Twin City Fan Companies, Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 29, 2020

2020000932 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 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.
14/476,246 09/03/2014 Jeffrey William Robinson 1404.006US1 3829
21186 7590 09/29/2020
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
DELRUE, BRIAN CHRISTOPHER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2020 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):
SLW@blackhillsip.com
uspto@slwip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JEFFREY WILLIAM ROBINSON,
NEAL PAUL, and JOHN MAHONEY

Appeal 2020-000932
Application 14/476,246
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, ULRIKE W. JENKS, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.

JENKS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 files this appeal from
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10 and 12–20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Twin City
Fan Companies, Ltd. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000932
Application 14/476,246
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1–10 and 12–20 are on appeal, and can be found in the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief. Claim 1 is representative of the claims on
appeal, and reads as follows (with added paragraphing and bracketing for
reference):
1. A fan assembly, comprising:
[(1)] an impeller;
[(2)] a rotatable shaft coupled to a center of the impeller;
and
[(3)] a housing covering at least a portion of the impeller,
the housing including:
[(a)] at least two housing portions joined together
at a seam;
[(b)]a reinforcing channel covering an extending
portion of the seam; and
[(c)] a reinforcing layer adhered over the seam on
an inside of the housing.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims Appendix). The other independent claims, claims 7,
12, and 18, similarly recite a fan housing having a seam covered with a
reinforcing layer on both the inside and outside of the housing.
REFERENCE(S)
The prior art relied upon by Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Bowles et al. (Bowles”) US 3,300,122 Jan. 24, 1967
Grinbergs US 7,374,399 B2 May 20, 2008
Hancock et al.
(“Hancock”)
US 7,381,028 B2 June 3, 2008
Schofield US 2010/0050553 A1 Mar. 4, 2010
In addition, Examiner relies on the following non-patent literature:
Sealed and Insulated Fiber Board Ducts | Building America Solution
Center, https://web.archive.org/web/20130226220625/http://basc.pnnl.gov
Appeal 2020-000932
Application 14/476,246
3
/resource-guides/sealed (last accessed Aug. 31, 2017) (“DOE”).
Martin Holladay, Sealing Ducts: What’s Better, Tape or Mastic?
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216064405/http://www.greenbuildingadvi
sor.com/blogs (last accessed Aug. 31, 2017) (“Holladay”).
Sina Ebnesajjad, Chapter 8 Characteristics of Adhesive Materials,
Handbook of Adhesives and Surface Preparation (1st ed. 2010) (“Sina”).
REJECTION(S)
Appellant requests review of the following grounds of rejections made
by Examiner:
I. Claims 1–10 and 12–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hancock, Schofield, DOE, and Holladay;
II. Claims 1–3, 6–8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bowles, Grinbergs, DOE, and
Holladay; and
III. Claims 4, 5, 9, 16, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bowles, Grinbergs, DOE, Holladay, and
Schofield;
IV. Claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Bowles, Grinbergs, DOE, Holladay, and Sina.

I. Obviousness over Hancock, Schofield, DOE, and Holladay
The issue is whether the preponderance of evidence of record supports
Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of references provides a fan
housing having a seam, wherein the seam is covered on both sides with a
fabric reinforced covering as claimed.
Appeal 2020-000932
Application 14/476,246
4
A. Findings of Fact (FF)
FF1. Hancock teaches a fan assembly having a housing made of two
portions that joined together at a parting line, i.e. a seam. See Hancock
2:32–42, see Figure 2 (not shown). Figure 20 of Hancock, reproduced
below, shows a fan assembly:

Figure 20 shows a fan assembly containing a motor and a blower
housing 40 made of two parts 42 and 44, and a seam were part 42 and
44 meet along the parting line. See 4:32–42, 7:55–56; see Final Act. 4.
FF2. Hancock teaches that “[h]ousing parts 42 and 44 are not true mirror
image parts in that housing part 42 includes a perimeter groove 81, . . .
which is adapted to receive flange 80 of housing part 44 when the two
parts are joined together.” Hancock 6:6–10, see also Figure 8 and 13.
“Housing part 44 is provided with an axially projecting perimeter
flange 80.” Id. 5:17–19, see also Figures 3 and 5. Housing parts 42
and 44 may be secured to each other with a clip or cleat. Id. 6:48–49.
FF3. Schofield teaches a connection between composite panels formed
using structural bonding tape. Schofield, Abstract, see also ¶¶ 9–10.
Figure 5A of Schofield, reproduced below, shows such a connection.
Appeal 2020-000932
Application 14/476,246
5

Figure 5A shows a bonding tape 60 adhered to surface 81a and 82a
over seam 83 of panels 81 and 82. Id. ¶ 64. The tape may also be
applied to the opposite surface 81b and 82b over seam 83. Id. Tape 60
is made of impregnated reinforcement fabric containing adhesive resin
61. Id. “Once the adhesive layer is cured, a solid structural connection
65 between the first panel 81 and the second panel 82 is formed.” Id.
FF4. DOE teaches sealing fiber board used in HVAC systems. DOE
teaches that mastic and glass fiber fabric are used to make connections
with the fiberboard in the HVAC system. DOE 2.2 DOE teaches that
pressure-sensitive aluminum foil tape of heat activated aluminum
foil/scrim tape may also be used to make connections in HVAC
systems. Id.
FF5. Holladay teaches that ducts in an air handling system may be sealed
with duct tape which is “technically known as cloth-backed rubber-
adhesive duct tape.” Holladay 2.
FF6. The Specification provides
a portion of the first housing portion 202 and the second
housing portion 204 include extending portions 203 and 205

2 The reference does not contain page number, we count the pages
consecutively starting from the first page.
Appeal 2020-000932
Application 14/476,246
6
than extend away from the housing 200 to form an extending
portion 212. In the example shown, the second reinforcing layer
or layers 230 form a channel that covers the extending portion
212.
Spec. ¶ 19, see also ¶¶ 35, 40.
B. Analysis
Examiner finds that Hancock teaches elements 1–3a of claim 1. See
Final Act. 4; FF1, FF2. Examiner acknowledges that Hancock does not teach
elements 3b and 3c of claim 1 and looks to Schofield for supplying these
elements. Final Act. 4; FF3. Based on these disclosures, Examiner
concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was filed to join the inner seam of
the housing, as taught by Hancock, with a reinforcing layer
adhered over the seam, as taught by Schofield, to provide
additional reinforcement (Hancock Col. 4, lines 30-35) for the
purpose of strengthening the walls by acting as an additional
support which completely joins the seam (Schofield Paragraphs
[0009], [0010]); furthermore it was within ordinary skill in the
art to supplement the join[t], as taught by Hancock, with at least
one layer of reinforcement adhered, as taught by Schofield, on
the inside of the housing since the simplest installation of
layered reinforcement would be on the flat inside surface. The
Examiner further notes, that DOE and Holladay both
demonstrate the commonality of reinforcing and adhering
seams of adjoining composite surfaces with a fiber reinforced
composite, particularly within the field of air movement. (See
Non-patent literature DOE and Holladay).
Final Act. 6; see FF1–FF5.
Appellant contends (1) that the art relied upon by Examiner is non-
analogous art (see Appeal Br. 9 (“one of ordinary skill in the art would not
look to [a] teaching from the home/building construction arts or duct taping
to combine with a fan housing.”)); (2) that there is insufficient motivation
Appeal 2020-000932
Application 14/476,246
7
for the combination (id. at 9–11; see Reply Br. 2–4); and (3) that the
rejection relies on hindsight (Appeal Br. 11).
We have reviewed Appellant’s contentions in light of Examiner’s
cited art and find that the preponderance of the evidence supports
Examiner’s conclusion that the claims are obvious. We address Appellant’s
contentions below:
As Examiner explains, any need or problem known in the field of
endeavor at the time of the invention can provide a reason for combining the
elements in the manner claimed. Ans. 3 (citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007)).
[A] reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1)
the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed
invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the
reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the
inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the
claimed invention).
Ans. 4 (citing In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (2004)). Hancock is directed
to a fan motor and housing. FF1 and FF2. As discussed above, Examiner
relies on Hancock for teaching elements 1–3a of claim 1 and in Schofield for
teaching elements 3b and 3c of claim 1. Final Act. 4. Specifically, Examiner
relies on Schofield for reinforcing seams of composite structures by
providing additional support that completely joins the seams. Id. Examiner
finds that “Schofield solves the same problem as identified by the Instant
Application (i.e. of reinforcing seams of a composite material).” Ans. 4.
Because Schofield solves the problem of reinforcing seams, Examiner
concludes that it is analogous art to the present claims. Id. Additionally,
Examiner finds that Holladay and DOE are analogous art because they are in
“the same field of endeavor; namely fans, blowers, ductwork systems,
Appeal 2020-000932
Application 14/476,246
8
Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems, vacuum air
pumps, etc.” Id. We agree with Examiner that the evidence of record
supports a finding that the references are reasonably pertinent to problem
faced by the inventor and thereby analogous art. Accordingly we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s non-analogous art arguments.
The combination of Hancock and Schofield provides a fan housing
having a channel as recited in the claims. Examiner finds that “Hancock
creates the seam that forms the structure of the channel for which the
Schofield tape is applied.” Ans. 6, see also Ans. 5 (“‘Housing part 44 is
provided with an axially projecting perimeter flange 80 at edge 66, see
FIGS. 3 and 5,’ ([Hancock] col. 5, ln. 17-18), as clearly shown in Fig. 2 [of
Hancock], the flange 80 is seen to be radially projecting adjacent to parting
line 49).”); see FF1–FF3. Here, Hancock already teaches reinforcing the
seam by adding cleats or clips along the seam edge in order to hold the seam
together. FF2. Applying Schofield’s tape, as suggested by Examiner,
provides an alternative way to keep the two parts of the fan housing unit
together at the seam while simultaneously reinforcing the seam. See Final
Act. 2 (“there is a reasonable result of added reinforcement to the seam
when adding reinforcing tape to the seam.”). Furthermore, “[w]hen the
bonding tape of Schofield is applied to the radially projecting flange of
Hancock, [Examiner finds that] a channel is formed.” Ans. 5. We find no
error with Examiner’s finding that adding the fiber reinforced tape of
Schofield over the radially projecting flange of Hancock results in a
structure that resembles the channel as set out in the Specification. See FF6.
Accordingly, we find that the record supports the conclusion that the
Appeal 2020-000932
Application 14/476,246
9
combination of references teaches a fan housing having a channel as
claimed.
Examiner identifies the teachings of Schofield, Holladay, and DOE as
providing the motivation to seal cracks or seams in an HVAC unit. See
Ans. 7–8; FF3–FF5. We agree with Examiner that Schofield teaches making
a solid structural connection between two composite pieces by applying the
tape to the seam. FF3. This teaching in conjunction with the teachings of
DOE and Holladay to seal seams in HVAC systems provides sufficient
motivation to apply the same sealing techniques to a fan housing that is also
used in an HVAC system as taught by Hancock. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s contention that Examiner has not articulated a
sufficient motivation for combing the references.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that Examiner relies
on hindsight to arrive at the conclusion that the claims are rendered obvious
based on the cited art. Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 4. While we are fully aware
that hindsight bias often plagues determinations of obviousness, Graham v.
John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 36 (1966), we are also mindful that the
Supreme Court has clearly stated that the “combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
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 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 McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, (CCPA 1971). Appellant has not
directed us to any information relied on by Examiner that could have only
Appeal 2020-000932
Application 14/476,246
10
been gleaned from Appellant’s Specification and was not available in the
references cited by Examiner. Here, Examiner relies on the disclosure of
Hancock for teaching a fan housing having a seam and Schofield for
teaching two composite material fastened together using fabric reinforced
tape. Final Act. 4–18; see FF1–FF3. The application of Schofield’s tape over
Hancock’s fan seam reasonably bonds the two portions of the housing
together and in the process forms a channel as recited in the claims. See
Ans. 5. (“When the bonding tape of Schofield is applied to the radially
projecting flange of Hancock, a channel is formed.”). Accordingly, we are
not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that Examiner resorted to hindsight
in formulating the rejection.
C. Conclusion
We conclude that the evidence cited by Examiner supports a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 1 and Appellant has not
provided persuasive argument or evidence to rebut the prima facie case. As
Appellant does not argue the claims separately, claims 2–10 and 12–20 fall
with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(iv).

II.–IV. Obviousness over Bowles, Grinbergs, DOE, and Holladay
The issue is whether the preponderance of evidence of record supports
Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of references provides a fan
housing having a seam, wherein the seam is covered on both inside and
outside surfaces with a reinforced covering as claimed.
A. Findings of Fact (FF)
FF7. Bowles teaches a manually operated ventilator. See Bowles
Figure 1. Bowles teaches that the ventilator casing 37 is made
Appeal 2020-000932
Application 14/476,246
11
of two halves 39 and 41 that are held together by continuous
projecting flange on the marginal edges of halves 39 and 41.
See Bowles 2:28–42, Figures 1–5. “The other half 41 of casing
37 is secured as by bolts passing through a continuous flange on
its marginal edges to a corresponding flange on the marginal
edges of half 39, so that the two casing halves are releasably
secured together in assembled relationship.” Bowles 2:33–38.
FF8. Grinbergs teaches a fan housing comprising an exhaust housing 10
and an inlet housing 12 that form a cavity containing a motorized
impeller. Grinbergs 5:23–36. Grinbergs teaches that the components
making up the fan assembly “may be connected using any known
means such as for example, duct tape, screws, nails, adhesive etc.” Id.
at 8:59–60.
B. Analysis
We consider the rejections together because the same issue is
dispositive for all the rejections relying on the combination of Bowles,
Grinbergs, DOE, and Holladay. See App. Br. 13: (“the additional references
of Schofield and Sina fail to cure the rejection based on Bowles, Grinbergs
[, DOE,] and Holladay for at least the reasons outlined above.”).
Examiner finds that Bowles teaches elements 1–3a of claim 1. See
Final Act. 18–19; FF7. Examiner acknowledges that Bowles does not teach
elements 3b and 3c of claim 1 and looks to Grinbergs for supplying these
elements. Final Act. 19; FF8. Based on these disclosures, Examiner
concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was filed to join the inner seam of
the housing, as taught by Bowles, with a reinforcing channel
Appeal 2020-000932
Application 14/476,246
12
covering an extending portion of the seam and a reinforcing
layer adhered over the seam, as taught by Grinbergs, since
Grinbergs teaches “the components of the fan assembly shown
generally in FIGS. 2 and 3 may be connected using any known
means such as for example, duct tape, screws nails, adhesives
etc.” (See Grinbergs, Col. 8, lines 35-60) and applying a
reinforcing layer over the housing of Bowles would result in the
reinforcing channel; furthermore it was within ordinary skill in
the art to supplement the join, as taught by Bowles, with at least
one layer of reinforcement adhered, as taught by Grinbergs, on
the inside of the housing since the simplest installation of
layered reinforcement (e.g. fiberglass duct tape) would be on
the flat inside surface. The Examiner further notes, that DOE
and Holladay both demonstrate the commonality of reinforcing
and adhering seams of adjoining composite surfaces with a
fiber reinforced composite, particularly within the field of air
movement. (See Non-patent literature DOE and Holladay)
Final Act. 19–20.
Appellant contends that Grinbergs does not teach a reinforcing layer
(Appeal Br. 12), and that none of the references shows a channel as claimed
(id.). We have reviewed Appellant’s contentions in light of Examiner’s cited
art and find that the preponderance of the evidence supports Examiner’s
conclusion that the claims are obvious. We address Appellant’s contentions
below:
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that the references in
combination do not teach a channel as recited in the claims. Examiner
identifies the teachings of Grinbergs, Holladay, and DOE as providing the
motivation to seal cracks or seams in an HVAC system. Specifically,
Examiner finds that
Grinbergs discloses it is obvious to connect fan assemblies such
as one with a connection channel (best seen in FIGS. 1, 2 [of
Grinbergs]) as disclosed by Bowles [(see Figures 1 and 5 of
Bowles)], with a reinforcing layer, such as duct tape, for the
Appeal 2020-000932
Application 14/476,246
13
purpose of providing the well-known in the art function of
sealing the parts as taught by [Holladay] and DOE.
Ans. 11; see FF4, FF5, FF7, FF8. The application of Grinbergs’ duct tape
over Bowles’ flange reasonably bonds Bowles’ two halves together and in
the process forms a channel of reinforced material. See Ans. 10 (“applying a
reinforcing layer over the housing of Bowles would result in the reinforcing
channel.”).
The Specification describes a channel as a reinforcing layer that
covers an extending portion of a fan housing. See FF6 (“the second
reinforcing layer or layers 230 form a channel that covers the extending
portion 212.”). Examiner relies on Bowles for teaching a fan and housing
having two portions. Final Act. 19. Specifically, Bowles teaches a projecting
flange that has an extending portion that is held together by bolts. FF7.
Examiner relies on Grinbergs for teaching the use of duct tape to connect a
fan assembly by covering the seam. Final Act. 19; FF8. “[T]he components
of the fan assembly shown generally in FIGS. 2 and 3 [of Grinbergs] may be
connected using any known means such as for example, duct tape, screws
nails, adhesives etc.” Final Act. 19, FF8. We find no error with Examiner’s
conclusion that the addition of duct tape to the seams of a fan assembly for
the purpose of reinforcing and sealing the seams is reasonably supported by
Grinbergs, and further supported by Doe or Holladay that teach sealing
seams in an air handling system. See Final Act. 19–20 (“DOE and Holladay
both demonstrate the commonality of reinforcing and adhering seams of
adjoining composite surfaces with a fiber reinforced composite, particularly
within the field of air movement.”). Because the combination as proposed by
Examiner would result in Bowles’ flange being covered with duct tape to
secure and further support the flange seam of the fan housing, we agree with
Appeal 2020-000932
Application 14/476,246
14
Examiner’s finding that the combination would result in a channel as
described in the Specification. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s contention that the combination of references does not teach a
channel as claimed.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s hindsight argument as
Appellant has not directed us to any information relied on by Examiner that
could have only been gleaned from Appellant’s Specification and was not
available in the references cited by Examiner.
C. Conclusion
We conclude that the evidence cited by Examiner supports a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 1 and Appellant has not
provided persuasive arguments or evidence to rebut the prima facie case. As
Appellant does not argue the claims separately, claims 2, 3, 6–8, 10, 12, 13,
15, 18, and 19 fall with claim 1. The rejection of claims 4, 5, 9, 14, 16, 17,
and 20 additionally relying on either Schofield or Sina in conjunction with
Bowles, Grinbergs, DOE, and Holladay are also not argued separately and
fall for the same reason outlined above for claim 1.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–10, 12–20 103 Hancock,
Schofield, DOE,
Holladay
1–10, 12–20
1–3, 6–8,
10, 12, 13,
15, 18, 19
103 Bowles, Grinbergs,
DOE, and
Holladay
1–3, 6–8,
10, 12, 13,
15, 18, 19

Appeal 2020-000932
Application 14/476,246
15
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
4, 5, 9, 16,
17, 20
103 Bowles, Grinbergs,
DOE, Holladay,
Schofield
4, 5, 9, 16,
17, 20

14 103 Bowles, Grinbergs,
DOE, Holladay,
Sina
14
Overall
Outcome
1–10, 12–20

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).

AFFIRMED