Ex Parte Jianlong et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 3, 201712731769 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/731,769 03/25/2010 Jiang Jianlong 6495-0394 1761 35301 7590 11/07/2017 MCCORMICK, PAULDING & HUBER LLP CITY PLACE II 185 ASYLUM STREET HARTFORD, CT 06103 EXAMINER THOMPSON, JASON N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/07/2017 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): patentdocket @ ip-lawyers .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JIANG JIANLONG and LIN-JIE HUANG Appeal 2016-004898 Application 12/731,769 Technology Center 3700 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-004898 Application 12/731,769 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1, 3—7, 9-11, and 13—21. App. Br. 4. Claims 1, 11, 14, 16, and 18—21 are independent. App. Br. 31—37 (Claims App’x). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The claims are directed to a fin used for a heat exchanger. Spec. 11. Claims 1, 11, 14, 16, and 18—21 are independent. App. Br. 31—37. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A fin for a heat exchanger, said fin comprising: a plurality of fin plates which are adjacent to one another, each of the fin plates being formed with louvers, and a connecting portion which connects adjacent fin plates at an end of the adjacent fin plates; wherein the connecting portion comprises a middle curved section and side curved sections located on the sides of said middle curved section, and a curvature radius of the middle curved section is larger than a curvature radius of the side curved sections; wherein the middle curved section is a circular arc section with a radius R in the range of 0.35mm < R < 1mm. THE INVENTION REFERENCES Hiramatsu Yamamoto Richter Higashiyama US 4,332,293 US 5,271,458 US 2005/0229630 A1 US 2005/0230090 A1 June 1, 1982 Dec. 21, 1993 Oct. 20, 2005 Oct. 20, 2005 2 Appeal 2016-004898 Application 12/731,769 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3—5, 7, 9-11, 13, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Richter and Yamamoto. Final Act. 2. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Richter, Yamamoto, and Higashiyama. Id. at 12. Claims 14—17, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Richter, Hiramatsu, and Yamamoto. Id. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 3—5, 7, 9—11, 13, 18, and 19 Unpatentable over Richter and Yamamoto Appellants treat claims 1, 11, 18, and 19 as representative of the claims subject to this rejection. See App. Br. 19, 20 (arguing the patentability of claims depending from claims 1, 11, 18, and 19 solely on the basis of their dependency). Appellants also present separate arguments for claims 11 and 19 (together) (App. Br. 15—16) and claims 18 and 19 (together) (App. Br. 16—19). We address each such grouping separately with their respective dependent claims standing or falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 1, 11, 18, and 19 (Curvature Radius of Middle Curved Section) Independent claims 1, 11, 18, and 19 each recite a connecting portion comprising a middle curved section and side curved sections located on the sides of the middle curved section, the middle curved section having a curvature radius R larger than the curvature radii of the side curved sections, the radius (“Râ€) being between 0.35 mm and 1 mm. App. Br. 31—35 (Claims App’x). The Examiner finds that Richter teaches a connection 3 Appeal 2016-004898 Application 12/731,769 portion with a middle curved section having a curvature radius that is larger than that of the two adjacent side curved sections, but acknowledges that Richter does not teach the claimed range of R values. Final Act. 2—3 (citing Richter H 28—31 and Fig. 1). The Examiner further finds that Yamamoto teaches a connection portion having a single curved section with a curvature radius in the range of 0.14 mm to 0.35 mm, which overlaps the claimed R range. Final Act. 3 (citing Yamamoto 4:3—5). The Examiner asserts that “the curvature radius of a connecting portion is recognized as a result- effective variable,†the recognized result being “that excessively small or excessively large values of curvature radius leads to corresponding decreases in the total heat transfer ratio.†Final Act. 3 (referencing Yamamoto Fig. 10); see also Yamamoto 6:50-66. According to the Examiner, “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to configure a middle curved section as disclosed by Richter with a curvature radius as taught by Yamamoto to increase heat transfer by increasing density of fins per unit area.†Final Act. 3. We will address each of Appellants’ counter arguments in order. First, Appellants dispute that the curvature radius of the middle curved portion is a result-effective variable. See App. Br. 12 (modifying Richter “is not an optimization of the radius of curvature R1 within prior art conditions or through routine experimentationâ€). We disagree. Richter teaches that: (1) improving the heat-transfer efficiency of heat exchangers comprising flat tubes and corrugated ribs or fins was a known design need at the time of the invention; (2) heat-transfer efficiency can be improved by increasing the soldering surface (contact area between the connecting portion and the tube surface) and “gill†or louver length; and (3) these 4 Appeal 2016-004898 Application 12/731,769 parameters are affected by the curvature radius of one or more curved sections of the rib connecting portion. Richter || 2, 5, 8, 16. Further, while Yamamoto discloses a connecting portion with only a single curved section, Yamamoto confirms that heat transfer efficiency is improved by increasing louver length vis-a-vis controlling soldering surface size, and confirms that both of these parameters are affected by the curvature radius of the connecting portion. See Yamamoto 4:23—38. Moreover, Yamamoto teaches that acceptable solder surface size and louver length—and, therefore, improved heat transfer performance—can be obtained with much smaller curvature radii than those taught by Richter. See Yamamoto 4:3—5. Again, although Yamamoto’s curvature radius is for the entire connecting portion rather than a middle curved section thereof, Yamamoto’s teaching is sufficient to suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art, who would have been motivated to improve the heat transfer efficiency of heat exchangers, to use smaller radii for Richter’s middle and side curved sections. See In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A reference must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply the described invention or a preferred embodiment.â€) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the curvature radius of the middle curved section of the connecting portion is a result-effective variable. Next, Appellants argue that Richter teaches away from modifying its disclosed curvature radius of 50 to 70 mm to Yamamoto’s disclosed curvature radius of 0.14 mm to 0.37 mm. App. Br. 13—14. Appellants assert that Richter teaches that the middle curved section’s curvature radius is “relatively high†compared to the radii of the outside curved sections, and that if the middle sections’ curvature radius was changed in accordance with 5 Appeal 2016-004898 Application 12/731,769 Yamamoto, that radius “would be in about the same range†as that of the outside sections. App. Br. 13—14. But this argument assumes that one of ordinary skill in the art, modifying Richter in view of Yamamoto, would ignore Richter’s teaching to have the middle section’s curvature radius be larger than the outside sections’ curvature radii. On the contrary, it is more likely that one of ordinary skill in the art would have followed Richter’s teaching, and in doing so would have modified the outside sections’ curvature radii to ensure that they were smaller than that of the middle section. Finally, Appellants argue that the rejection “is based on impermissible hindsight.†App. Br. 14—15. Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Appellants have not identified any specific knowledge that the Examiner gleaned only from Appellants’ disclosure. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the rejection is based on impermissible hindsight. Claims 11 and 19 (Fin Plate Pitch between 2.9 mm and 9 mm) Independent claims 11 and 19 require the claimed fin to have at least one of a list of features, one of which is “a range of the pitch P of the fin plates is 2.9mm < P < 9mm.†App. Br. 32, 35 (Claims App’x). The Examiner finds that Richter discloses a fin pitch of 4 mm, which is within the claimed range. Final Act. 7 (citing Richter 116, Fig. 1). Appellants do 6 Appeal 2016-004898 Application 12/731,769 not dispute that Richter discloses a 4 mm fin pitch, but assert that “if the radius of curvature R1 were to be reduced as proposed by the Examiner . . . the pitch would also be reduced and fall outside the claimed range.†App. Br. 16. The Examiner responds that a modification of Richter’s pitch was not proposed, and that Appellants did not specify what the resulting pitch would be if Richter was modified in view of Yamamoto. Ans. 8. We are not persuaded that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Richter discloses the claimed pitch. Appellants’ assertion that changing curvature radius R1 would necessarily change the pitch is not supported by evidence or persuasive argument or otherwise self- evident. Appellants have not demonstrated, for example, that there are no other parameters determining pitch that can be adjusted to maintain a 4 mm pitch despite the change to curvature radius Rl. Claims 18 and 19 (Side Curved Sections Having Curvature Radii < 0.2 mm) Independent claims 18 and 19 each require the side curved sections to have a curvature radius r in the range of < 2 mm. App. Br. 34—35 (Claims App ’x). The Examiner finds that Richter teaches a connecting portion having side curved sections having smaller curvature radii than a middle curved section, and also discloses “a wide range of parameters governing radii of curvature for side sections (Paragraphs 16 and 29),†but “Richter does not teach or disclose side sections having radii less than 0.2mm.†Final Act. 8. The Examiner further finds that the claimed curvature radius is a result-effective variable, for the same reasons discussed above, and that Yamamoto teaches that acceptable curvature-radius values of a connecting portion fall within 0.14 mm to 0.37 mm. Final Act. 9. The Examiner notes 7 Appeal 2016-004898 Application 12/731,769 that this range of values “overlaps both [A]ppellant[s’] claimed middle curved section radius ‘R’ . . . and side curved section radius ‘r.’†Ans. 8. Appellants respond that Richter’s outside curved sections curvature radii R2 and R3 “do not correspond to the radius of curvature R of a connecting portion 110 taught by Yamamoto.†App. Br. 17. Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in determining that claims 18 and 19 would have been obvious over Richter and Yamamoto. Richter teaches a middle curved section with a relatively high curvature radius to provide a relatively wide soldering surface in contact with the tube surface, and separate outside curved sections with smaller curvature radii to achieve a relatively large gill or louver length, both of which improve heat-transfer efficiency. Richter H 3, 6, 8, 16. Yamamoto also teaches the relationship between soldering surface and louver length to achieve efficiency (see supra), which can be accomplished via Yamamoto’s single curvature radius value range that overlaps both the claimed “R†and “r†values. As the Examiner explains (e.g., Ans. 6), one of ordinary skill in the art, combining Richter’s teaching of a middle curved section having a larger curvature radius than that of the two outside curved sections, and Yamamoto’s curvature-radius values, would have resulted in an outside curved section curvature radius range of values that at least overlaps the claimed value of < 0.2 mm. Claim 6 Unpatentable over Richter, Yamamoto, and Higashiyama Claim 6 depends from claim 1. Appellants assert that claim 6 is patentable for the same reasons that claim 1 is patentable and that Higashiyama does not overcome the deficiencies noted in the combination 8 Appeal 2016-004898 Application 12/731,769 of Richter and Yamamoto. App. Br. 20. Because we are not persuaded that the combination of Richter and Yamamoto is deficient as Appellants allege, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6. Claims 14^17, 20, and 21 Unpatentable over Richter, Hiramatsu, and Yamamoto Claims 14—17, 20, and 21 contain one or more of the disputed limitations discussed above—e.g., limitations directed to the curvature radius of the middle curved section, the pitch of the fin plates, and the curvature radius of the outside curved sections. App. Br. 33—34, 36—37 (Claims App’x). Appellants rely on their previously made, yet non persuasive, arguments in support of the patentability of these claims. App. Br. 20—29. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14—17, 20, and 21 as unpatentable over Richter, Hiramatsu, and Yamamoto. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3—7, 9— 11, and 13—21 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation