Ex Parte Kunz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 26, 2018

13994201 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/994,201 06/14/2013
80711 7590 12/26/2018
BGL/ Ann Arbor
524 South Main Street
Suite 200
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Marcin Kunz
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.
15491-047 (E07115
WO/US)
CONFIRMATION NO.
1084
EXAMINER
A VERICK, LAWRENCE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3726
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARCIN KUNZ and LUKASZ ZYWICA
Appeal2018-002795
Application 13/994,201
Technology Center 3700
Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, ANNETTE R. REIMERS and
RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
2 The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
3 decision finally rejecting claims 1--4 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
4 being unpatentable over Anders (US 7,657,986 B2, issued Feb. 9, 2010) and
5 Rhodes (US 6,209,202 Bl, issued Apr. 3, 2001). We have jurisdiction under
6 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
7 We AFFIRM.
The Appellant identifies MAHLE International GmbH as the real
party in interest. (See "Appeal Brief under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37," dated Oct. 5,
2017, at 2).
Appeal2018-002795
Application 13/994,201
1 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
2 The claims are directed to folded tubes for use in automotive heat
3 exchangers such as radiators, condensers and evaporators. (See Spec., paras.
4 2 & 3). The tubes are formed by folding sheets of pliable, heat conductive
5 material such as metal. (See Spec., para. 6). In particular, the claims are
6 directed to folded tubes having double noses, that is, noses comprising two
7 thicknesses of metal rather than one, for additional resistance to impact
8 damage and corrosion. (See Spec., paras. 19 & 22).
9 Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal:
10 1. A method of forming a heat exchanger tube,
11 comprising the steps of:
12 providing one strip of heat conductive material having a
13 first surface and a second surface, wherein the strip of heat
14 conductive material extends along an A-axis and laterally from
15 the A-axis terminate in two edges extending parallel to the A-
16 axis;
1 7 progressively forming the strip at a series of stations to
18 plastically deform the strip to form a pair of corrugations about
19 the A-axis, wherein each of the pair of corrugations defined an
20 internal nose adjacent to and alone one of the two edges;
21 creating a first fold by folding the corrugations inward
22 toward the second surface forming a pair of folded corrugations,
23 wherein each of the pair of folded corrugations defines a central
24 wall along the first fold; and
25 creating a central fold forming two continuous external
26 noses by folding the pair of folded corrugations inward toward
27 the second surface and compressing the pair of folded
28 corrugations, causing the central walls to be tightly abutted
29 against each other, and causing the internal noses to be abutted
30 against up against a respective portion of the second surface
31 along the central fold defining a pair of double noses, each
32 double nose consisting of one of the two continuous external
33 noses and of one of the internal noses adjacent to the two edges,
2
Appeal2018-002795
Application 13/994,201
1 thereby forming a "B" shape double nose folded tube having two
2 planar top walls and a planar bottom wall unitarily formed with
3 the external noses by the one strip of heat conductive material,
4 wherein the two edges and the internal noses are disposed
5 internally on opposite sides of the A-axis and enclosed by the
6 continuous external noses, so that each of the double noses has a
7 continuous external nose seamlessly continuing into the bottom
8 wall on a bottom side and into one of the two top walls on a top
9 side.
IO (See "Appeal Brief under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37," dated Oct. 5, 2017, at 10 & 11
11 (Claims App'x)).
12
13 ISSUES
14 The Appellants argue the patentability of the dependent claims solely
15 on the basis of the asserted patentability of the independent claims. This
16 appeal turns on two issues:
1 7 First, would the combined teachings of Anders and Rhodes have
18 suggested forming a heat exchanger tube wherein "each of the double noses
19 has a continuous external nose seamlessly continuing into the bottom wall
20 on a bottom side and into one of the two top walls on a top side," as recited
21 in claim 1? (See App. Br. 5-7; "Reply Brief under 37 C.F.R. § 41.41," dated
22 Jan. 19, 2018 ("Reply Br."), at 2---6).
23 Second, would the combined teachings of Anders and Rhodes have
24 suggested "compressing the pair of folded corrugations, causing the central
25 walls to be tightly abutted against each other," as recited in claim 1? (See
26 App. Br. 7 & 8).
3
Appeal2018-002795
Application 13/994,201
1 FINDINGS OF FACT
2 The record supports the following findings of fact ("FF") by a
3 preponderance of the evidence.
4
5 Anders
6 1. Anders describes a method for fabricating a flat metal strip into
7 a multi-channel condenser tube for use in a heat exchanger. (See Anders,
8 col. 1, 11. 60-65). The method is performed on a flat strip 28 of metal. The
9 strip 28, as depicted in Figure 2A of Anders, is prismatic in shape, having a
10 first surface, a second surface and a pair of edges extending parallel to a
11 central axis C. (See Anders, col. 2, 11. 61---65).
12 2. Anders' method begins by progressively forming the strip at a
13 series of stations to plastically deform the strip to form a pair of corrugations
14 about the axis C. (See generally Anders, col. 3, 1. 46 - col. 4, 1. 11; & Figs.
15 2B-2D). As depicted in Figure 2D, these corrugations are located on
16 opposite side regions of the strip 2 8, symmetric with respect to the axis C
1 7 and extending in a direction parallel to that axis.
18 3. Next, the successive stations bending the strip 28 arch a central
19 portion of the strip straddling the axis C upwardly, thereby causing the
20 corrugated side portions of the strip to fold upwardly and inwardly relative
21 to adjacent portions of the strip along a first bend line. (See generally
22 Anders, col. 4, 11. 12-38; & Figs. 2E & 2F). The central portion of the strip
23 is straightened and then subsequently bowed downwardly, causing the
24 corrugated side portions of the strip 28 to fold downwardly toward the
25 central portion along a second bend line. (See generally Anders, col. 4,
26 11. 39-50; & Figs. 2G & 2H). Subsequent steps straighten the central portion
4
Appeal2018-002795
Application 13/994,201
1 again and complete the folding of the corrugated side portions against the
2 central portion of the strip. (See generally Anders, col. 4, 1. 51-col. 5, 1. 6;
3 & Fig. 2I). This series of steps forms a pair of folded corrugations, wherein
4 each of the pair of folded corrugations defines a central wall 66 between the
5 first and second fold lines. (See Anders, col. 4, 11. 32-38 & Fig. 2H).
6 4. Anders' method next folds the pair of folded corrugations at
7 bends 70 inwardly against the second surface of the sheet 28 to form two
8 continuous noses 78. (See generally Anders, col. 5, 11. 7-28 & Figs. 2J-2M;
9 see also id., col. 6, 11. 24--27 & Fig. 3). Thus formed and folded, the sheet 28
10 thereby defines a unitary, "B" shape folded tube having two planar top walls
11 and a planar bottom wall unitarily formed with the external noses from the
12 strip of heat conductive material. (See Anders, Fig. 3; cf id., col. 1, 11. 20-
13 30 (describing a similarly configured condenser tube as "B" shaped)).
14 5. As depicted in Figure 2D of Anders, the grooves or
15 corrugations 48, 50 formed in the side portions of the strip 28 are positioned
16 so as to leave a flange 46 at each side edge 36 of the strip. The bends 70 are
17 positioned such that, when the strip 28 is folded so as to form the "B" shape
18 tube, these flanges 4 6 do not reach to the interior surfaces of the noses 7 8.
19 Thus, Anders's "B" shape folded tubes do not have double noses. Anders
20 does not state a reason why the tubes should not have double noses.
21 6. Anders teaches that:
22 By rotationally moving the bottoms of the second and third U
23 shaped grooves 48, 50, as shown in FIGS. 2K, 2L, and 2M, the
24 outward sides of the third grooves 60 [ that is, the central walls
25 66] abut and thereby enclose all of the channels 22 to produce a
26 continuous enclosed tube 30 having eight channels 22 extending
27 the length of the enclosed tube 30.
28 (Anders, col. 5, 11. 23-28).
5
Appeal2018-002795
Application 13/994,201
I Rhodes
2 7. Rhodes describes a method for fabricating a condenser tube for
3 an automotive heat exchanger by folding a generally planar sheet 70 of a
4 deformable material. The method includes steps of folding the sheet 70 to
5 form internal webs 40; and folding the sheet 70 at a bend 28 to move
6 opposite ends 32, 34 toward each other; and heating a brazing material to
7 form a closed tube. (See generally Rhodes, col. 5, 1. 36 - col. 6, 1. 8; & Figs.
8 llA-llD).
9 8. In particular, Rhodes teaches forming the first and second ends
IO 32, 34 into complementary arcuate shapes so that, when the sheet 70 is bent,
11 the outer surface of the first end 3 2 abuts the inner surface of the second end
12 34 so as to form a double nose 30. (See Rhodes, col. 3, 11. 35--45; & Figs. 3
13 & 4). Rhodes explains that the nose 30 "has a double wall thickness for
14 extra strength against stone chips while driving the motor vehicle."
15 (Rhodes, col. 3, 11. 42--45).
16 9. Rhodes teaches that the arcuate configuration of the first end 3 2
17 "terminates in a recess 36 to produce a substantially flush outer periphery of
18 the second side 30" when the second end 3 4 overlies the first end 3 2.
19 (Rhodes, col. 3, 11. 39--42).
20 10. Rhodes also describes a method for fabricating a "B" shape
21 folded tube. In accordance with this method, Rhodes teaches forming a
22 braze seam at the juncture between the central walls of the tube after the
23 folding of the tube is complete. (See Rhodes, col. 4, 11. 48-67).
6
Appeal2018-002795
Application 13/994,201
1 ANALYSIS
2 First Issue
3 Claim 1 recites a heat exchanger tube wherein "each of the double
4 noses has a continuous external nose seamlessly continuing into the bottom
5 wall on a bottom side and into one of the two top walls on a top side."
6 Anders describes a method for fabricating a unitary, "B" shape folded tube
7 having two planar top walls and unitary a planar bottom wall. (See FF 2--4).
8 Anders' tube does not have double noses, however. (See FF 5).
9 Rhodes describes forming a heat exchanger tube having a double nose
10 on one side. Rhodes teaches that the double thickness of the nose provides
11 extra strength for resisting impact damage from stone chips. (See FF 8). It
12 would have been obvious to provide Anders' tube with double noses to
13 provide similar impact resistance. (See Final Office Action, mailed June 21,
14 2017 ("Final Act."), at 7; Examiner's Answer, mailed Nov. 24, 2017
15 ("Ans."), at 8). 2
16 Furthermore, given the teachings of Rhodes, and particularly of
17 Figures 3 and 4 of Rhodes, it would have been obvious to implement this
18 modification by extending the flanges 46 on the sides of Anders' sheet 28
19 and providing those flanges with arcuate configurations complementary to
20 the shapes of the inner surfaces of the bends 70 formed during the
21 fabrication of Anders' tubes. Since the bends 70 of Anders' tubes, as
2 The Appellants point out that Rhodes describes a "B" shape folded
tube without double noses. (See Reply Br. 5). This fact does not imply non-
obviousness. Patentability is determined from the standpoint of whether the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art and not from the standpoint of whether that subject matter would
have been obvious to a particular practitioner of the art.
7
Appeal2018-002795
Application 13/994,201
1 depicted in Figures 2M and 3, have continuous, seamless inner surfaces, it
2 would have been obvious to provide the modified flanges with continuous,
3 seamless arcuate outer surfaces, rather than with recesses 3 6 as depicted in
4 Figures 3 and 4 of Rhodes (see FF 9), so as to complement the inner surface
5 of the bends of Anders' tubes.
6
7 Second Issue
8 Claim 1 recites a heat exchanger tube including the step of "creating a
9 central fold forming two continuous external noses by folding the pair of
10 folded corrugations inward toward the second surface and compressing the
I I pair of folded corrugations, causing the central walls to be tightly abutted
12 against each other." (Italics added for emphasis). Anders teaches that the
13 central walls of the finished "B" shape folded tube should abut to produce a
14 continuous enclosed tube enclosing all of the channels defined by the
15 internal corrugations. (See FF 6). This teaching would have suggested the
16 desirability of forming a tight abutment between the central walls so as to
17 more tightly enclose the channels. Rhodes, in fact, taught brazing the central
18 walls together. (See FF I 0). One familiar with the teachings of Anders and
19 Rhodes would have had reason to configure Anders' "B" shape folded tube
20 in such a way that the folded corrugations applied compressive force to the
21 central walls to tighten the enclosure of the channels.
22 Indeed, as the Examiner indicates, some level of compression of the
23 folded corrugations would have flowed naturally from the mere extension of
24 the flanges 46 of Anders' tubes to form the double noses 78 at the bends 70
25 in the sheet 28. (See Ans. 9). Therefore, the Examiner has shown that the
26 subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious from the combined
8
Appeal2018-002795
Application 13/994,201
1 teachings of Anders and Rhodes. We sustain the rejection of claims 1--4
2 under§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anders and Rhodes.
3
4 DECISION
5 We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4.
6 More specifically, we sustain the rejection of claims 1--4 under §
7 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anders and Rhodes.
8 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
9 this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
10 § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9