Zoran Iskrenovic

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 29, 2020

13460059 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 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.
13/460,059 04/30/2012 Zoran Iskrenovic 101811.0005US1 4417
149344 7590 01/29/2020
Umberg Zipser LLP
1920 Main Street Suite 750
Irvine, CA 92614
EXAMINER
SAMUELS, LAWRENCE H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2020 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):
patents@umbergzipser.com
rdean@umbergzipser.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ZORAN ISKRENOVIC
____________

Appeal 2018-008625
Application 13/460,059
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, AMEE A. SHAH, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1, 3–5, 7–11, 13–15, and 17–21,
which are all of the pending claims.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies Seven International Group, Inc.
as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-008625
Application 13/460,059

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Appellant’s invention is in the field of water heaters and
specifically relates to water heaters using infrared radiation. See Spec.
¶¶ 2, 9.
Claims 1, 11, and 21 are the independent claims. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below (with
added bracketing for reference):
1. A water heater, comprising:
[(a)] a first fluid conduit comprising an elongated,
cylindrical piece;
[(b)] a second fluid conduit fluidly coupled to and
disposed about at least a portion of the first conduit, wherein the
elongated, cylindrical piece of the first fluid conduit extends
along a central axis of the second fluid conduit;
[(c)] an infrared bulb disposed entirely between the first
and second conduits, and configured to heat water flowing within
the first and second conduits; and
[(d)] wherein the second conduit comprises a plurality of
stacked pipe segments, each of which is disposed to abut adjacent
segments of the second conduit such that the plurality of stacked
pipe segments collectively form a primary heat shield about the
infrared bulb; and
[(e)] wherein the infrared bulb and the second conduit
wrap around the first fluid conduit.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).

Appeal 2018-008625
Application 13/460,059

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner are:
Name Reference Date
Blanding US 1,539,039 May 26, 1925
Andrus US 2,791,204 May 7, 1957
Bocksruker et al.
(“Bocksruker”)
US 4,246,871 Jan. 27, 1981
Rezabek US 5,590,240 Dec. 31, 1996
Castaneda et al.
(“Castaneda”)
US 2003/0026603 A1 Feb. 6, 2003
Bouhuijs et al.
(“Bouhuijs”)
US 2003/0216689 A1 Nov. 20, 2003
Johnson et al.
(“Johnson”)
US 2004/0184794 A1 Sept. 23, 2004
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3–5, 7, 11, 13–15, 17, and 19–21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rezabek, Bouhuijs, and
Blanding.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rezabek, Bouhuijs, Blanding, Castaneda, and Andrus.
Claim 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rezabek, Bouhuijs, Blanding, and Bocksruker.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Rezabek, Bouhuijs, Blanding, and Johnson.

OPINION
Claims 1, 3–5, 7, and 20
The Appellant contends, in relevant part, that the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 1 is in error because the prior art does not render
Appeal 2018-008625
Application 13/460,059

4
obvious an infrared bulb disposed entirely between the first and second
conduits and wrapped around the first conduit, as recited in limitations (c)
and (e). See Appeal Br. 5–6. The Appellant also argues that, to the extent
the prior art individually teaches these elements, the Examiner has not
provided adequate reasoning why one of ordinary skill in the art would
combine the art to make the proposed modification. Id.; see also Reply
Br. 5–6. We agree.
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds, in relevant part, that although
Rezabek teaches a “source [that] radiates infrared radiation, as is evident in
requiring ‘infrared reflective material’ (Rezabek, Column 1, line 56),”
Rezabek does not teach “wherein the second conduit comprises an infrared
source that is a bulb, a plurality of stacked pipe segments, each of which is
disposed to abut adjacent segments of the second conduit.” Final Act. 3.
The Examiner relies on Bouhuijs to teach the infrared bulb and stacked
segments (id. at 4), determining that it would have been obvious to combine
Rezabek and Blanding with Bouhuijs “to ‘shield’ the outside from the heat
and also to create a more efficient heater by not losing the radiation to the
outside environment (i.e. having it reflected back to heat the liquid).” Id.
at 4–5.
The Examiner elaborates in the Answer and finds that “it is Blanding
that teaches that the heating source (Blanding 22) is entirely between the
first (12) and second (19) conduits,” determining that
[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to have an infrared heating
element entirely between the pipe sections for the purpose of
heating up the fluid as it as the fluid travels on either side of the
heating element, making the heating more efficient, since it has
been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art, see
Appeal 2018-008625
Application 13/460,059

5
Blanding, to have the heating element between the fluid conduits
on the basis of their suitability for their intended use as a matter
of obvious design choice. The teaching for this choice is in the
prior art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Ans. 17. The Examiner further clarifies that Rezabek does not teach
abutting segments and the infrared bulb, but “Bouhuijs does teach that the
infra-red source (3) is a lamp (which would comprise a bulb) and that the
helical segments abut each other (element 2, Fig. 1).” Id. at 18. The
Examiner determines that it would have been obvious
to modify Rezabek with Bouhuijs, to add the configuration of the
helical pipes and the “lamp” to the configuration of Rezabek, in
order to heat more efficiently, containing the heat more with the
abutting segments so it is better absorbed into the fluid and more
efficiently emitting the heat as infra-red with the lamp. There is
advantage to this orientation and it is within the general skill of
someone with ordinary skill in the art to make such a
modification.
Id. Thus, the Examiner finds that Rezabek teaches an infrared heating
element that wraps around the first conduit, but not that the element is a bulb
that is entirely between the first and second conduits. The Examiner relies
on Blanding for teaching a heating source entirely between the first and
second conduits and on Bouhuijs for teaching the heating element being an
infrared bulb. See Final Act. 3–5; see also Ans. 17.
Rezabek discloses a “high efficiency, non-contaminating fluid heater”
with inner and outer helical passageways and a coiled resistance heater
“disposed about the helical outer surface of the inner helical passageway,”
with the outer passageway “disposed to enable ultra pure fluid flowing
therethrough to absorb radiated and convected heat from the coiled
resistance heater to increase the efficiency of the fluid heater.” Rezabek,
Abstract. “A housing [22] formed from an infrared reflective material
Appeal 2018-008625
Application 13/460,059

6
substantially encloses the inner and outer helical passageways to reflect
inward and thereby reduce radiated heat flow from the coiled resistance
heater [20] to the ambient environment” outside the housing. Id. at col. 1,
ll. 55–59, col. 4, ll. 16–21.
Blanding discloses a water heater with pipe 12 surrounded by water
coil 19 and insulating core 21 positioned on pipe 12 that supports resistance
coil 22 that heats pipe 12 and the interior of the casing. Blanding, ll. 56–66,
76–86.
Bouhuijs discloses “an apparatus for warming blood or other
physiological fluids” with a fluid conduit and a heating means of infrared
radiation for warming the fluid. Bouhuijs, Abstract. Conduit 2 is formed
like a spiral, and inside the spiral shape is an infrared source, such as an
infrared lamp 3. Id. ¶ 19. “The efficiency and controllability [of the
apparatus] is aided in particular by the fact that the conduit extends
substantially in the form of a spiral and that its side facing away from the
infrared source is provided with an infrared radiation-reflective coating or
film.” Id. ¶ 11.
As such, we find that Rezabek teaches a heating source (resistance
heater 20) that wraps around the first conduit and an infrared element
(housing 22) that surrounds both conduits. We also find that Blanding
teaches a heating source (resistance coil 22) that wraps around the first
conduit and is entirely between the first and second conduits. Further, we
find that Bouhuijs teaches an infrared bulb (infrared lamp 3) inside a conduit
of a plurality of stacked pipe elements (conduit 2). However, we do not see
why one of ordinary skill in the art would replace Rezabek’s resistance
heater 20 that wraps around the first conduit and as modified with
Appeal 2018-008625
Application 13/460,059

7
Blanding’s resistance coil 22 that is entirely between the first and second
conduits with Bouhuijs’s infrared bulb that sits inside a spiral conduit. See
Reply Br. 3–4. The Examiner’s reason that one would do so “in order to
heat more efficiently” is not adequately supported. Ans. 17; see also Final
Act. 5. Bouhuijs discloses that its efficiency is increased because of the
spiral shape of the conduit with the side facing away from the heat source
provided with a special coating; it is silent as to how the infrared bulb
increases the apparatus’s efficiency. See Bouhuijs ¶ 11.
Thus, based on the record before us, we are persuaded of Examiner
error, and we do not sustain the rejection over Rezabek, Blanding, and
Bouhuijs of independent claim 1 and of dependent claims 3–5, 7, and 20,
which stand with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Claims 11, 13–15, 17, and 19
The Appellant contends that the Examiner has not adequately
explained how the prior art teaches the recited limitations of independent
claim 11 of an infrared bulb disposed between a first coiled conduit and a
second conduit, the bulb comprising first, second, and third segments. See
Appeal Br. 7–8, and 15 (Claims App.); see also Reply Br. 6. We agree.
The Examiner acknowledges that Rezabek does not teach “an infrared
water heater wherein the first infrared light source comprises first, second,
and third segments which are adjacent.” Final Act. 6. To correct this
deficiency, the Examiner determines that
Blanding teaches a heater parallel to a first linear segment
(Blanding, 22; parallel with first segment), and Rezabek teaches
that the heater could surround a pipe (Rezabek, 20; parallel with
second segment), thus it would have been obvious to one having
Appeal 2018-008625
Application 13/460,059

8
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have
different segments match up to their different and respective
filaments for ease of placement and for exceptional heating.
Id. at 7. As for the infrared source being a bulb, the Examiner relies on
Bouhuijs for teaching this element. Id. at 8.
Even were we to accept the Examiner’s determination that it would
have been obvious to have Rezabek’s heating element as modified by
Blanding to have first, second, and third segments, the Examiner has not
adequately explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify that
heating element to comprise a segmented infrared bulb. See Appeal Br. 7.
At best, the Examiner provides reasoning why one of ordinary skill in the art
would combine the prior art to
have infrared “lamps” heat the liquid in the pipes in a
conventional way, and also to have the pipes stack and reflect
back the infrared radiation, to “shield” the outside from the heat
and also to create a more efficient heater by not losing the
radiation to the outside environment (i.e. having it reflected back
to heat the liquid)[.]
Final Act. 8. However, as discussed above with claim 1, the Examiner does
not adequately explain how modifying the heater of Rezabek and Blanding
to comprise an infrared bulb would create more efficiency.
Thus, based on the record before us, we are persuaded of Examiner
error, and we do not sustain the rejection over Rezabek, Blanding, and
Bouhuijs of independent claim 11 and of dependent claims 13–15, 17,
and 19, which stand with claim 11. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Claim 21
The Appellant contends that the Examiner has not adequately
explained how the prior art teaches the recited limitations of independent
Appeal 2018-008625
Application 13/460,059

9
claim 21 of “a coiled heating device disposed entirely between the first and
second conduits and having stacked segments that parallel the second fluid
conduit.” Appeal Br. 7, 16 (Claims App.); see also Reply Br. 7. We agree.
The Examiner finds, in relevant part, that Rezabek teaches
a coiled heating device . . . disposed between the first and second
conduits (Rezabek, 20), and having stacked segments that
parallel the second fluid conduit (Rezabek, Fig.1–4), and wrap
around the first fluid conduit, wherein the coiled heating device
generates infrared light (Rezabek, Column 1 line 26) to heat
water flowing within the first and second conduits (Rezabek, at
least Abstract).
Final Act. 11. The Examiner further finds that Blanding teaches a heating
element entirely between the first and second conduits. Final Act. 12.
As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Rezabek teaches a coiled
heating device having stacked segments, that wraps around the first conduit
(heater 20), and that heats water flowing through the conduits. See Rezabek,
col. 4, ll. 16–21, Fig. 1. Rezabek teaches a separate infrared element that
reflects/re-introduces heat (housing 22) and traps heat from heater 20 inside
housing 20, “where the heat is absorbed by the ultra pure fluid to heat the
fluid in an efficient manner.” Id. col. 1, ll. 55–59, col. 4, ll. 26–30.
However Rezabek does not teach its coiled heating element 20 with stacked
segments generating infrared heat to heat the water, nor does it teach its
infrared housing 22 being a coiled heating elements with stacked segments.
Thus, the Examiner’s finding that Rezabek teaches a coiled housing device
that wraps around the first conduit, has stacked segments, and generates
infrared light is not supported. To the extent the Examiner relies on
Bouhuijs to teach the heating device comprising an infrared light, i.e.,
generating infrared light (see Final Act. 11 (“It would have been obvious to
Appeal 2018-008625
Application 13/460,059

10
one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide to
Rezabek the teachings of Bouhuijs, in order to have infrared ‘lamps’ heat the
liquid in the pipes in a conventional way”)), the Examiner’s reasoning for
combing Rezabek, i.e., “to create a more efficient heater by not losing the
radiation to the outside environment” (id. at 11–12), is deficient for similar
reasons discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 11. That is, the
Examiner does not adequately explain how modifying the coiled heater of
Rezabek generates infrared light to have a more efficient heater.
Thus, based on the record before us, we are persuaded of Examiner
error, and we do not sustain the rejection over Rezabek, Blanding, and
Bouhuijs of independent claim 21.

Claims 8–10 and 18
The Examiner’s rejects claim 8–10 and 18, which ultimately depend
from independent claims 1 and 11, as obvious over Rezabek, Blanding,
Bouhuijs, and Castaneda and Andrus, Bocksruker, or Johnson. For all of
these, the Examiner relies on the same findings and reasoning as for claims 1
and 11. Thus, for the same reasons we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 1 and 11 as obvious over Rezabek, Blanding, and Bouhuijs, we also
do not sustain the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 8–10 and 18.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–5, 7–11, 13–15, and
17–21 is not sustained.
Appeal 2018-008625
Application 13/460,059

11
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 7, 11,
13–15, 17,
19–21
103(a) Rezabek, Bouhuijs,
Blanding
1, 3–5, 7, 11,
13–15, 17,
19–21
8 103(a) Rezabek, Bouhuijs,
Blanding, Castaneda,
Andrus
8
9, 10 103(a) Rezabek, Bouhuijs,
Blanding, Bocksruker
9, 10
18 103(a) Rezabek, Bouhuijs,
Blanding, Johnson
18
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–5, 7–15,
17–21

REVERSED