Ex Parte Ptasienski

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 20, 2018

12503541 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/503,541 07/15/2009
110407 7590 07/24/2018
Burris Law, PLLC
300 River Place Drive, Suite 1775
Detroit, MI 48207
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kevin Ptasienski
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.
13378-510 8326
EXAMINER
STAPLETON, ERIC S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/24/2018 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):
docketing@burrisiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN PTASIENSKI
Appeal2016-006845
Application 12/503,541
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kevin Ptasienski ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-15, 17, and 18, which are
all of the pending claims. An oral hearing was held on June 11, 2018. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as W atlow Electric
Manufacturing Company. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2016-006845
Application 12/503,541
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 6, and 18 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal.
l. A heater system comprising:
a plurality of layered heater modules, each module
comprising a plurality of resistive zones,
wherein the layered heater modules are disposed adjacent
one another to fonn the heater system1 and the resistive zones
comprise a plurality of resistive traces arranged in a parallel
circuit and oriented perpendicular to a primary heating direction,
the resistive traces comprising a positive temperature coefficient
material having a temperature coefficient of resistance (TCR),
wherein when heat foss along the primary heating
direction is different, the resistance of one or more of the resistive
traces decreases due to a higher heat loss to an adjacent heat sink,
causing the one or more of the resistive traces to have a lower
temperature, and the one or more of the resistive traces generate
more heat to compensate for the higher heat loss to the adjacent
heat sink due to the decreased resistance and increased pmver of
the one or more of the resistive traces.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Kochman US 2002/0117495 Al Aug. 29, 2002
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-15, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as
anticipated by, or alternatively under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over, Kochman. Final Act. 3-8.
2
Appeal2016-006845
Application 12/503,541
OPINION
Claims 1-5, 9-14, and 18
The Examiner relies on Kochman for all of the limitations of
independent claims 1 and 18. Final Act. 3--4. With respect to the "plurality
of resistive traces arranged in a parallel circuit and oriented perpendicular to
a primary heating direction," as recited in claim 1 or similarly recited in
independent claim 18, the Examiner broadly points to Figures 1---6B and
paragraphs 1-105, including Figures 3-6B and paragraphs 82-92, of
Kochman. Id. at 3, 7. The Examiner more specifically points to Kochman's
disclosure that its "heating cables ... can be connected with each other in
different cable combinations, in parallel and in series." Ans. 9 ( citing
Kochman ,r 82); see also id. (citing Kochman ,r,r 19, 20) (stating that heating
elements can be connected in parallel).
Appellant defines a primary heating direction as "a direction 'along
which a heating target power gradient occurs."' Appeal Br. 6 ( citing Spec.
,r 28; and U.S. Patent Application No. 10/941,609 (now U.S. Patent No.
8,536,496) which is incorporated by reference in the instant application).
Appellant argues that Kochman fails to teach or suggest resistive traces that
are perpendicular to a primary heating direction. Id. at 7. More specifically,
Appellant argues that the Examiner has "fail[ ed] to point out which direction
in Kochman is the primary heating direction, nor the orientation of the
resistive traces relative to the primary heating direction." Reply Br. 2.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not adequately
explained how the identified disclosure of Kochman supports a finding that
Kochman discloses resistive traces that are oriented perpendicular to a
3
Appeal2016-006845
Application 12/503,541
primary heating direction (i.e., oriented perpendicular to a direction along
which a heating target power gradient occurs).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant shows error by the Examiner in
determining that the subject matter of claims 1 and 18 is anticipated by, or in
the alternative obvious over, Kochman, and we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 1 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by, or under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over, Kochman. We also do not sustain
the rejection of claims 2-5 and 9-14, which depend therefrom, under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by, or under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over, Kochman.
Claims 6---8, 15, and 17
Independent claim 6 recites "[a] layered heater module for use in a
heater system, the module comprising: ... a pair of terminals provided in
each of [ a plurality ofJ quadrants and connected to [a] plurality of resistive
traces within each of the quadrants, the plurality of resistive traces within
each quadrant being independently controlled." Appeal Br. 19 (Claims
App.).
The Examiner finds, among other things, that "Kochman shows and
discloses connectors 23 and 24 corresponding to the claimed terminals, and
the plurality of resistive traces within each quadrant can be independently
controlled (e.g., through power regulators 19 seen in Fig[s]. 5A and 6B ...
simply connecting/disconnecting the connectors [23, 24], etc.)." Ans. 11.
The Examiner also determines that "power control regulator(s) 19 could be
duplicated for each quadrant of Fig. 6B" and "would have resulted in the
expected result of each power control regulator independent[ly] controlling
heaters connected to it." Final Act. 13-14.
4
Appeal2016-006845
Application 12/503,541
Appellant argues that "FIG. 6B of Kochman shows all the heating
cables are connected through connectors 23, 24 and are connected to the
same power regulator 19" and "[t]herefore, the heating cables in different
quadrants of Kochman cannot be independently controlled." Reply Br. 5.
We do not find this argument persuasive in that it fails to address the
Examiner's finding that connecting/disconnecting the connectors 23, 24 of
each heating sheet 11 enables independent control of various heating sheets
11. See Kochman Fig. 6B. Moreover, with this argument, Appellant does
not address the Examiner's rejection based on duplicating power control
regulator 19 for the various quadrants. See Final Act. 13-14.
Appellant does argue that because Kochman's "cables are controlled
dependently, rather than independently, ... Kochman also teaches away
[from] using different power regulators to independently control these
different heating cables." Appeal Br. 16. Prior art, however, does not teach
away from claimed subject matter merely by disclosing a different solution
unless the prior art also criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the
solution claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here,
Appellant does not point to, nor do we independently discern, any disclosure
in Kochman that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages independent
control of various heating sheets.
Appellant also argues that the word "[t]erminal" "refers to a point at
which a conductor from an electrical component, device or circuit comes to
an end and provides a point of connect[ion] to external circuits." Reply
Br. 5. For example, Appellant points out that the Specification describes
that "terminals connect the resistive layer 16 to a power source." Id. (citing
Spec. ,r 23). Appellant states that connectors 23, 24 of Kochman cannot
5
Appeal2016-006845
Application 12/503,541
reasonably be considered "terminals" because they simply "connect heating
cables of the heating sheets 11 to form a larger heating circuit." Id. We are
not persuaded of error by the Examiner in that even if connectors 23, 24 are
actually used so as to connect heating cables of heating sheets 11 ( as
opposed to connecting each heating sheet 11 to a power source), connectors
23, 24 still provide an end point or provide a point for connection to external
circuits. These end points are capable of connecting each heating sheet to an
external circuit (e.g., power source), and, thus, connectors 23, 24 can
reasonably be considered terminals.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not show error by the
Examiner in concluding that the subject matter of claim 6 is anticipated by,
or in the alternative obvious over, Kochman, and we sustain the rejection of
claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by, or under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over, Kochman. Appellant does not provide
separate arguments for dependent claims 7, 8, 15, and 17. Appeal Br. 16.
Therefore, we also sustain the rejection of claims 7, 8, 15, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by, or under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over, Kochman.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5, 9-14, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by, or alternatively under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over, Kochman is reversed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 6-8, 15, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by, or alternatively under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over, Kochman is affirmed.
6
Appeal2016-006845
Application 12/503,541
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7