Ex Parte Sun et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 13, 2015

11536285 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2015)

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.
11/536,285 09/28/2006 Yann-Shuoh Sun 18906-015 8807
65358 7590 03/16/2015
WPAT, PC
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS
8230 BOONE BLVD. SUITE 405
VIENNA, VA 22182
EXAMINER
SCRUGGS, ROBERT J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3723
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2015 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 YANN-SHUOH SUN, YU-LIANG CHUNG, JIING-FU CHEN,
TUNG-CHUAN WU, and CHUN-HSIEN LIU
____________

Appeal 2013-001843
Application 11/536,285
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, JOHN C. KERINS, and
CHARLES N. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Yann-Shuoh Sun et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–5 and 7–10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Platz (US 2006/0051205 A1;
published March 9, 2006) and Griffiths (US 3,246,359; issued April 19,
1966). Claims 6 and 11 are canceled, and claims 12–20 are withdrawn from
consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2013-001843
Application 11/536,285

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ claimed subject matter relates to “a low noise, high flow
rate centrifugal fan apparatus.” Spec. 1, l. 6. Of those claims on appeal,
claims 1 and 7 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the subject matter on appeal.
1. A centrifugal fan apparatus, comprising:
a housing with an accommodating space, having an
intake hole and an outflow hole;
an impeller, arranging in the accommodating space while
enabling an airflow channel of uniform width to be formed
between a rim of the impeller and a side inner wall of the
housing; and
a driving device, connected to the impeller for driving the
same to rotate;
wherein said impeller comprises a first plurality of airfoil
blades with a first offset from the axis of rotation, and a second
plurality of airfoil blades with a second offset from the axis of
rotation;
wherein said first offset is different from said second
offset, and said first plurality of airfoil blades and said second
plurality of airfoil blades are:
all substantially equally dimensioned, positioned
exclusively in an interior space of the impeller;
paired together to align each set of first and second
airfoil blades in a radially arranged, substantially
overlapping dual-blade configuration; and
disposed between and affixed to both a first panel
and a second panel on the same coplanar interior surface
of the impeller;
Appeal 2013-001843
Application 11/536,285

3
wherein the first and second offsets cause the impeller to
provide low noise, high pressure differential, and a large flow
rate of fluid through the centrifugal fan apparatus.
ISSUE
The Examiner found that Platz discloses a centrifugal fan apparatus
but lacks the dual blade configuration as called for in claim 1. Final Act. 2–
3. The Examiner found that “Griffiths teaches a technique of providing an
impeller with a substantially overlapping dual blade configuration formed
from first and second blades (148 and 149). . . .” Id. at 3. The Examiner
found specifically that the second blades of Griffiths are “formed with a
different offset” from the axis of rotation than the first blades, and that the
first and second blades are substantially equally dimensioned and positioned
within an interior space formed between first panel 145 and second panel
146 of the impeller. Id. (citing Griffiths, Fig. 8). The Examiner determined
that it would have been obvious to replace the blades on the impeller of Platz
with the dual blades of Griffiths to “provide a more efficient device having
increased suction thereby allowing the device to more easily pick up sand
and gravel from the surface being cleaned.” Id.
Appellants argue claims 1–5 and 7–10 as a group. Br. 11–20.
1
We
select claim 1 as representative, and claims 2–5 and 7–10 stand or fall with
claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2014).

1
Appellants quote the language of dependent claims 2–5 and 8–10 in their
Brief and assert that these claims should be allowable “on their own merits.”
Br. 15–16. Appellants’ argument amounts to a recitation of the claim
elements and a “naked assertion” that the elements are not found in the prior
Appeal 2013-001843
Application 11/536,285

4
Appellants argue that “Griffiths does not disclose overlapping
blades” and thus “[t]he combination of Platz and Griffiths is deficient.”
Br. 13–14.
2

The issue presented by this appeal is whether the Examiner erred in
finding that Griffiths discloses overlapping blades.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner provided in the Answer an annotated depiction of
Figure 8 of Griffiths to show a pair of first and second airfoil blades in a
radially arranged, substantially overlapping dual-blade configuration.
Ans. 3. The Examiner’s annotated depiction is reproduced below.

art. Such statements do not constitute a separate argument for patentability
of claims 2–5 and 8–10 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). See In re
Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the Board had
reasonably interpreted the same language in the prior rule under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) as requiring “more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”).
2
Appellants also argue that “Platz does not teach or suggest the use of
multiple offset airfoil blades as claimed” and that Platz does not disclose a
first and second plurality of airfoil blades “which are all substantially
equally dimensioned, positioned exclusively in an interior space of the
impeller” and “on the same coplanar interior surface of the impeller.”
Br. 11–12. These arguments are not persuasive of error because the
Examiner does not rely on Platz for teaching a dual-blade configuration.
Final Act. 2 (finding Platz “lacks[] a second plurality of blades”).
Appeal 2013-001843
Application 11/536,285

5

The above figure is a reproduction of Figure 8 of Griffiths with
annotations provided by the Examiner showing first upper blades, second
lower blades, and an area of overlap between the upper and lower blades.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding. When a line is drawn radially
from the center of the axis of rotation of the impeller to the circumference
and through an outermost edge of an exterior, upper blade, the line intersects
a portion of the interior, lower blade, thereby demonstrating that the paired
upper and lower blades overlap.
Appellants assert that the blades of Griffiths are not overlapping, but
they do not explain adequately why the Examiner’s position is incorrect.
For example, in the Brief, Appellants provide a side-by-side comparison of
Figure 8 of Griffiths and Figure 2B of Appellants’ application and ask the
Appeal 2013-001843
Application 11/536,285

6
Board to “note the fundamental difference in structure of the impeller
blades.” Br. 14. Although the prior art blades and the blades depicted in
Figure 2B may appear different in shape, Appellants have failed to explain
adequately why the prior art blades do not overlap as called for by the claim
language. Further, Appellants do not address the annotated figure provided
by the Examiner in the Answer or provide an annotated Figure of their own
to show why the Examiner’s annotation is an incorrect reading of the claim
language onto the prior art.
Appellants argue that “while Griffiths arguably discloses a secondary
set of airfoil blades which improves suction, the issue of noise is never
addressed. . . .” Br. 12. As noted by the Examiner in response, this
argument is not persuasive of error because the Examiner did not rely on
noise reduction as a reason for the proposed modification. Ans. 2 (noting
the motivation for the combination was to achieve increased suction).
“Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of
endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a
reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” See KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (holding that it is error to look only to
the problem the patentee was trying to solve). Appellants do not appear to
contest the Examiner’s stated motivation to combine, even admitting that
Griffiths arguably discloses a dual-blade configuration that achieves
improved suction.
For these reasons, we do not find error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1–5 and 7–10.
Appeal 2013-001843
Application 11/536,285

7
RESOLUTION OF ISSUE
Griffiths teaches an impeller having overlapping blades.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–5 and 7–10 is
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
mp