Ex Parte Desireddy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 10, 2017

13458317 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2017)

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.
13/458,317 04/27/2012 Vijesh R. Desireddy 4236-09401 2152
114378 7590 01/12/2017
TR ANF, International Tne
EXAMINER
Conley Rose, P.C.
5601 Granite Parkway, Suite 500
HIDALGO-HERNANDEZ, RUTH G
Plano, TX 75024 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3726
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/12/2017 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):
ConleyRoseReporting@dfw.conleyrose.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VIJESH R. DESIREDDY and JAY E. FIELD
Appeal 2015-001691
Application 13/458,317
Technology Center 3700
Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and AMANDA F.
WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1—161 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Nordyne,2 Yan (US 4,859,491, iss. Aug. 22, 1989) and Westphalen.3 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Subsequent to entry of the final rejection, Appellants cancelled claims 6
and 7. See Response to Final Office Action (hereinafter the “After Final
Amendment”).
2 MicroChannel Heat Exchanger, Repair Kit, 708926A, Nordyne, O’Fallon,
MO, June 2008.
3 D. Westphalen, et al., MicroChannel Heat Exchangers, ASHRAE Journal,
Dec. 2003.
Appeal 2015-001691
Application 13/458,317
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to methods for repairing a microchannel
heat exchanger. Spec. 1 5. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method of repairing a microchannel heat exchanger,
comprising:
identifying a damaged region of a microchannel tube;
providing sealant to at least one of the microchannel tube
and a patch;
disposing the patch relative to the microchannel tube;
bending the patch to substantially conform to the profile of
the microchannel tube, so that the sealant forms a fluid tight
boundary between the microchannel tube and the patch,
wherein the fluid tight boundary circumscribes the damaged
region; and
applying pressure to the patch;
wherein applying pressure to the patch causes the sealant to
substantially fill the damaged region of the microchannel tube;
and
wherein the microchannel tube comprises a plurality of
microchannels, wherein the sealant is in contact with the patch
and is in fluid communication with at least one of the
microchannels of the microchannel tube.
OPINION
Procedural Posture and
Examiner’s New Ground of Rejection
On June 3, 2014, after entry of the Final Action, Appellants filed their
After Final Amendment which, among other things, cancelled claims 6 and 7
and added limitations to at least independent claims 1 and 13. Subsequently,
on June 18, 2014, the Examiner issued an Advisory Action indicating that
the After Final Amendment would be entered, but did not place the
application in condition of allowance.
2
Appeal 2015-001691
Application 13/458,317
After Appellants filed their Appeal Brief, the Examiner filed an
Examiner’s Answer containing a New Grounds of Rejection. Ans. 2. The
New Grounds of Rejection rejects claims 1—5 and 8—16 (all of the then
pending claims) under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable, once again, over
Nordyne, Yan, and Westphalen. Id. In view of the events leading up to the
filing of the Examiner’s Answer, we interpret the New Grounds of Rejection
in the Examiner’s Answer as being substituted in lieu of the grounds of
rejection stated in the Final Action.
Analysis
Appellants argue claims 1—5 and 8—16 as a group. Appeal Br. 10—12;
Reply Br. 2—5. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016).
The Examiner finds that Nordyne discloses a method of repairing a
microchannel heat exchanger substantially as claimed except for a bendable
patch that conforms to the profile of the microchannel tube. Ans. 2—3. The
Examiner relies on Yan as disclosing a patch with adhesive sealant that is
maintained in place by applying pressure. Id. at 3^4. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to modify Nordyne by incorporating
Yan’s step of providing a patch with sealant and applying pressure to the
patch. Id. at 4. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have done this to provide additional protection over the repair site
depicted in Figure 2 of Nordyne. Id. The Examiner further finds that it
would have been obvious to bend Yan’s patch to cover the entire repair area
of Nordyne. Id. at 4—5. The Examiner relies on Westphalen as disclosing a
microchannel heat exchanger with flat microchannels connected in parallel
3
Appeal 2015-001691
Application 13/458,317
between fins and where each microchannel tube has multiple internal
passages. Id. at 5. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
have internal passages in the microchannel tube as taught by Westphalen in
Nordyne’s microchannels. Id. According to the Examiner, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have done this to provide better heat transfer.
Id.
Appellants traverse the Examiner’s rejection by first arguing that Yan
does not disclose applying pressure to the patch to cause the sealant to
substantially fill the damaged region of the microchannel tube. Appeal
Br. 10. In their Reply Brief, Appellants emphasize that Nordyne uses
vacuum pressure from inside a channel to “pull” sealant into the damaged
coil. Reply Br. 2. Thus, according to Appellants, since Nordyne already
teaches a procedure for filling a damaged region with sealant, there would
have been no need to fill a repair void by applying pressure to a patch which
would then be transmitted to the sealant from outside of the channel. Id.
at 3.
In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner states that Yan was used to
show that a patch can be used over an adhesive in a damaged region and
maintained in place by applying pressure. Ans. 7. According to the
Examiner, using Yan’s teaching in combination with Nordyne’s teaching of
using a sealant over a damaged region would lead a person of ordinary skill
in the art to the obvious conclusion that applying pressure on the patch
would transfer pressure to the sealant so that the damaged area would be
filled. Id.
Examiner understands that providing the sealant first to the
damaged region would initiate the process of filling the
4
Appeal 2015-001691
Application 13/458,317
damaged region and providing a patch and putting pressure
after the adhesive would further fill the damaged region. So for
one having ordinary skill in the art, when combining the
teachings of Nordyne with those of Yan, Nordyne initiates the
filling of the damaged region when the adhesive is provided to
the damaged region by using a slight vacuum, and after the
integration of the patch under pressure taught by Yan, the
damaged region will substantially be filled.
Id. at 7—8.
We think the Examiner has stated the more persuasive position.
Although Nordyne’s method does employ a vacuum pump, (Nordyne, 1),
such does not negate the fact that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have learned, from Yan, that sealant could be caused to fill a void by
applying pressure to a patch, which pressure would then be transmitted to
the sealant. It is well settled that familiar items may have obvious uses
beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be
able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.
KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). The Examiner’s
proposed combination presents just such a situation.
Next, Appellants argue that Yan teaches that the patch is optional and,
therefore, not required. Reply Br. 3^4. Appellants argue, therefore, that
Yan “does not rely on the patch to force sealant into the damaged region. Id.
at 3. This argument is without merit. Yan teaches that:
[T]he metal patch can be applied if desired to the damaged site,
treated side down, and maintained in place against the damaged
site, preferably under pressure. Preferably, the patch will be
fabricated from a metal which will correspond to the metal (or
metal alloy) of the heat exchanger. Thus, in the case of an
aluminum heat exchanger the patch, too, will be constructed of
aluminum. Patches provided as multiple layered metal foils are
also contemplated.
5
Appeal 2015-001691
Application 13/458,317
Yan, col. 5,1. 66 — col. 6,1. 7. Whether or not Yan teaches that the patch is
required or merely optional, it still informs a person of ordinary skill in the
art that an aluminum patch can be applied, under pressure, to seal a channel.
We also agree with the Examiner’s observation that applying pressure on the
patch will result in pressure being transferred to the sealant so that the
damaged area would be filled. See Ans. 7.
Finally, Appellants argue that Yan fails to make it obvious to bend a
patch to substantially conform to the profile of the microchannel tube.
Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 4. This argument is not persuasive. Figure 4 of
Yan depicts metal patch 16 that can optionally be applied over adhesive
sealant 14. Yan, Fig. 4, col. 5,11. 15—19.
[P]atch 16, which can preferably be of metallic material, can be
placed over the adhesive sealant 14 to provide a further
protective coating.
Id. In Figures 3 and 4 of Yan, the exterior surface of the channel under
repair is irregular in shape. See Yan, Figs. 3, 4. Figure 4 depicts metal
patch 16 as being applied to such irregular surface. Id. One material that is
disclosed for the patch is aluminum. Id. col. 6,11. 4—6. Patch materials are
also described as “foils.” Id. at col. 6,11. 6—7. Furthermore, the Examiner
points out that
Yan discloses in the background section a variety of techniques
for repairing damaged hollow articles, including one method
and apparatus for effecting the repair of fluid leaks by placing a
preformed metallic foil patch having the same configuration as
the portion to be repaired.
Ans. 8 (citing Yan, col. 2,11. 3—9). An artisan must be presumed to know
something about the art apart from what the references disclose. See In re
Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962). Thus, although Yan’s patch 16 is
6
Appeal 2015-001691
Application 13/458,317
depicted in Figure 4 as flat and Yan may be silent on whether the patch,
upon application, bends to conform to the exterior surface of channel and
adhesive sealant 14, we think that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that an aluminum foil would be sufficiently malleable that it
would conform to the contours of the repair site upon the application of
pressure.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine the Examiner’s
findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and that
the Examiner’s legal conclusion of unpatentability is well-founded.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of
claims 1—5 and 8—16.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—5 and 8—16 is
affirmed.4
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
4 Claims 6 and 7 having previously been cancelled by Appellants. See After
Final Amendment.
7