Visedo Oy

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 8, 2022

2021003732 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 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. 15/816,114 11/17/2017 Mikko Piispanene 7775-0071 1152 466 7590 03/08/2022 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD 11TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 EXAMINER LIAN, MANG TIN BIK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2837 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/08/2022 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): pair_nixon@firsttofile.com ptomail@nixonvan.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MIKKO PIISPANENE, MATTI ISKANIUS, TERO JARVELAINEN, and ANSSI SUURONEN1 ____________ Appeal 2021-003732 Application 15/816,114 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, and CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 7-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to inductive devices said to have improved heat transfer characteristics. E.g., Spec. 1:4-6, 3:14-15; Claim 1. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Visedo Oy. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-003732 Application 15/816,114 2 Claim 1 is reproduced below from page 29 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief: 1. An inductive device comprising: A toroidal core; at least one electric conductor wound around the toroidal core and constituting at least one winding, portions of the electric conductor on an outer perimeter of the winding being straight and parallel with an axial direction of the toroidal core; and a cooling element constituting a cylindrical cavity containing the toroidal core and the at least one electric conductor so that the axial direction of the toroidal core is parallel with an axial direction of the cylindrical cavity and distances from a wall of the cylindrical cavity to different ones of the portions of the at least one electric conductor are substantially equal, wherein a cross-sectional shape of the at least one electric conductor is substantially rectangular and a cross-sectional shape of the cylindrical cavity is circular, the cross-sectional shape of the cylindrical cavity being in a geometric plane perpendicular to the axial direction of the cylindrical cavity, and wherein an electrically insulating outer lining of the at least one electric conductor has a direct mechanical contact with the wall of the cylindrical cavity of the cooling element. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: 1. Claims 1, 9, 10, and 13 over Sundstrom (US 2011/0215891 A1, published Sept. 8, 2011), Pokharna (US 2008/0157914 A1, published July 3, 2008), and Fernandez (US 6,081,180, issued June 27, 2000). 2. Claims 7 and 11 over Sundstrom, Pokharna, Fernandez, and Rippel (US 2010/0127810 A1, published May 27, 2010). Appeal 2021-003732 Application 15/816,114 3 3. Claims 8 and 12 over Sundstrom, Pokharna, Fernandez, and Pal (US 8,922,311 B2, issued Dec. 30, 2014). ANALYSIS The Appellant presents arguments only as to claim 1. We address those arguments below, and the remaining claims on appeal will stand or fall with claim 1. After review of the cited evidence in the appeal record and the opposing positions of the Appellant and the Examiner, we determine that the Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as our own, and we affirm the rejections for reasons set forth in the Final Action dated August 24, 2020, and in the Examiner’s Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. The Examiner finds that Sundstrom teaches an inductive device comprising each element of claim 1 except that Sundstrom does not expressly teach (1) that the conductor has a substantially rectangular cross- sectional shape, and (2) direct mechanical contact between the cooling element and the outer lining of the conductor. Final Act. 5. As to (1) the shape of the conductor, the Examiner finds that Pokharna teaches an inductive device with conductors that have rectangular cross sections, and the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to use that shape in Sundstrom “to provide the required winding turns to meet design requirements, such as inductance.” Id. As to (2) direct contact between the cooling element and the outer lining of the conductor, the Examiner finds that Fernandez teaches an inductive device with direct contact between its cylindrical cavity and its Appeal 2021-003732 Application 15/816,114 4 conductor outer linings, and the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to reduce the size of Sundstrom’s cooling element “to improve mechanical stability of the core and coil and to reduce external dimensions of the cooling element.” Id. at 5-6. In view of those and other findings less relevant to the issues raised by the Appellant in this case, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The Appellant first argues that a flat (i.e., rectangular) conductor “would likely be more expensive and difficult to assembl[e]” than a round conductor, and that “the Examiner has not given any reason that would motivate one of skill to use a flat conductor in the Sundstrom device.” Appeal Br. 9. That argument is not persuasive because it is mere attorney argument unsupported by evidence. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”). The Appellant provides no evidence, or any other basis to believe, that rectangular conductors are either more expensive or more difficult to assemble than any other shape of conductor. Even if rectangular conductors were more expensive, that would not indicate reversible error in the rejection. See In re Farrenkopf, 713 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“That a given combination would not be made by businessmen for economic reasons does not mean that persons skilled in the art would not make the combination because of some technological incompatibility. Only the latter fact would be relevant.”). The Appellant is incorrect that the Examiner “has not given any reason” for the proposed modification. See Appeal Br. 9. As the Examiner Appeal 2021-003732 Application 15/816,114 5 explains, and the Appellant does not dispute, Pokharna expressly teaches that flat or rectangular conductors “provide more windings or turns for a given core length and given conductor cross sectional area,” which facilitates achieving desired inductances. Final Act. 5; Ans. 4-5; Pokharna ¶ 29. The Appellant also argues that Sundstrom and Pokharna each have gaps between the outer linings of their conductors and their cooling elements. Appeal Br. 11. The Appellant argues that these gaps are filled with potting material to increase stability and thermal transfer, and that removing the potting material would hinder those goals. Id. at 12-25. The Appellant argues that the prior art teaches away from removing the potting material. Id. at 16. Those arguments are not persuasive. As the Examiner explains in the Answer, the Examiner is not proposing removal of any potting material. E.g., Ans. 13 (“The Examiner does not suggest that the potting materials in Sundstrom and or Pokharna would be removed when combining the ‘close fit’ teaching of Fernandez.”). The proposed combination achieves both the benefits of the potting material and the benefits of Fernandez’s “close fit” design (i.e., stability, less material use). We have carefully considered the Appellant’s arguments, and we are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections . . . .”). Appeal 2021-003732 Application 15/816,114 6 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 1, 9, 10, 13 103 Sundstrom, Pokharna, Fernandez 1, 9, 10, 13 7, 11 103 Sundstrom, Pokharna, Fernandez, Rippel 7, 11 8, 12 103 Sundstrom, Pokharna, Fernandez, Pal 8, 12 Overall Outcome 1, 7-13 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