Joseph MCDONNELL

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 21, 2021

2020006675 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2021)

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.
14/735,457 06/10/2015 Joseph MCDONNELL 1793-000221-US-01 9068
30593 7590 07/21/2021
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 8910
RESTON, VA 20195
EXAMINER
MACKAY-SMITH, SETH WENTWORTH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/21/2021 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):
dcmailroom@hdp.com
jcastellano@hdp.com
jhill@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH McDONNELL
Appeal 2020-006675
Application 14/735,457
Technology Center 3700
Before CARL M. DeFRANCO, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–6, 19, 24, 25, 33–36, and 39–42.
See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Joseph A.
McDonnell. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-006675
Application 14/735,457
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for a fan grill and a
fan producing a multi-directional air current. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A fan grill, comprising:
a grill frame existing in a horizontal plane, the grill frame
having a width; and
a plurality of louvers affixed within the grill frame, each
of the louvers being substantially flat and having a longitudinal
length spanning the width of the grill frame, the plurality of
louvers being parallel to each other,
the plurality of louvers including at least one first subset
of louvers with at least one first offset angle, the at least one first
offset angle deviating from an angle of a centerline of the grill
frame, the centerline traversing through a midpoint of the grill
frame and being perpendicular to the horizontal plane of the grill
frame,
the plurality of louvers including at least one second subset
of louvers that possess no offset angle relative to the centerline,
each louver of the at least one second subset of louvers being
directly adjacent to each other without intervening louvers being
in the at least one second subset of louvers,
wherein the at least one second subset of louvers is at a
midsection of the grill frame, and the at least one first subset of
louvers includes a first group of louvers on a first end of the grill
frame and a second group of louvers on a second end of the grill
frame, the first end and the second end being on opposing ends
of the grill frame and on either side of the midsection of the grill
frame, each of the plurality of louvers having an offset angle that
collectively spans a range between 0 and 12.7 degrees relative to
the centerline,
the first group of louvers, the second group of louvers and
the at least one second subset of louvers each including a
minimum of six louvers.
Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.). Appellant’s Summary of the Claimed Subject
Matter (Appeal Br. 6) includes an annotated version of Appellant’s Figure 5
Appeal 2020-006675
Application 14/735,457
3
in relation to claim 1, and we reproduce Appellant’s annotated version of
Figure 5 below.

Appellant’s annotated version of Figure 5 is a cross-sectional view of
a grill frame with first and second groups of louvers and a second subset of
louvers identified. See Appeal Br. 6. Appellant’s annotated Figure also lists
the angle at which each louver is positioned relative to the vertical axis.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Sakamoto US 4,341,151 July 27, 1982
Shih US 4,515,538 May 7, 1985

Appeal 2020-006675
Application 14/735,457
4
REJECTION2
Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 19, 24, 25, 33–36, and 39–42 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sakamoto alone, or in combination
with Shih. See Final Act. 5.
OPINION
Appellant argues for the patentability of claims 1, 4–6, 19, 24, 25, 33,
35, 36, and 39–42 as a group. See Appeal Br. 15–19, 23. We select claim 1
as representative of the group, and claims 4–6, 19, 24, 25, 33, 35, 36, and
39–42 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Sakamoto
The Examiner finds that Sakamoto teaches many of the elements
recited by claim 1. Final Act. 5–6. Regarding the recited “at least one first
subset of louvers with at least one first offset angle,” the Examiner states,
“any grouping of one or more of the slats on the ‘lower’ side of Fig 3 [of
Sakamoto] is read as ‘a subset.’” Id. at 5. Regarding the recited “at least
one second subset of louvers that possess no offset angle relative to the
centerline,” the Examiner finds that the louvers at the top of Sakamoto’s
Figure 3 meet this limitation. Id. at 6. We reproduce Figure 3 of Sakamoto
below.

2 The Final Office Action includes a rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–6, 19, 24, 25,
33–36, and 39–42, under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as indefinite. See Final Act. 4.
This rejection is withdrawn in the Advisory Action dated May 1, 2020. See
Advisory Act. 1.
Appeal 2020-006675
Application 14/735,457
5

Figure 3 of Sakamoto is a cross-sectional view of an electric fan with
a plurality of deflection plates 6a, which are arranged to gradually increase
in an angle of inclination with respect to the axis of the motor 1 to deflect air
flow. See Sakamoto 1:60–66, 2:27–33.
Appeal 2020-006675
Application 14/735,457
6
The Examiner finds Sakamoto does not meet all the requirements of
claim 1 inasmuch as “Sakamoto does not specifically teach groups of angled
louvers on either side of a group of straight louvers, [or] an angular range of
0 to 12.7 degrees, nor does Sakamoto explicitly discuss multiple louvers set
at the same angle.” Id. at 6.
Addressing these deficiencies in the teachings of Sakamoto, the
Examiner determines that placement of “straight louvers in the middle of
groups of angled louvers (as opposed to placing the straight louvers at one
side of groups of angled louvers)” would have been an obvious
rearrangement of parts. Final Act. 6 (citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019
(CCPA 1950)).
As for the requirement for a group of louvers at an angle in the range
of 0 to 12.7 degrees, the Examiner finds Applicant has not disclosed any
criticality for the claimed angular range, and “the use of 12.7 as a reference
offset angle amount is clearly set forth via [paragraphs 23, 32, 34, 44 of the
Specification] as a single non-critically defining example.” Id. at 6–7.
Additionally, the Examiner determines that it would have been
obvious “to choose a range of 0 to 12.7 degrees for the [angle] of the slats
and to have at least some of the louvers (as a ‘second subset’) at the same
angle” because the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior
art, and selecting the recited range of angles would have been a matter of
routine optimization. Id. (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955)).
Appellant argues “claim 1, and the instant disclosure, does provide an
unexpected [result]. Namely, as depicted in at least instant FIGS. 5, 7, 8B
and 8C, and as described in at least paras. [0031]-[0033] of the instant as-
filed application, the recited fan grill has a louver pattern that scatters
airflow in an effective and precise manner.” Appeal Br. 17–18. Further,
Appeal 2020-006675
Application 14/735,457
7
Appellant argues that the claimed arrangement is more than an obvious
rearrangement of parts, stating:
By configuring the louvers with an offset between 0 to 12.7
degrees, the offset louvers (louvers on ends of the fan grill)
deflect the airflow without unnecessarily dissipating the
deflected airflow. To summarize, the positioning of the louvers
with no offset at the midsection of the fan grill, the positioning
of the offset louvers on the ends of the fan grill, and the angling
of the offset louvers (louvers on ends of the fan grill) to
collectively span a range between 0 and 12.7 degrees, each are
attributes that combine to strike a balance that effectively
deflects a peripheral airflow without unnecessarily dissipating
the deflected airflow. Given the specificity of these recited
features of claim 1, it cannot reasonably be said that claim 1
recites ‘a simple rearrangement of known features to produce an
expected result,’ as the Examiner argues on p. 2 of the final office
action.
Appeal Br. 18.
In response, the Examiner takes the position that Appellant’s
argument includes no explanation regarding how the scattering of air flow
touted in the Appeal Brief is anything more than the expected result of
varying louver angles. Ans. 3. The Examiner also finds that Sakamoto
teaches the use of louvers with offset angles at least at one end (upper or
lower) of its grill. Id. at 4. The Examiner takes the position that paragraphs
23, 32–34, and 44 of Appellant’s Specification support a finding that there is
no criticality to the particular angles and the relative position of the sets of
louvers recited in claim 1. Id. Based on these determinations, the Examiner
concludes “varying the direction of flow by rearranging louvers in a manner
as desired by the designer is a matter of obvious design choice.” Id. at 5.
In reply, Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “an
‘unexpected result’ is not a requirement for non-obviousness under 35 USC
Appeal 2020-006675
Application 14/735,457
8
§103 – nor is it a requirement that the instant application explicitly describes
an ‘unexpected result.’” Reply Br. 3–4 (emphasis omitted). Appellant also
emphasizes the fact that claim 1 recites three separate sections of louvers,
specifically, the first subset (including first and second groups) and a second
subset, whereas, according to Appellant, Sakamoto discloses only one
section of louvers. See id. at 5–7.
Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of Examiner error. We agree
with the Examiner that the arrangement of louvers recited in claim 1 is a
rearrangement of known features that provides a predictable result. See
Final Act. 2. In the context of claim 1 and Sakamoto, this is sufficient to
support the Examiner’s rejection. An obviousness analysis “need not seek
out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “A court must ask whether the improvement
is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.” Id. at 401. Appellant’s contentions that the claimed
arrangement of louvers deflects the airflow without unnecessarily dissipating
the deflected airflow amounts to an assertion that the recited configuration
directs air in the direction desired by the user. Such an assertion provides no
indication that this function is in any manner different from the established
function of louvers as disclosed by Sakamoto.3 “The louver 6 has a plurality
of deflection plates 6a, which are arranged to gradually increase in an angle

3 Sakamoto refers to each of the flat members that guide airflow as
“deflection plates” and refers to the entire assembly for guiding airflow as a
“louver.” In contrast, Appellant’s Specification refers to the flat members
themselves as being “louvers.” See Spec. ¶¶ 29–31.
Appeal 2020-006675
Application 14/735,457
9
of inclination with respect to the axis of the motor 1 from one end to the
other, thereby deflecting air flow toward said other end.” Sakamoto 2:26–
31. “[A]ir flow can be sent in a wide range of directions by rotating the
louver 6 by means of the louver motor 5.” Id. at 2:31–33. “In this case,
rotating the louver 6 allows outside air to be taken [in] a wide range and
properly stopping the louver 6 allows this air to be guided in a desired
direction.” Id. at 4:36–40. Appellant’s discussion of the fact that three
sections of louvers are recited in claim 1 is unavailing. Again, the louvers
recited in claim 1 merely direct the air flow produced by the fan in the
direction desired by the user in accordance with the user’s preference,
exactly as louvers are supposed to do, as disclosed by Sakamoto. Thus, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Sakamoto
alone. Claims 4–6, 19, 24, 25, 33, 35, 36, and 39–42 fall with claim 1.
Sakamoto and Shih
As an alternative to rejecting claim 1 based on Sakamoto alone, the
Examiner finds Shih addresses Sakamoto’s deficiencies by teaching
pertinent structure, stating:
Should it be found that Sakamoto does not teach a device
in which the general conditions for the claim exist, Shih teaches
groupings of at least six louvers at the same angle (Fig 1, 906a-f
and col 11, II 8–12), one of the angles having no offset, or at zero,
and the angles of the other set being inclined as claimed.
Final Act. 7. Thus, the Examiner finds Shih discloses groups of at least six
louvers, one of the groups having no off-set angle, the other having group
having an off-set angle. The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious
“to modify the device of Sakamoto by adding multiple louvres at the same
angle as taught by Shih in order to yield the predictable result of producing
columns of air at differing angles, thus covering a wider area while
Appeal 2020-006675
Application 14/735,457
10
eliminating variations in coverage as taught by Shih.” Id. (citing Shih,
11:18–21). The Examiner also describes the groupings of louvers recited in
claim 1 as “a simple rearrangement of known features to produce an
expected result, which is not patentably distinct.” Id. at 2.
We reproduce Figure 3 of Shih below.

Figure 3 of Shih is a cross-sectional view of a ceiling fan taken along
line 3–3 of Figure 1 (cited by the Examiner) and depicts louvers 906a–906v,
some of which possess no offset angle relative to the centerline of the grill
frame and some of which have an offset angle relative to the centerline of
the grill frame. See Shih 5:46–47, 10:20–45.
Appellant contends that Shih fails to disclose three sections of louvers
along with the 0 to 12.7 degree angular range recited in claim 1. Appeal
Br. 19. Appellant then quotes most of claim 1 and contends that the
combination of Sakamoto and Shih fails to teach the quoted limitations. Id.
Appellant’s contentions do not address the rejection of claim 1 as set forth in
Appeal 2020-006675
Application 14/735,457
11
the Final Office Action because they do not account for the fact that the
Examiner proposes to modify the structure disclosed by Sakamoto based on
the predictable implementation of structure disclosed in Sakamoto and Shih.
Again, we agree with the Examiner that such a modification would have
been an obvious combination of prior art elements according to known
methods to yield predictable results. We have considered all of Appellant’s
arguments in support of the patentability of claim 1, but find them
unavailing. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable
over Sakamoto and Shih. For the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claims 4–6, 19, 24, 25, 33, 35, 36, and 39–42.
Claims 2 and 34
Claim 2 recites, in part, “a first motor configured to rotate the blades
to produce an air flow” and “a second motor configured to rotate the fan grill
in one of a clock-wise or a counter-clockwise direction within the fan
frame.” Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Sakamoto discloses a first motor that rotates
fan blades 2 and a second motor that rotates fan grill 6, meeting the
requirements of claim 2. Final Act. 7.
Appellant acknowledges that Sakamoto discloses a motor that rotates
its fan grill, but contends “the rotating fan grill of Sakamoto does not include
most of the recited features of claim 1, just as Sakamoto in view of Shih also
does not teach or suggest most of the recited features of claim 1 (at least for
the reasons argued above).” Appeal Br. 20.
Appellant’s argument amounts to a reiteration of the arguments
addressed above regarding the rejection of claim 1, and, for the same
reasons, does not identify Examiner error.
Appeal 2020-006675
Application 14/735,457
12
Appellant next refers to Figure 10 and “submits that annotated FIG.
10 generally depicts the bulk airflow 100 patterns that would be produced by
the fan grill 20 during one full rotation of the fan grill 20.” Appeal Br. 22
(emphasis omitted). Appellant provides annotated versions of Figure 10
identifying flow patterns produced during operation of the fan recited in
claim 2 and concludes
the ‘vortex-shaped’ airflow produced by the rotating fan grill
which is recited in claim 2, Appellant submits that Sakamoto in
view of Shih does not teach or suggest the louver pattern recited
in base claim 1, and therefore the fan grill of Sakamoto in view
of Shih would not be able to produce the ‘vortex-shaped’ airflow,
as depicted in the two annotated versions of instant FIG. 10,
depicted above.
Appeal Br. 23; see also id. at 21–22; Reply Br. 8–10. Continuing to rely on
Figure 10, Appellant argues:
[T]he resulting ‘vortex-shaped air current’ (depicted in FIG. 10,
and described in at least instant paras. [0002], [0004], [0033] and
[0041] of the as-filed application), can be viewed as an
“unexpected result” that causes a co-mingling and scattering of
air caused by the end louvers gently deflecting the peripheral
airflow, while the midsection louvers allow airflow to travel
through the fan grill unabated to maintain an overall energy of
much of the air currents. To emphasize, Sakamoto (with one
section of louvers) and Shih (with two sections of louvers) would
not be capable of forming the 'vortex-shaped air current'
involving three separate sections of louvers that are depicted in
FIG. 10.
Reply Br. 9–10 (emphasis omitted, italicization added). Thus, Appellant
contends that, because Sakamoto discloses only a single section of louvers,
and Shih discloses only two sections of louvers, these references would be
incapable of providing airflow as depicted in Appellant’s Figure 10.
Appeal 2020-006675
Application 14/735,457
13
This argument is untenable because the position of the louvers
incorporated by reference in claim 2 is addressed in the rejection of
independent claim 1. Claim 2 further requires a motor to rotate the fan
grill,4 and Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Sakamoto,
in its unmodified state, includes such a motor. Thus, Appellant’s contention
that neither of the references would produce the airflow depicted in Figure
10 because each reference discloses a different louver configuration than the
one recited in claim 1 amounts to an attack on the references individually
rather than as combined or modified in the rejection of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 2 as unpatentable over
Sakamoto alone, or in combination with Shih. We, likewise, sustain the
rejection of claim 34, which Appellant groups with claim 2. See Appeal Br.
23.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–6, 19, 24, 25, 33–36,
39–42 is affirmed.

4 We note that claim 2 does not limit how or when rotation of the fan grill
occurs, e.g., claim 2 does not require simultaneous operation of both the first
and second motors.
Appeal 2020-006675
Application 14/735,457
14
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–6,
19, 24, 25,
33–36, 39–
42
103 Sakamoto, Shih 1, 2, 4–6,
19, 24, 25,
33–36, 39–
42

Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–6,
19, 24, 25,
33–36, 39–
42

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED