Ex Parte Albayrak et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 1, 2016

12086463 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/086,463 06/12/2008
23117 7590 11/03/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hasan Glkcer Albayrak
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
PTB-6032-46 8579
EXAMINER
RUSSELL, DEVON L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/03/2016 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HASAN ALBAYRAK, KLAUS GRUNERT,
THOMAS LUDENIA, GUENTER STEFFENS, and ANDREAS STOLZE
Appeal2014-007477
Application 12/086,463
Technology Center 3700
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 9-24. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as "BSH BOSCH UND
SIEMENS HAUSGERATE GMBH." (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal2014-007477
Application 12/086,463
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants' invention relates "to a circuit arrangement for a
Peltier module for use in a Peltier heat pump for a tumble dryer." (Spec. 1,
lines 3--4.)
Illustrative Claim2
9. A circuit arrangement for a Peltier module for use in a
Peltier heat pump for a tumble dryer, the circuit arrangement
compnsmg:
a Peltier module configured to be connected to an AC
power supply voltage of a public network and having at least one
series arrangement of Peltier elements; and
a rectifier operatively associated with the AC power
supply and the at least one series arrangement of Peltier elements
and configured to rectify the AC power supply voltage directly
from the public network to produce a DC voltage for use by said
Peltier elements, the at least one series arrangement of the Peltier
elements are actuable so that the elements are capable of
receiving the DC voltage obtained from the direct rectification of
the AC voltage at a voltage level that is substantially equal to the
received DC voltage allowing the Peltier module to be indirectly
operated by the AC power supply,
wherein the number of Peltier elements and the
manufacturer type of Peltier elements are such that the series
arrangement is suitably matched with the received DC voltage,
and
wherein the Peltier elements of the series arrangement are
operated by actuating the series arrangement with the rectified
AC power supply voltage at an operating voltage that is suitable
for the use of the Peltier module in a Peltier heat pump.
2 This illustrative claim is quoted from the Claims Appendix ("Claims
App.") set forth on pages 22-27 of the Appeal Brief.
2
Appeal2014-007477
Application 12/086,463
Hanle in
Newton
Boehmer
Ramirez
Burress
Ludikhuize
Tanaka
References
us 3,220,199
us 3,255,593
us 3,451,904
us 5,450, 727
us 5,724,750
us 5,747,841
JP 08014723
Rejections
Nov. 30, 1965
June 14, 1966
June 24, 1969
Sept. 19, 1995
Mar. 10, 1998
May 5, 1998
Jan. 19, 1996
I. The Examiner rejects claims 9, 18, 19, and 22-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Boehmer and Hanlein. (Final
Action 2.)3
II. The Examiner rejects claims 10-14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Boehmer, Hanlein, and Ramirez. (Id. at 5.)
III. The Examiner rejects claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Boehmer, Hanlein, and Ludikhuize. (Id. at 8.)
IV. The Examiner rejects claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Boehmer, Hanlein, and Burress. (Id. at 9.)
V. The Examiner rejects claims 12 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Boehmer, Hanlein, and Tanaka. (Id. at 11.)
VI. The Examiner rejects claim 21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Boehmer, Hanlein, and Newton. (Id. at 12.)
3 We consider the Examiner's non-listing of claims 22-24 in the opening
sentence of this rejection as an inadvertent oversight, as these claims are
specifically discussed in the body of the Examiner's rejection. (See Final
Action 2, 5; see also Answer 4--5.)
3
Appeal2014-007477
Application 12/086,463
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 9
Independent claim 9 recites "[a] circuit arrangement" comprising "a
Peltier module configured to be connected to an AC power supply voltage of
a public network and having at least one series arrangement of Peltier
elements." (Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Boehmer discloses such
a circuit arrangement. (See Final Action 2-3.) Boehmer shows a circuit
diagram wherein Peltier elements 54 are electrically connected to what
appears to be a standard (117 volt) AC plug. (See Boehmer Fig. 7.)
Independent claim 9 also recites "a rectifier" that is "operatively
associated with the AC power supply and the at least one series arrangement
of Peltier elements" and that is "configured to rectify the AC power supply
voltage" to produce "a DC voltage for use by said Peltier elements."
(Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Boehmer discloses such a rectifier.
(See Final Action 2-3.) In Boehmer, a transformer 91 reduces the 117 volt
AC power to "5 or 6 volts which is supplied to [a] rectifier system 93" and
"[t]he rectifier 93 rectifies the current into a pulsating DC current."
(Boehmer, col. 6, lines 13-16.)
Independent claim 9 additionally requires the rectifier to be
configured to rectify the AC power supply voltage "directly" from the public
network. (Claims App.) The Examiner determines that it would have been
obvious, in view of the teachings of Hanlein, to provide Boehmer's circuit
arrangement with 100-120 volt Peltier modules "in order to increase the
efficiency of the device." (Final Action 4.) The Examiner explains that,
with this modification, Boehmer's transformer 91 would be an "unnecessary
4
Appeal2014-007477
Application 12/086,463
component" and it is "well within the ordinary skill in the art to remove an
unnecessary component from a system." (Id.)
The Appellants argue that Hanlein is not "reasonably pertinent to the
problem faced by the inventors" and thus, not analogous art. (Appeal
Br. 13.) According to the Appellants, the Specification "explains that one of
the problems faced by the inventors of the present application is to improve
the circuit arrangement of Peltier elements for use in a Peltier heat pump in a
tumble dryer." (Id. at 13-14.) Therefore, according to the Appellants,
"[ o ]ne of ordinary skill would not have looked to Hanlein for providing any
particular improvement for a circuit arrangement of Peltier elements in a
Peltier heat pump in a tumble dryer." (Id. at 14.)
We are not persuaded by this argument because the Specification also
expressly states that the Appellants' invention "addresses the problem of
finding a simple solution to the issue of power supply for a Peltier module."
(Spec. 2, lines 17-18.) Hanlein's teachings generally relate to "Peltier
couples," and Hanlein is particularly involved with problems that arise when
"direct current is derived by rectification from generally available alternating
current of utility lines." (Hanlein, col. 1, lines 18-30). In other words,
Hanlein pertains to the particular problem of power supply for a Peltier
device. 4
The Appellants also argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would
not have been motivated to combine the teachings of Boehmer and Hanlein.
(See Appeal Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 4--7.) The Appellants contend that
4 A reference is analogous prior art if it "is reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the inventor is involved." In re Bigio 3 81
F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
5
Appeal2014-007477
Application 12/086,463
Boehmer is "in no way attempting to address" the Examiner's articulated
reason for the combination (i.e., to increase efficiency) and "Boehmer in no
way envisions at all replacing the allegedly corresponding Peltier elements
with Peltier devices capable of operating at high voltages as taught by
Hanlein." (Id. at 16.)
We are not persuaded by these arguments because, even if the
Appellants' contentions are true, they are not aligned with the Examiner's
rejection which relies upon Hanlein, not Boehmer, to teach high-voltage
Peltier devices. The Appellants do not adequately address why one of
ordinary skill in the art, armed with Hanlein' s teachings, would not infer that
Boehmer's circuit arrangement could be modified to include high-voltage
Peltier elements. We note that the Examiner "need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim" as
"the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ" can be taken into account. KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007).
Independent claim 9 also requires that "the number of Peltier elements
and the manufacturer type of Peltier elements are such that the series
arrangement is suitably matched with the received DC voltage." (Claims
App.) The Appellants argues that Boehmer does not inherently disclose this
limitation. (See Appeal Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 2-3.) We are not persuaded
by this argument because the Examiner finds that "the number and general
characteristics of the Peltier modules" is a matter of simple design choice
and "making design choices in order to maximize efficiency" is also within
the ordinary skill in the art. (See Final Action 5.) The Appellants do not
adequately address why choosing a number and manufacturer type of Peltier
6
Appeal2014-007477
Application 12/086,463
elements that are "suitably matched" to the received DC voltage in
Boehmer's modified circuit arrangement would not have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art.
Independent claim 9 further recites that the Peltier elements "are
actuable so that the elements are capable of receiving the DC voltage
obtained from the direct rectification of the AC voltage at a voltage level
that is substantially equal to the received DC voltage allowing the Peltier
module to be indirectly operated by the AC power supply." (Claims App.)
The Appellants argue that "[ n ]either Boehmer nor Hanlein disclose or
suggest such features." (Appeal Br. 17.) We are not persuaded by these
arguments because they do not address the actuation of the Peltier elements
in Boehmer's modified circuit arrangement. In this modified circuit
arrangement, transformer 91 is eliminated, AC power (e.g., 117 volt) is
supplied to rectifier 95 for rectification, and the rectified DC voltage is
provided to high-voltage (e.g., 100 to 120 volt) Peltier elements. (See Final
Action 4.)
In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded by the Appellants'
position that the Examiner errs in concluding that the circuit arrangement
recited in independent claim 9 would have been obvious over the prior art.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Boehmer and Hanlein (Rejection I).
Dependent Claims 10--14, 16, and 18-24
Claims 10-14, 16, and 18-24 depend directly or indirectly from
independent claim 9. (See Claims App.) The Appellants do not argue these
claims separately or further (see Appeal Br. 10-20), and so they fall with
independent claim 9.
7
Appeal2014-007477
Application 12/086,463
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 18, 19,
and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Boehmer and
Hanlein (Rejection I); we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent
claims 10-14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Boehmer,
Hanlein, and Ramirez (Rejection II); we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
dependent claims 12 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Boehmer, Hanlein, and Tanaka (Rejection V); and we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of dependent claim 21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Boehmer, Hanlein, and Newton (Rejection VI).
Dependent Claim 15
Claim 15 depends directly from independent claim 7 and further
requires "a buffer condenser" and "a load current limiter." (Claims App.)
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious, in view of the
teachings of Ludikhuize, to provide Boehmer' s modified circuit arrangement
with such a buffer and such a load current limiter "to provide consistent
voltage and current passing to the Peltier element." (Final Action 9.)
Dependent claim 15 also requires the load current limiter to be
positioned "between the rectifier and the buffer condenser." (Claims App.)
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to locate "the current
limiter between the rectifier and the buffer condenser" in Boehmer' s
modified circuit arrangement. (Final Action 9.) The Examiner explains that
this rearrangement of the current limiter "would not affect the functionality
of the device." (Answer 16.) In other words, the Examiner finds that this
location of the current limiter would yield predictable results.
The Appellants argue that "the Examiner provides no rationale, nor
points to any portion of Ludikhuize, as to why one would be motivated to
8
Appeal2014-007477
Application 12/086,463
rearrange the features of Ludikhuize in the manner claimed." (Appeal
Br. 19.) We are not persuaded by this argument because "[a] 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. Here,
the Appellants do not assert that a buffer condenser, a load current limiter,
and/ or a rectifier are not familiar elements in a circuit arrangement; and the
Appellants do not contend that the Examiner's proposed location of the load
current limiter could not be accomplished by known methods. Also, the
Appellants do not address the "criticality as to the particular location of the
current limiter" (Answer 16) or, in other words, assert that this location
would not yield predictable results.
In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded by the Appellants'
position that the Examiner errs in concluding that the circuit arrangement
recited in dependent claim 15 would have been obvious over the prior art.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Boehmer, Hanlein, and Ludikhuize
(Rejection III).
Independent Claim 17
Independent Claim 17 is directed to "[a] tumble dryer" comprising a
circuit arrangement having features that are the same or similar to those
recited in independent claim 9. (See Claims App.) The Appellants argue
independent claim 17 in conjunction or in tandem with independent 9, and
these arguments allege shortcomings in Boehmer, Hanlein, or the
combination thereof. (See Appeal Br. 10-18; Reply Br. 2-8). As discussed
above in our analysis of independent claim 9, we are not persuaded by these
arguments.
9
Appeal2014-007477
Application 12/086,463
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Boehmer, Hanlein, and Buress
(Rejection IV).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 9-24.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10