Ex Parte Ritzhaupt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2018

14291128 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/291,128 05/30/2014 Victor Ritzhaupt
112535 7590 12/19/2018
Bose McKinney & Evans LLP
111 Monument Circle
Suite 2700
Indianapolis, IN 46204
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.
24603-0042 2604
EXAMINER
WARD, THOMAS JOHN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2018 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):
patent@boselaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VICTOR RITZHAUPT, ALEXANDER DAUTH, MICHAEL
LUPPOLD, SISA Y T ADELE, and JORG BAGINSKI
Appeal2018-003250
Application 14/291,128
Technology Center 3700
Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2018-003250
Application 14/291,128
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 11 are independent, with claims 2-10 depending from
claim 1 and claims 12-20 depending from claim 11. Claim 1 is reproduced
below:
1. A vehicle heater, comprising:
a pipe having a plurality of chambers;
each chamber having a ceramic heating element arranged
therein;
a contact plate configured for electrical contact, the
contact plate having a front side contacting the heating elements
and a rear side facing an upper side of the chambers or an
underside of the chambers; and
an intermediate wall separating at least two of the
chambers, the intermediate wall extending from the upper side to
the underside of the chambers, wherein the contact plate has a
slit in which the intermediate wall is arranged.
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 4, 6, 9-11, 13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jun (DE 102011112196 Al,
published March 1, 2012) and Kominami (US 2013/0188937 Al, published
July 25, 2013).
2. Claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Jun, Kominami, and Pierron (US 2005/0175328 Al,
published Aug. 11, 2005).
3. Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jun, Kominami, and Wu (US 6,180,930 Bl, issued Jan.
30, 2001).
2
Appeal2018-003250
Application 14/291,128
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Jun teaches the majority of limitations recited
in claims 1 and 11, but "does not disclose contact plates having ... at least
one slit in which the intermediate wall is arranged." Final Act. 4. The
Examiner finds that Kominami "teaches a slit in a heating apparatus for heat
blocking [that] allows for higher performance in a heating apparatus" and
reasons that "[ t ]he PTC devices 110 of Jun ... can be modified to be shaped
like the heat exchanger 17 with a slit taught by Kominami ... to allow for a
single heating body and allow for higher performance in a heating
apparatus." Id. at 4--5 ( emphasis omitted).
Appellant disputes the Examiner's reasoning for the proposed
modification to Jun's system. Appeal Br. 10-11. Appellant contends that
"[t ]he stated rationale is without merit" because "Kominami teaches a
heating apparatus in which liquid, see ,r [0057], is routed in a U-shaped
pathway as indicated by the arrows in Figure 8" and "[t]he benefit of the slit
(heat shield) of Kominami is that the arrangement prevents heat transfer
from fluid at the inlet end of the U-shaped pathway to the fluid at the exit
end of the pathway." Id. at 10 (citing Kominami Fig. 8; ,r 90). Appellant
explains that "[ u ]nlike Kominami, Jun teaches a traditional PTC heater that
relies on air flow over the outside of jackets (211) that contain PTC heating
devices" and "[t]here would be no reason to create such a 'heat blocking' slit
in Jun because the contents of the 'tubes' Uackets (211) containing PTC
heaters) in Jun are of uniform temperature." Id.
Similar to the reasoning stated in the Final Action, the Examiner
responds that "[t]he PTC devices 110 of Jun ... can be modified to be
shaped like the heat exchanger 1 7 with a slit taught by Kominami ... to
3
Appeal2018-003250
Application 14/291,128
allow for a single heating body and allow for higher performance in a
heating apparatus." Ans. 9 (emphasis omitted).
The preponderance of the evidence supports Appellant's position.
Appellant is correct that the "higher performance" resulting from the
arrangement of Kominami is due to the inlet header section and outlet
header section, which are at different temperatures, being separated by the
slit. See Kominami ,r,r 90-92. The Examiner does not assert that a similar
arrangement is present in Jun, and we agree with Appellant that Jun does not
have an arrangement similar to Kominami that would benefit from the
separation provided by Kominami' s slit in the manner asserted by the
Examiner. Accordingly, the Examiner has not established sufficiently that
one skilled in the art would have modified Jun's teachings based on those of
Kominami to include a slit for "higher performance."
The Examiner's statement that "Jun ... can be modified to be shaped
like the heat exchanger 17 with a slit taught by Kominami ... to allow for a
single heating body" does not cure this deficiency. Final Act. 4--5 (emphasis
omitted). That statement is simply a summary of the structure resulting from
the proposed combination and, itself, does not amount to sufficient rationale
for the proposed combination.
The stated bases for the rejection of dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20
do not cure the deficiencies noted above. For at least these reasons, the
Examiner has failed to establish that claims 1-20 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
4
Appeal2018-003250
Application 14/291,128
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20.
REVERSED
5