Goodrich Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 4, 2022

2021003264 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2022)

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. 15/368,255 12/02/2016 Galdemir Cezar Botura 95604US01-U100-012570 1014 113529 7590 01/04/2022 Kinney & Lange, P.A. 312 South Third Street Minneapolis, MN 55415 EXAMINER PAIK, SANG YEOP ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3761 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2022 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): USPatDocket@kinney.com amkoenck@kinney.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte GALDEMIR CEZAR BOTURA, TOMMY M. WILSON JR., and BRAD HARTZLER Appeal 2021-003264 Application 15/368,255 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant, Goodrich Corporation,1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Raytheon Technologies Corporation as the ultimate owner of Appellant and the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-003264 Application 15/368,255 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Specification The Specification’s discloses “[a] carbon allotrope heater assembly includes a carrier material, two carbon allotrope heater sheets attached to the carrier material, a carbon allotrope connection sheet binding the two carbon allotrope heater sheets together opposite the carrier material, and an encapsulating material attached to the carbon allotrope connection sheet opposite the two carbon allotrope heater sheets.” Spec. ¶4. The Claims Claims 1-20 are rejected. Final Act. 1. No other claims are pending. Id. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below. 1. A carbon allotrope heater assembly comprising: a carrier material; two carbon allotrope heater sheets attached to the carrier material; a carbon allotrope connection sheet binding the two carbon allotrope heater sheets together, wherein the carbon allotrope connection sheet has a different resistivity than the two carbon allotrope heater sheets and the carbon allotrope connection sheet is positioned opposite the carrier material; and an encapsulating material attached to the two carbon allotrope heater sheets opposite the carrier material. Appeal Br. 13. Appeal 2021-003264 Application 15/368,255 3 The Examiner’s Rejections The following rejections, all under 35 U.S.C. § 103, are before us: 1. claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 10-12, 14, 18, and 19 over Wang ’545,2 Choi,3 Grise,4 Kim,5 and Fuji6 or Oberle7 (Final Act. 2); 2. claims 2, 5, and 13 over Wang ’545, Choi, Grise, Kim, Fuji or Oberle, and Leon8 (id. at 5); 3. claim 6 over Wang ’545, Choi, Grise, Kim, Fuji or Oberle, and Wardle9 (id.); 4. claims 8, 15, and 16 over Wang ’545, Choi, Grise, Kim, Fuji or Oberle, and Sekiguchi10 or Uchida11 (id. at 6); 5. claim 9 over Wang ’545, Choi, Grise, Kim, Fuji or Oberle, and Feng12 (id. at 7); 6. claim 17 over Wang ’545, Choi, Grise, Kim, Fuji or Oberle, and Davidov13 (id.); and 7. claim 20 over Wang ’545, Choi, Grise, Kim, Fuji or Oberle, Sekiguchi or Uchida, and Wang ’19814 (id. at 8). 2 US 2011/0108545 Al, published May 12, 2011 (“Wang ’545”). 3 US 2013/0153559 Al, published June 20, 2012 (“Choi”). 4 US 4,912,306, issued Mar. 27, 1990 (“Grise”). 5 US 2014/0021195 A1, published Jan. 23, 2014 (“Kim”). 6 US 5,695,670, issued Dec. 9, 1997 (“Fuji”). 7 US 6,194,692 B1, issued Feb. 27, 2001 (“Oberle”). 8 US 4,755,659, issued July 5, 1988 (“Leon”). 9 US 7,537,825 B1, issued May 26, 2009 (“Wardle”). 10 US 4,628,187, issued Dec. 9, 1986 (“Sekiguchi”). 11 US 4,977,309, issued Dec. 11, 1990 (“Uchida”). 12 US 2014/0072778 A1, published Mar. 13, 2014 (“Feng”). 13 US 2010/0051604 A1, published Mar. 4, 2010 (“Davidov”). 14 US 2009/0159198 A1, published June 25, 2009 (“Wang ’198”). Appeal 2021-003264 Application 15/368,255 4 DISCUSSION Rejection 1 Independent Claims 1 and 11 Appellant argues the independent claims 1 and 11 together. Appeal Br. 4-12. We choose claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner finds that Wang ’545 discloses a carbon allotrope heater having most, but not all, of the subject matter of claim 1. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Wang ’545 discloses, with reference to Figure 1 of Wang ’545, a carrier material (122), two carbon allotrope heater sheets (110) attached to the carrier material, and an encapsulating material (102) attached to the two carbon allotrope heater sheets opposite the carrier material. Final Act. 2-3. Although Wang initially refers to structure 110 of Figure 1 as “a carbon nanotube structure,” the Examiner finds that Wang ’545 teaches that it can also be multiple coplanar (side by side) carbon nanotube films. Final Act. 2 (citing Wang ’545 ¶18). The Examiner finds that Wang ’545 lacks “a carbon allotrope connection sheet binding the two carbon allotrope heater sheets together, wherein the carbon allotrope connection sheet has a different resistivity than the two carbon allotrope heater sheets and the carbon allotrope connection sheet is positioned opposite the carrier material,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Choi teaches using a connecting sheet or “bus bar” to join adjacent heater sheets and positioning the connecting sheet opposite the carrier material. Final Act. 3. The Examiner similarly finds that Grise teaches using connecting busses to electrically connect heater sheets and positioning the busses opposite a carrier material. Id. The Examiner finds that Fuji and Oberle each teach using a current supplying Appeal 2021-003264 Application 15/368,255 5 bus bar or electrode with a lower resistivity than a heat conducting element. Id. at 3-4. The Examiner concludes that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Wang ’545 in view of Choi, Grise, Kim,15 and Fuji or Oberle. Id. at 3-4. Appellant argues that the Examiner “does not adequately explain why a person of ordinary skill would make the proposed combination of references without use of impermissible hindsight” and the rejection lacks “a motivation to combine the references and an explanation of how the proposed the combination of the [sic] would result in the heater assembly of claim 1.” Appeal Br. 6-7. We disagree. The Examiner’s proposed modification is adequately explained, supported by the teachings of the prior art, and clearly results in the subject matter of claim 1. The Final Action states: In view of Choi, Grise, Kim, and Fuji or Oberle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Wang ’545 with a connection element or sheet made of carbon nanotube/allotrope that is connected with the carbon nanotube/allotrope heater sheets opposite the carrier material as a known heater arrangement on a carrier/substrate material so that the heater sheets can be electrically connected or joined/spliced with each other to form an electrical heater wherein the carbon allotrope connection sheet can be further made with a lower/different resistance so that electric current can be effectively provided to the heater sheets without creating any 15 The Examiner finds that Kim teaches a carbon nanotube/allotrope heater sheet (140) provided with a connecting carbon allotrope sheet/electrode (120) that is made of carbon nanotube. This teaching is relevant to the rejection of certain dependent claims, such as claim 6, which recites “wherein the carbon allotrope connection sheet comprises carbon nanotubes suspended in a substrate.” Appeal Br. 13. We do not read the rejection of claim 1 as applying Kim. Appeal 2021-003264 Application 15/368,255 6 localized or hot spots along the connection sheet so that the desired heating area is defined by the heater sheets.). Final Act. 4. Appellant argues that Choi: does not teach or suggest carbon allotrope heater sheets or a carbon allotrope connection sheet binding together the carbon allotrope heater sheets as recited in claims 1 and 11, particularly not a carbon allotrope connection sheet that has a different resistivity than the two carbon allotrope heater sheets in which the carbon allotrope connection sheet is positioned opposite the carrier material. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant makes the identical or virtually identical argument for each of the remaining secondary references. Id. at 7-8. The rejection, however, does not rely on anyone of these references as teaching the entire limitation appearing in bold in Appellant’s arguments. Rather, the rejection relies on a modification of Wang ’545 in view of a combination of these references. As restated in the Answer: Choi and Grise are applied to teach a known heater assembly having a plurality of heater sheets/elements with a connection sheet/bus that binds together a plurality of heater sheets/elements providing a plurality of heating areas as known in the art. . . . Fuji and Oberle are applied to show that it is known in the art to provide a connection sheet/bus having a resistance that is different from a heater element wherein the connection sheet/bus would have a less resistivity than that of the heater sheet/element so that any localized or hot spots along the connection sheet/bus is prevented. Ans. 10. In sum, Appellant’s arguments attacking these references individually as failing to teach more than for which they are relied upon are unpersuasive. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references Appeal 2021-003264 Application 15/368,255 7 individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. . . . [The reference] must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole.”). We have considered Appellant’s arguments but they do not apprise us of error. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 as well as that of claim 11, which falls therewith. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Dependent Claims 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 14, 18, and 19 Appellant argues these claims under a separate heading but argues their patentability solely on the basis of their dependency from either claim 1 or claim 11. Appeal Br. 9. Accordingly, for substantially the same reasons as we affirm he rejection of claims 1 and 11, we likewise affirm the rejection of claims 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 14, 18, and 19. Rejections 2-7 Appellant’s sole argument against these rejections is that the additional references in these rejections fail to cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claims 1 and 11. Appeal Br. 9-12. As Appellant failed to show such a deficiency, as discussed above, it likewise fails to show error in these rejections. Accordingly, we affirm Rejections 2-7, collectively of claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15-17, and 20. Appeal 2021-003264 Application 15/368,255 8 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 4, 7, 10-12, 14, 18, 19 103 Wang ’545, Choi, Grise, Kim, Fuji/Oberle 1, 3, 4, 7, 10-12, 14, 18, 19 2, 5, 13 103 Wang ’545, Choi, Grise, Kim, Fuji/Oberle, Leon 2, 5, 13 6 103 Wang ’545, Choi, Grise, Kim, Fuji/Oberle, Wardle 6 8, 15, 16 103 Wang ’545, Choi, Grise, Kim, Fuji/Oberle, Sekiguchi/Uchidi 8, 15, 16 9 103 Wang ’545, Choi, Grise, Kim, Fuji/Oberle, Feng 9 17 103 Wang ’545, Choi, Grise, Kim, Fuji/Oberle, Sekiguchi/Uchidi, Davidov 17 20 103 Wang ’545, Choi, Grise, Kim, Fuji/Oberle, Davidov, Wang ’198 20 Overall Outcome 1-20 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