Regal Beloit America, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 28, 2020

14194099 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2020)

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.
14/194,099 02/28/2014 Leslie A. Lyons 48593-125460 2587
103907 7590 09/28/2020
Thompson Coburn LLP
One US Bank Plaza
St.Louis, MO 63101
EXAMINER
SEHN, MICHAEL L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2020 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):
ipdocket@thompsoncoburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LESLIE A. LYONS
Appeal 2020-001097
Application 14/194,099
Technology Center 3700
Before DANIEL S. SONG, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SONG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). A telephonic oral hearing was held on September 15, 2020
with the Appellant’s representative, a transcript of which will be entered into
the record in due course.
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Regal
Beloit America, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001097
Application 14/194,099
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a blower housing having an integral
exhaust blower discharge drain section. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A blower housing comprising a first blower housing piece
and a second blower housing piece, the first and second blower
housing pieces being adapted and configured to be connected to
one another in a manner to collectively surround a blower fan,
the first blower housing piece comprising a blower discharge
section adapted to be coupled to an exhaust pipe, the blower
discharge section comprising:
an inner tubular portion and an outer tubular portion, the
inner tubular portion having an inner surface and an outer
surface, the inner surface of the inner tubular portion defining a
blower discharge passage, the outer tubular portion surrounding
the inner tubular portion, the outer tubular portion having an
inner surface and an outer surface, the inner surface of the outer
tubular portion and the outer surface of the inner tubular portion
being spaced sufficiently apart to define an exhaust pipe cavity,
the exhaust pipe cavity being adapted to receive an end margin
of the exhaust pipe to enable the end margin of the exhaust pipe
to be positioned between the inner tubular portion and the outer
tubular portion, the inner tubular portion and the outer tubular
portion being adapted and configured to enable condensate water
that forms on the inner surface of the exhaust pipe to flow into
the exhaust pipe cavity;
at least one drain hole extending through the outer tubular
portion and in fluid communication with the exhaust pipe cavity,
the at least one drain hole being adapted and configured to enable
condensate water flowing into the exhaust pipe cavity to drain
from the blower housing via the at least one drain hole; and
the first blower housing piece being a molded one-piece
member.
Appeal Br. 14, Claims App.
Appeal 2020-001097
Application 14/194,099
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Gatley, Jr. US 6,511,290 B1 Jan. 28, 2003
Lyons US 6,536,378 B2 Mar. 25, 2003
Lyons US 7,182,574 B2 Feb. 27, 2007
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 2, and 16–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Lyons ’574 in view of Lyons ’378. Final Act. 3.
2. Claims 3–15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Lyons ’574 in view of Lyons ’378 and Gatley. Final Act.
6.
OPINION
Rejection 1: Claims 1, 2, and 16–19
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, and 16–19 as unpatentable over
Lyons ’574 in view of Lyons ’378. Final Act. 3. As to claim 1, the
Examiner finds that Lyons ’574 discloses a blower housing including an
outer tubular portion, but fails to disclose an inner tubular portion, which is
surrounded by the outer tubular portion to define an exhaust pipe cavity, and
fails to disclose a drain hole connected thereto. Final Act. 3–4. The
Examiner finds that Lyons ’378 discloses inner and outer tubular portions
that define an exhaust pipe cavity, as well as a drain hole connected thereto.
Final Act. 4. Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that:
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
make the blower discharge section of the first blower housing
piece of Lyons [’574] with an inner tubular portion, an exhaust
pipe cavity, and drain holes, as taught by Lyons ’378, for the
purpose of providing the discharge section a means of draining
Appeal 2020-001097
Application 14/194,099
4
water from the exhaust pipe walls away from the blower and thus
preventing or significantly reducing the flow of water into the
blower and providing a drainage outlet for water condensation
that does not interfere with the blower operation.
Final Act. 5 (citing Lyons ’378, col. 2, ll. 1–8). We agree with the
Examiner’s conclusion, and address the Appellant’s arguments below.
The Appellant argues that the combination of these two Lyons patents
fails to disclose or suggests a molded one piece first blower housing piece,
the inner and outer tubular portions, and the drain hole as recited in claim 1,
because Lyons ’378 does not disclose inner and outer tubular portions “as
part of a molded one-piece member including a first blower housing piece,”
and instead, “discloses a sleeve 10 adapted to bridge a blower exhaust end to
an exhaust pipe.” Appeal Br. 5–6. Thus, according to the Appellant, “[a]t
most, combining these references would result in the sleeve of Lyons ’378
being connected to the housing exhaust outlet 75 of Lyons ’574 via a
clamp.” Appeal Br. 5.
However, as the Examiner explains, the rejection “is that the blower
housing of Lyons ’574 is modified to have the geometry/structural features
of the blower discharge section of Lyons ’378, in particular the inner tubular
portion, exhaust pipe cavity, and drain holes.” Ans. 4. Although connecting
the sleeve of Lyons ’378 to the housing exhaust outlet of Lyons ’574 would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill because that is what Lyons ’378
explicitly discloses, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to have modified the geometry/structural features of the blower
discharge section with its exhaust outlet 75 of Lyons ’574 to be like that of
Lyons ’378 in order to provide the draining function and feature as the
Examiner concludes. In that regard, we agree with the Examiner that in
applying the teachings of Lyons ’378, a person of ordinary skill in the art
Appeal 2020-001097
Application 14/194,099
5
would recognize that a choice exists as to “whether to do so in a manner that
results in an integral (i.e. monolithic) or separable part(s),” and we further
agree that “selection of either approach would be well within the level of
ordinary skill in this art.” Ans. 5.
As the Examiner points out, “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is
also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007); Ans. 5. “Common sense teaches . . .
that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes,
and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings
of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420.
Lyons ’574 discloses “[a] draft inducer blower for high efficiency
furnaces, including a blower housing,” which includes a circular exhaust
outlet 75 having a cylindrical pipe shape that is connected to “an exhaust
pipe or other duct structure.” Lyons ’574, Abstract, col. 4, ll. 53–56; Figs.
1–3. The apparatus of Lyons ’378 is designed to “form[] a junction sleeve
between two pipes and has drainage channels which prevent condensate
liquid from flowing from one pipe into the other pipe.” Lyons ’378,
Abstract. Moreover, Lyons ’378 establishes that water condensing on the
exhaust pipe walls of such furnaces is a known and existing problem, and
discloses that its invention provides a solution to this problem. Lyons ’378,
col. 1, ll. 20–36 (“Drainage of water condensation from furnace exhaust
pipes in typical heating systems accumulates in undesirable areas and causes
deterioration or damage to heating system components. . . . Water
condensation typically drains along the exhaust pipe walls and accumulates
in pools on any horizontal surface.”); Abstract (“An apparatus for evacuating
liquid condensation from pipe systems which is particularly applicable to
exhaust pipe systems in high efficiency furnaces . . . [with] drainage
Appeal 2020-001097
Application 14/194,099
6
channels which prevent condensate liquid from flowing from one pipe into
the other pipe.”).
Accordingly, in addition to using such sleeve of Lyons ’378 on the
draft inducer blower of Lyons ’574, a person of ordinary skill in the art,
upon desiring to provide such drainage features to the blower of Lyons ’574,
would have found it obvious to modify the structure of the exhaust outlet of
Lyons ’574 “to have the geometry/structural features of the blower discharge
section of Lyons ’378, in particular the inner tubular portion, exhaust pipe
cavity, and drain holes” as the Examiner explains. Ans. 4.
The Appellant argues that the Examiner does not explain why a
person would have been motivated to apply Lyons ’378 to Lyons ’574 “such
that the blower housing member and cylinders constitute a one-piece molded
member.” Appeal Br. 6. However, the Examiner set forth the motivation in
the Final Action, which as reproduced above, states that the motivation
stems from the desire to provide “a means of draining water from the
exhaust pipe walls away from the blower and thus preventing or
significantly reducing the flow of water into the blower and providing a
drainage outlet for water condensation that does not interfere with the
blower operation.” Final Act. 5 (citing Lyons ’378, col. 2, ll. 1–8); see also
Ans. 4.
The Appellant responds that “[t]he stated motivation has nothing to do
with the forming the first blower housing piece and the discharge section as
a molded one-piece member.” Reply Br. 2. This argument is unpersuasive
because as already discussed, the Examiner’s rejection is concluding that it
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to modify the
geometry/structural features of the blower discharge section of Lyons ’574
to be like that of Lyons ’378 in order to provide the desired draining
Appeal 2020-001097
Application 14/194,099
7
function attained by Lyons ’378. The blower discharge section of Lyons
’574, that is, the circular exhaust outlet 75, is already an integrally molded
part of the blower housing piece, and formed as a one-piece member. See
Lyons ’574, Figs. 1–3; col. 4, ll. 53–57 (“As shown in FIGS. 1–3, housing
body 24 includes an integral exhaust transition 74 extending tangentially
therefrom, which terminates in a circular exhaust outlet 75 to which an
exhaust pipe or other duct structure”) (emphasis added).
In addition, the Appellant argues that although “the sleeve of Lyons
’378 is made from a flexible thermoplastic rubber . . . while the blower
housing members 24, 26 of Lyons ’574 are made from a stamped metal or
injection molded plastic,” the Examiner has not provided reasoning as to
“how or why it would have been obvious to combine these diverse members
as a one-piece molded member.” Appeal Br. 7. The Appellant also argues
that the rejection does not consider the Lyons references “as a whole and
their intended uses,” and “[i]n order to function as intended, the sleeve of
Lyons ’378 must be a separate, flexible member that is removably attachable
and selectively positionable at the junction of two pipes” at different
orientations, and dampen vibration, whereas the suggested combination,
“would prevent the sleeve of Lyons ’378 from working as intended.”
Appeal Br. 7, 9; Reply Br. 2, 5. The Appellant further argues that the
suggested combination renders superfluous structural features such as the
blower receiving end of the sleeve of Lyons ’378 and its associated
structure. Appeal Br. 10.
However, these arguments are essentially based on an incorrect
understanding of the rejection, and/or the Appellant’s view that the
combination of the Lyons references is limited to attachment of the sleeve of
Lyons ’378 to the housing exhaust outlet 75 of Lyons ’574. As discussed
Appeal 2020-001097
Application 14/194,099
8
above and as the Examiner explains, “[t]he structure of the discharge section
of Lyons ’574 is being modified, not added to, and . . . the rigid material [is]
already used for the blower discharger section of Lyons ’574.” Ans. 4.
The Appellant further asserts that the rejection engages in
impermissible hindsight and is based on the Appellant’s disclosure. Appeal
Br. 8; Reply Br. 3. We disagree. As noted above, Lyons ’574 discloses a
draft inducer blower for a furnace, and Lyons ’378 establishes that water
condensing on the exhaust pipe walls of furnaces (such as that of Lyons
’574) is a known and existing problem, and Lyons ’378 provides a solution
to this problem. Lyons ’378, col. 1, ll. 20–36. Accordingly, the Examiner
applied the teachings of the art as would have been understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, with ordinary creativity, and we disagree that the
rejection is based on impermissible hindsight. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d
1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (“Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense
necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it
takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary
skill [in the art] at the time the claimed invention was made and does not
include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a
reconstruction is proper.”); In re Cree, Inc., 818 F.3d 694, 702 n.3 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (hindsight argument is of no moment where the Examiner provides a
sufficient, non-hindsight reason to combine the references).
In summary, the Appellant’s perspective and belief that a person of
ordinary skill would only simply attach the sleeve of Lyons ’378 to the
housing exhaust outlet of Lyons ’574 is flawed. As discussed above, such a
view relegates such a person to an automation with little knowledge, skill, or
creativity, who cannot evaluate and apply the technology of the relevant art,
but simply uses them by bodily incorporating the art together, i.e., attach the
Appeal 2020-001097
Application 14/194,099
9
sleeve of Lyons ’378 to the outlet of Lyons ’574. While such simple
attachment would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill as it merely
uses the sleeve of Lyons ’378, we agree with the Examiner that it also would
have been obvious to modify the geometry/structural features of the blower
discharge section of Lyons ’574 to be like that of Lyons ’378 for the same
reason of providing a draining function to the device of Lyons ’574 as
articulated by the Examiner. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has
been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way,
using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or
her skill.”).
Therefore, in view of the above, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1. The Appellant does not submit specific arguments directed to
dependent claims 2, and 16–19. Thus, these dependent claims fall with
claim 1.

Rejection 2: Claims 3–15 and 20
The Examiner rejects claims 3–15 and 20 as unpatentable over Lyons
’574 in view of Lyons ’378 and Gatley. Final Act. 6.
Claim 3
The Examiner finds that the combination of the Lyons references fails
to disclose a plurality of slits as required by claim 3, but finds that Gatley
discloses a blower discharge section with a plurality of slits as required.
Final Act. 6 (citing Gatley, col. 4, ll. 49–51); see also Gatley, Figs. 3–5. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to make the end
margin of the outer tubular portion of Lyons [’574], as modified by Lyons
‘378, with a plurality of slits, as taught by Gatley, for the purpose of
Appeal 2020-001097
Application 14/194,099
10
securing the exhaust pipe in the blower discharge section.” Final Act. 6
(citing Gatley, col. 6, ll. 3–6, 20–23).
The Appellant argues that the Examiner “provides no explanation why
a person of ordinary skill in the art would have further modified the blower
by adding slots as disclosed by Gatley, to the flexible compressible outer
tubular portion,” and “does not explain why slots are needed or even
desirable in the flexible, compressible tubular portion.” Appeal Br. 11. The
Appellant further argues that “[t]he stated motivation - to help secure the
exhaust pipe in the blower discharge section (Answer at p. 6) - has nothing
to do with forming the blower housing and the discharge section as a molded
one-piece member, and does not address whether one skilled in the art would
have a reasonable chance of success in forming the combination.” Reply Br.
5. According to the Appellant, “the slots of Gatley would not be needed on
such a compressible sleeve” as disclosed in Lyons ’378. Reply Br. 6.
These arguments are unpersuasive because they again appear to be
based on a misunderstanding of the rejection, which is not based on
modifying the blower of Lyons ’574 to have a flexible and compressible
outer tubular portion, but instead, to have the structure disclosed in Lyons
’378. Ans. 6. Thus, as the Examiner explains, “motivation for why the slots
and flexible exhaust fitting are needed and desirable [has been] provided,”
which is “that they help secure the exhaust pipe in the blower discharge
section.” Ans. 6 (citing Final Act. 6, Gatley, col. 6, ll. 3–6, 20–23).
Claim 20
The Examiner rejects dependent claim 20, further finding that Gatley
discloses a cup “positioned to extend within the exhaust pipe cavity” and is
“configured to form a seal between the inner surface of the outer tubular
portion and the exhaust pipe” as required. Final Act. 7, citing Gatley, col. 5,
Appeal 2020-001097
Application 14/194,099
11
ll. 20–24; Fig. 3. The Appellant argues that the rejection “states no reason as
to how or why the flexible exhaust fitting 128 of Gatley would be combined
with the flexible, compressible sleeve of Lyons ’378,” and that the Examiner
provided “no explanation why or how the flexible exhaust fitting 128 of
Gatley would be needed when the sleeve of Lyons ’378 is already a
compressible thermoplastic rubber interface.” Appeal Br. 12. However, this
argument is again unpersuasive because it is based on a misunderstanding of
the rejection. Ans. 6.
Therefore, in view of the above, the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 3 and 20 is affirmed. The Appellant does not submit
specific arguments directed to dependent claims 4–15. Thus, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims as well.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. More specifically,
1. The rejection of claims 1, 2, and 16–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Lyons ’574 in view of Lyons ’378 is affirmed.
2. The rejection of claims 3–15 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Lyons ’574 in view of Lyons ’378 and Gatley is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 16–19 103 Lyons ’574, Lyons
’378
1, 2, 16–19
3–15, 20 103 Lyons ’574, Lyons
’378, Gatley
3–15, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–20
Appeal 2020-001097
Application 14/194,099
12
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED