Ex Parte Han et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 31, 2018

14060262 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/060,262 10/22/2013
62204 7590 01/03/2019
GE GLOBAL PATENT OPERATION
GE LICENSING (62204)
901 MAIN A VENUE
NORWALK, CT 06851
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Fei Han
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
272677-1 (GEL8083.205) 3679
EXAMINER
ZHOU, QINGZHANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2019 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):
rlt@zpspatents.com
docket@fyiplaw.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PEI HAN, MEHMET ARIK,
TREVOR WOOD, and
CHARLES FRANKLIN WOLFE JR. 1
Appeal2018-002905
Application 14/060,262
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 The General Electric Company ("Appellant") is the applicant as provided
under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal
Brief 1 ("Appeal Br."), filed July 10, 2017.
Appeal2018-002905
Application 14/060,262
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to "synthetic jets and, more
particularly, to apparatus and techniques for reducing acoustic noise
generated due to synthetic jets." Spec. ,r 2, 2 Figs. 1-3. Claims 1, 13, and 16
are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. An apparatus for reducing acoustical noise when cooling
a device with synthetic jets, the apparatus comprising:
at least a set of a first synthetic jet and a second synthetic
jet each comprising a first actuator and a second actuator; and
a driver coupled to the first and second actuators of the
first and second synthetic jets and configured to output actuating
signals to the first and second actuators of the first and second
synthetic jets;
wherein the first and second actuators of the second
synthetic jet are coupled to respective output terminals of the
driver in a flipped relationship relative to the first and second
actuators of the first synthetic jet such that the actuating signals
received by the first and second synthetic jets have a 180° phase
difference therebetween.
THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-7, 11-22, and 24--30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Ishikawa (US 2009/0219686 Al, published
Sept. 3, 2009) and Arik (US 2010/0053891 Al, published Mar. 4, 2010). 3
2 Specification ("Spec."), filed Oct. 22, 2013.
3 Claim 14 appears to have a typographical error. The claim recites "arranging
a third synthetic jet and a second synthetic jet" rather than "arranging a third
synthetic jet and a fourth synthetic jet." Appeal Br. 34, Claims App.
2
Appeal2018-002905
Application 14/060,262
II. Claims 8-10 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Ishikawa, Arik, and Pickard (US 2011/0089830 Al,
published Apr. 21, 2011 ).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I - Obviousness over Ishikawa and Arik
Claims 1-7, 11-22, and 24-30
The Examiner finds that Ishikawa discloses the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the apparatus includes "at least a set of a first synthetic jet and a
second synthetic Uet] (Fig. 5); and a driver (20, Par. 61, "a control section")
coupled to the first and second synthetic jets (63a, 63b)." Final Act. 24
( emphasis added); see also id. at 11. The Examiner explains that "in
accordance with Wikipedia.com, 'Synthetic jets are produced by periodic
ejection and suction of fluid from an orifice induced by movement of a
diaphragm inside a cavity among other ways."' Ans. 8. 5 The Examiner
notes that in Ishikawa "a synthetic jet flow is utilized. This is intended to
eject moving air generated, e.g., by a reciprocating piston provided in a
chamber, th[r]ough a hole perforated at one end of the chamber. The air
ejected through the hole is called a synthetic jet flow." Id. at 7-8 (quoting
Ishikawa ,r 4). As such, the Examiner finds that "based on the definition
[found in] Wikipedia [and] as shown in Figure 4 of Ishikawa, synthetic jets
are produced by periodic ejection and suction of fluid from an orifice ( 63a,
63b) induced by movement of a diaphragm ( 65a, 65b) inside a cavity ( 62a,
62b )." Id. at 8.
4 Final Office Action ("Final Act."), dated Feb. 9, 2017.
5 Examiner's Answer ("Ans."), dated Nov. 27, 2017.
3
Appeal2018-002905
Application 14/060,262
Claim 1 recites: (1) "at least a set of a first synthetic jet and a second
synthetic jet each comprising a first actuator and a second actuator"; (2) "a
driver coupled to the first and second actuators of the first and second
synthetic jets"; and (3) "the first and second actuators of the second synthetic
jet are coupled to respective output terminals of the driver." Appeal Br. 32,
Claims App. ( emphasis added).
Because claim 1 requires a set of first and second synthetic jets, each
including first and second actuators coupled to a driver, we construe the
synthetic jets as claimed as structural components. We further note that the
Specification discloses that: ( 1) "[ t ]he structural resonant frequency is
caused at the natural frequency of the structure of the synthetic jet, which
consists typically of the synthetic jet plates acting as a mass and the
elastomeric wall acting as a spring" (Spec. ,r 6; emphasis added); (2) "[t]he
Helmholtz frequency is characterized by the acoustic resonance of air mass
in and out of the orifice of the synthetic jet" (id.; emphasis added); (3) "[a]
driver is arranged to supply respective actuating signals to the first and
second synthetic jets" (id. ,r 8; emphasis added); and ( 4) "LED lighting
system 10 may include two or more synthetic jets 14, 16 arranged to induce
a flow of fluid (e.g., air)" (id. ,r 20; emphasis added). Thus, the Specification
also describes the synthetic jets as components having structure.
Here, we agree with Appellant that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the term "synthetic jet" in claim 1 requires this element to
include a structural component, and not be solely a flow of fluid, as
4
Appeal2018-002905
Application 14/060,262
proposed by the Examiner. Reply Br. 1-3; see also Appeal Br. 7-8. 6 The
Examiner's interpretation of the term "synthetic jet" is inconsistent with the
use of the term in claim 1 and in Appellant's disclosure, and thus is
inconsistent with the interpretation that a skilled artisan would reach upon
review of Appellant's claims and disclosure. Reply Br. 1-3. Accordingly,
the Examiner's finding that the claimed first and second synthetic jets are
identical to the synthetic jet.flows represented by sinusoidal waveforms in
Ishikawa is improper. Stated differently, because the synthetic jet flow of
Ishikawa cannot be said to be a component having structure, the Examiner
fails to establish that Ishikawa discloses the claimed first and second
synthetic jets.
We note that in the Answer, with respect to Figure 5 of Ishikawa, the
Examiner refers to "[t]he first and second synthetic jets, each individually
generated by its corresponding reciprocating piston ( 65a, 65b) provided in
its corresponding chamber ( 62a, 62b) through its corresponding hole ( 63a,
63b) perforated at one end of the chamber (62a, 62b)." Ans. 8 (emphasis
added). The Examiner then asserts that "based on the definition of
Wikipedia, as shown in Figure 4 of Ishikawa, synthetic jets are produced by
periodic ejection and suction of fluid from an orifice ( 63a, 63b) induced by
movement of a diaphragm ( 65a, 65b) inside a cavity ( 62a, 62b) among other
ways." Id. ( emphasis added).
In this case, to the extent that the Examiner is taking the position that
because of the above-noted components, Ishikawa discloses two separate
6 Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br."), filed July 10, 2017; Reply Brief ("Reply Br."),
filed Jan. 24, 2018.
5
Appeal2018-002905
Application 14/060,262
synthetic jets, each having structure, we find Appellant has the better
position that Ishikawa does not disclose two separate synthetic jets. Appeal
Br. 6.
Appellant's Figures 1--4 show separate synthetic jets 14 and 16.
Notably, Figures 1 and 4 show each of synthetic jets 14 and 16 being
individually housed or separate from one another. See Figs. 1--4. In
contrast, Figures 4 and 5 of Ishikawa show a single housing, i.e., a common
external enclosure forming gas ejector 61 and a common wall that separates
two chambers 62a and 62b. Figure 4 and 5 of Ishikawa also show the
coordinated control of vibrators 65a and 65b operating as a unit, in which
they are always in a vertically opposing position. See Ishikawa Figs. 4--5.
As such, because of the single housing and coordinated control, a skilled
artisan would not consider the gas ejector 61 of Ishikawa as two separate
synthetic jets when reading the claims in light of the Specification. Thus, we
find the Examiner's position that Ishikawa discloses two separate synthetic
jets, even if considering the synthetic jets to have structure, to be
unreasonable.
The Examiner relies on Arik for disclosing "an apparatus for cooling a
device with synthetic jets (44), each comprising a first actuator and a second
actuator." Final Act. 3. Thus, the Examiner does not rely on Arik to remedy
the deficiencies of Ishikawa.
Independent claims 13 and 16 include language similar to that
discussed above for claim 1. Appeal Br. 34, 35 Claims App. The Examiner
relies on the same unsupported findings in Ishikawa for claims 13 and 16 as
for claim 1. See Final Act. 2, 5. As such, the Examiner's findings with
respect to Ishikawa are deficient for claims 13 and 16 as well.
6
Appeal2018-002905
Application 14/060,262
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1-7, 11-22, and 24--30 as unpatentable over Ishikawa and Arik.
Rejection II - Obviousness over Ishikawa, Arik, and Pickard
Claims 8-10 and 23
Claims 8-10 depend from claim 1, and claim 23 depends from claim
16. Appeal Br. 33, 36, Claims App. The Examiner's rejection of claims 8-
10 and 23 as unpatentable over Ishikawa, Arik, and Pickard is based on the
same unsupported findings in Ishikawa discussed above with respect to
claims 1 and 16. See Final Act. 6-7. The Examiner does not rely on Pickard
to remedy the deficiencies of Ishikawa. Accordingly, for reasons similar to
those discussed above for claims 1 and 16, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 8-10 and 23 as unpatentable over Ishikawa, Arik, and
Pickard.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-30.
REVERSED
7