Ex Parte Hood et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 30, 2012

11580671 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CHARLES D. HOOD III, IOAN SAUCIUC, and
MOHAMMED TANTOUSH
____________

Appeal 2010-008275
Application 11/580,671
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, KEN B. BARRETT, and
MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charles D. Hood III et al. (Appellants) seek our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6-19 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Chu (US 2003/0188538 A1; pub.
Appeal 2010-008275
Application 11/580,671

2
Oct. 9, 2003). Claims 1-5 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “a two stage thermoelectric
cooler-enhanced heat exchanger having liquid cooling.” Spec., para. [0001].
Claims 6 and 14 are independent. Claim 6, reproduced below, is
representative of the subject matter on appeal.
6. A heat exchanger assembly comprising:
a passive heat exchanger;
an active heat exchanger; and
a fan adapted to draw air through the passive heat
exchanger and to blow air through the active heat exchanger.
Independent claim 14 is also directed to an assembly that includes “a
fan adapted to draw air through the passive heat exchanger and to blow air
through the active heat exchanger.”
ISSUE
The issue presented by this appeal is whether Chu discloses the
claimed assembly including “a fan adapted to draw air through the passive
heat exchanger and to blow air through the active heat exchanger.”
ANALYSIS
The Examiner determined that Chu discloses the claimed assembly,
including a passive heat exchanger (410), an active heat exchanger (420) and
“a fan adapted to draw air through the passive heat exchanger and to blow
air through the active heat exchanger, see figure 4 (412).” Ans. 3. In
Appeal 2010-008275
Application 11/580,671

3
particular, the Examiner acknowledged that “there is a distinction between
the terms ‘draw’ and ‘blow’” and stated that “the fan (412) draws air (by
leading) and then immediate blows (pushing) this drawn air.” Ans. 5. The
Examiner based the determination of anticipation on the finding that “fan
(412) both draws (leads) and blows (pushes) air across heat exchanger (410)
and heat exchanger (420) even as ‘draw’ and ‘blow’ are assigned distinctly
opposite meanings, i.e. lead and push.” Ans. 6. We disagree with this
finding.
Chu discloses, with reference to Figure 4, a cooling system including
a first stage cooling apparatus 410, a second stage cooling apparatus 420,
and a fan 412 “to cause air flow across the heat transfer components of first
stage cooling apparatus 410 (e.g. fins).” Chu, para. [0050]. Chu discloses
that “first stage cooling apparatus 410 is aligned with or positioned along the
same axis as second stage cooling apparatus 420 so that air generated by fan
412 passes through or across both first stage cooling apparatus 410 and
second stage cooling apparatus 420, especially across heat sinks 426, 428.”
Chu, para. [0052]. Figure 4 of Chu shows fan 412 drawing air in from the
left side of the fan 412 (as indicated by the arrows to the left of fan 412) and
blowing air through first stage cooling apparatus 410 and second stage
cooling apparatus 420, which are both located to the right of fan 412 (as
indicated by the arrows traveling through the heat sinks 426 and 428). As
such, Chu’s fan 412 does not draw air through the first stage cooling
apparatus 410; rather, it blows air through apparatus 410.
Appeal 2010-008275
Application 11/580,671

4
The Examiner also stated in the Answer that “the use of the phrase
‘adapted to’ is directed toward an intended use limitation.” Ans. 5. The
Federal Circuit recently acknowledged that “[i]n common parlance, the
phrase ‘adapted to’ is frequently used to mean ‘made to,’ ‘designed to,’ or
‘configured to,’ but it can also be used in a broader sense to mean ‘capable
of’ or ‘suitable for.”’ Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672
F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citation omitted) (affirming the district
court's narrower definition based on the way the phrase was used in the
claim at issue and specification and the fact that another claim recited
“capable of”). Even assuming the broader meaning of “adapted to” as
“capable of”, Chu’s fan 412, as positioned within the disclosed assembly, is
not capable of drawing air through the first stage cooling apparatus 410 and
blowing air through the second stage cooling apparatus 412 without
modifying the system to, for example, relocate the fan 412 to a position
intermediate apparatus 410 and apparatus 412.
The rejection before us is based on anticipation. “A claim is
anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found,
either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.”
Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir.
1987). To establish anticipation, every element and limitation of the claimed
invention must be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the
claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383
(Fed. Cir. 2001). In other words, there must be no difference between the
claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of
Appeal 2010-008275
Application 11/580,671

5
ordinary skill in the field of the invention. Scripps Clinic & Research
Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Because
Chu’s system does not disclose an assembly including “a fan adapted to
draw air through the passive heat exchanger” as called for in the claims,
i.e., the assembly would require modification in order to be adapted to
operate the manner claimed, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 6-19
as anticipated by Chu.
CONCLUSION
Chu does not disclose the claimed assembly including “a fan adapted
to draw air through the passive heat exchanger and to blow air through the
active heat exchanger.”
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 6-19.

REVERSED

mls