 2016-004155
Application 13/206,596
similarly refers to “a holding board that covers the heat pipe fitted and
retained into the radiation fin and is bonded to the radiation fin.” Id. at 1115
(claim 5) (emphasis added). Figure 1 of Sagi, reproduced below, depicts the
“covering” of this first embodiment.
Fiat
Figure 1 is a perspective view showing a heat sink in a first preferred
embodiment of Sagi. Id. at 132.
As can be seen in Figure 1, the holding board 5 remains flat when
attached to the radiation fin 3. Sagi nonetheless refers to the attachment of
the holding board as “covering.” Sagi provides no indication that the word
“covering” should be understood differently in the context of Figure 3 and
its second embodiment. Thus, Sagi’s use of the word “covering” with
regard to its first embodiment supports the Examiner’s finding that
“covering” in the context of Figure 3 and 192 refers to attaching the flat
8
Appeal 2016-004155
Application 13/206,596
aluminum foil to valley portion surfaces 3v as opposed to tightly wrapping
the foil to the fins.
Third, Sagi’s Figure 3 itself better supports the Examiner’s position.
Metallic foil 32 as depicted in Figure 3 is exactly the correct size to fit over
(i.e., to cover) heat source H and the fins 3m and 3v while, consistent with
the Examiner’s finding, remaining flat. Attaching the foil in this manner
would be a simple process. On the other hand, if one attempted to tightly fit
the foil of Figure 3 around the fins, as proposed by Appellants, Figure 3’s
depicted surface area of the foil would not be sufficient for this wrapping
because foil would have to cover both horizontal and vertical surfaces.
Moreover, Appellants’ proposal does not account for the heat pipe 2
running through though the fins as depicted in Figure 3. If one were to
attempt to wrap the fins with foil, some adjustment to the foil would have to
be made to account for the heat pipe (i.e., the foil would either have to be cut
or folded in a complicated manner to meet the shape of the heat pipe).
Sagi’s text does not discuss this difficulty or any potential adjustments. The
size of the foil 32 and Sagi’s lack of discussion regarding further wrapping
supports the Examiner’s finding regarding the teachings of Sagi.
Appellants argue that Sagi’s Figures 4 and 5 support their position
because Figure 4, like Figure 3, depicts metallic foil using dashed lines but
the foil is not depicted in Figure 5. Appeal Br. 10—11. The Examiner,
however, correctly finds that Figures 4 and 5 relate to a different
embodiment of Sagi than Figure 3. Ans. 11; see also Sagi 90-95
(discussing Figure 3 in conjunction with the “Second Embodiment”), 96—98
(discussing Figures 4 and 5 in conjunction with the “Third Embodiment”).
Furthermore, the text discussing the embodiment depicted in Figures 4 and 5
9
Appeal 2016-004155
Application 13/206,596
does not discuss foil 32. Sagi H 96—106. Sagi as a whole, therefore, is
unclear about the final placement of foil 32 in this third embodiment, and
this lack of clarity makes Appellants’ argument regarding the Third
Embodiment unpersuasive when weighed against the facts supporting the
Examiner’s position as discussed above.
Because a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
findings concerning Sagi’s teachings regarding the placement of foil 32,
Appellants’ arguments do not identify reversible error.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1-5 and 7-18.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
10