Ex Parte Fennewald et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 15, 2018

13540094 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2018)

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.
13/540,094 07/02/2012 Kenneth F. Fennewald 13378-599 2083
110407 7590 03/19/2018
Burris Law, PLLC
300 River Place Drive, Suite 1775
Detroit, MI 48207
EXAMINER
ROSARIO-APONTE, ALBA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/19/2018 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):
docketing @ burrisiplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH F. FENNEWALD, WILLIAM A. MCDOWELL III,
KEVIN PTASIENSKI, and LOUIS P. STEINHAUSER
Appeal 2016-006165
Application 13/540,0941
Technology Center 3700
Before DANIEL S. SONG, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
ANTHONY KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judges.
KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
decision rejecting claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Watlow Electric
Manufacturing Company. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-006165
Application 13/540,094
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to layered “electrical heaters and controllers.”
Spec. ^ 2. Claims 1, 9, 14, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A layered heater comprising:
a substrate;
a dielectric layer disposed on the substrate;
a resistive layer disposed on the dielectric layer, the
resistive layer having sufficient temperature coefficient of
resistance characteristics such that the resistive layer is a heater
element and a temperature sensor;
a protective layer disposed over the resistive layer;
two electrical lead wires connected to the resistive layer;
and
a two-wire controller including a power controller and
connected to the resistive layer through the two electrical lead
wires, wherein temperature information of the layered heater is
provided on command to the two-wire controller through the two
electrical lead wires, the two-wire controller determines the
temperature of the layered heater using the resistance of the
resistive layer, and the power controller directly supplies a power
to the resistive layer to control the temperature of the layered
heater through the two electrical lead wires.
Appeal Br. 14, Claims App.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
I. Claims 1 and 8-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Kallgren (US 6,225,608 Bl, issued May 1, 2001) (hereinafter
“Kallgren”).
2
Appeal 2016-006165
Application 13/540,094
II. Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kallgren and Kumar et al. (US 2006/0124613 Al,
published June 15, 2006) (hereinafter “Kumar”).
III. Claims 4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kallgren and Bethune et al. (US 5,994,675, issued Nov.
30, 1999) (hereinafter “Bethune”).
IV. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kallgren and Tamura et al. (US 4,523,084, issued June 11,
1985) (hereinafter “Tamura”).
V. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kallgren and Sprock et al. (US 6,974,934 B2, issued Dec.
13, 2005) (hereinafter “Sprock”).
OPINION
Rejection I— The rejection of claims 1 and 8—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Claim 1
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 8-22, finding that Kallgren
discloses a layered heater comprising a “substrate 12,” “a dielectric layer
[16] disposed on the substrate,” “a resistive layer disposed on the dielectric
layer (e.g., resistive film 14),” “a protective layer disposed over the resistive
layer (e.g., sealing layer 18),” “two electrical lead wires connected to the
resistive layer (e.g., bus bars 20, leads 34 and 36),” and “a two-wire
controller.” Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner references the teachings of
Kallgren and in particular, “Fig. 1-6 and col 1-10, including Fig. 2, 4 and 6
and col 3-6.” Id. at 3. The Examiner reiterates the position that Kallgren
3
Appeal 2016-006165
Application 13/540,094
anticipates the claims stating that “[t]he controller and bus bars 20, leads 34
and 36 of Kallgren also function as claimed” because “the bus bars and leads
of Kallgren are connected such that they can be interpreted as two wires, as
can be seen in Fig. 4-6 of Kallgren.” Ans. 12.
Appellants respond that “[i]n the claimed invention, only two
electrical lead wires and the same electrical lead wires are used to transmit
temperature signals from the resistive layer to the two-wire controller and to
supply power from the power controller to the resistive layer to control the
temperature of the heater.” Appeal Br. 8 (boldface omitted). Thus,
Appellants argue that in Kallgren “the bus bars 20a are connected to a power
source for providing power to the resistive layer, whereas the resistive leads
36 are connected to a temperature controller for transmitting temperature
signals.” Id. at 9. Thus, Appellants maintain that Kallgren discloses using
one pair of wires for power transmission and another pair of wires for signal
transmission. Id., Reply Br. 4.
Appellants argue that the Examiner acknowledges that more than two
wires are used “to supply power to the heater circuit and to supply
temperature information from the sensor circuit to the controller [because
the Examiner acknowledges] that FIGS. 4 and 6 show two bus bars 20a and
six leads 34a, 34b, 34c, 36a, 36b, 36c.” Reply Br. 5.
Kallgren’s teachings are directed to an electrical heater. See Kallgren
1:14-15. Kallgren teaches an electrical heater including a substrate, a
resistive film, a dielectric layer and a protective or sealing layer as recited in
claim 1. Id. at 3:11-17. More particularly, we review Figure 4 as instructed
by the Examiner. See Final Act. 3. (“two electrical lead wires connected to
the resistive layer (e.g., bus bars 20, leads 34 and 36) (e.g., Fig. 1-6 and col
4
Appeal 2016-006165
Application 13/540,094
1-10, including Fig. 2, 4 and 6 and col 3-6)”). To further facilitate the
review, a copy of Kallgren’s Figure 4 is reproduced below showing the
electric heater with annotations by the Board.
Figure 4 is “a schematic diagram of the electrical layout of a single
heater having temperature sensing according to the invention.” Kallgren at
3:1-3. Further, Kallgren describes the invention as having “main bus bars
20a [] connected to respective legs to a power source, such as a two-phase
power system providing a nominal 240 volts AC.” Id. at 5:24-26. A
controller is incorporated into the structure of Kallgren. See id. at 6:14-18.
(“The temperature control conductive lead 34a and resistive lead 36a are
connected to a temperature controller, such as a PID electronic control, that
monitors the temperature of the heater and controls the power to the bus bars
20 to maintain a desired temperature.”). Kallgren teaches that the leads 36b
are connected to the resistive heating film 14. See id. at 6:19-22. (“Leads to
5
Appeal 2016-006165
Application 13/540,094
a temperature limiting sensor are formed by a temperature limiting resistive
lead 366 following an arcuate path spaced about 3 mm from the outside edge
of some of the annular resistive element arcuate segments 14.”). In addition,
Kallgren discloses that “the bus bar 206 connected to the conductive lead
346 serves the dual purposes of conducting current between the arcuate
segments 146, 14d and providing a temperature sensing signal.'''’ Id. at
6:29-32 (emphasis added). See also id. at 8:24-27. (“Thus, the bus bar 206
connected to the resistive lead 366 serves the dual purposes of supplying
power to the first arcuate segment 146 and providing a temperature sensing
signal.”). Thus, it is apparent that Kallgren teaches that an electric heater
may be powered and controlled using only two wires. Although Kallgren
also discloses additional components, such as conductive lead 34a and
resistive lead 36a, the claim utilizes the open transitional language
“comprising,” which does not preclude such additional components.
Therefore, Appellants’ argument does not show error in the Examiner’s
rejection.
Additionally, Appellants argue that Kallgren does not disclose
“temperature information of the layered heater is provided on command.”
Appeal Br. 11 (boldface omitted)(emphasis added). See also Reply Br. 2^1.
Claim terms are interpreted in light of Appellant’s Specification. See In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The phrase “on command” is used only once in Appellants’
Specification without a definition being provided. Appellants state that
“temperature information of the layered heater 12 is provided on command
to the two-wire controller 14.” Spec. ^ 32. In further describing the system,
Paragraph 32 further recites that “the two-wire controller 14 determines the
6
Appeal 2016-006165
Application 13/540,094
temperature of the layered heater 12 based on a calculated resistance.” Id.
The Specification further explains that “[a]s the resistance of metals
increases with temperature, the resistance at any temperature t (°C) is:
R = Ro(l +at) (Equation 1) where: Ro is the resistance at some reference
temperature (often 0°C) and a is the temperature coefficient of resistance
(TCR).” Spec. 3 8 40. Temperature is thus determined from the
measured resistance by the controller using Equation 1. See Spec. ^ 40.
(“Thus, to determine the temperature of the heater, a resistance of the heater
is calculated by the two-wire controller 14.”).
Kallgren teaches that “[bjecause its resistance varies as a function of
temperature, the resistive film can also be used as a temperature sensor.”
Kallgren 3:53-55. Further, Kallgren teaches that “[t]he temperature limiting
conductive lead 346 and resistive lead 36b are connected to the temperature
controller, which monitors the temperature of the heater at the junctions of
the conductive and resistive leads.” Id. at 6:40 43. Comparing the
teachings of Appellants’ Specification with the teachings of Kallgren, it is
apparent that Appellants have not demonstrated a difference between the on
command temperature signal as described in their Specification and the
temperature signal as taught by Kallgren.
Accordingly, Appellants do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Claims 8-22
Claim 8 depends from claim 1. Appeal Br. 15, Claims App.
Appellants do not provide separate argument for claim 8. Id. at 11. Rather,
Appellants rely upon the dependency from claim 1. We find no deficiencies
7
Appeal 2016-006165
Application 13/540,094
in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 as anticipated by
Kallgren. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed supra for claim 1, we
sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 8.
Independent claim 9 includes limitations similar to those discussed
supra with respect to claim 1. Compare Appeal Br. 15-16, Claims App.
with id. at 14. Appellants rely on the same arguments discussed supra in our
analysis of claim 1. Thus, for the same reasons, we likewise sustain the
rejection of claim 9, and claims 10-13 which depend from claim 9.
Independent claim 14 includes limitations similar to those discussed
supra with respect to claim 1. Compare Appeal Br. 17, Claims App. with id.
at 14. Appellants rely on the same arguments discussed supra in our
analysis of claim 1. Thus, for the same reasons, we also sustain the rejection
of claim 14, and claims 15 and 16 which depend from claim 14.
Independent claim 17 includes limitations similar to those discussed
supra with respect to claim. Compare Appeal Br. 17-18, Claims App. with
id. at 14. Appellants rely on the same arguments discussed supra in our
analysis of claim 1. Thus, for the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claim 17, and claims 18-22 which depend from claim 17.
Rejection II The rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 2 and 3 depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. 14-15, Claims App.
Appellants do not provide separate argument for claims 2 and 3. Id. at 11-
12. Rather, Appellants rely upon the dependency from claim 1. As
discussed supra, we find no deficiencies in the Examiner’s rejection of
8
Appeal 2016-006165
Application 13/540,094
independent claim 1 as anticipated by Kallgren. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2 and 3.
Rejection III The rejection of claims 4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 4 and 6 depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. 15, Claims App.
Appellants do not provide separate argument for claims 4 and 6. Id. at 12.
Rather, Appellants rely upon the dependency from claim 1. As discussed
supra, we find no deficiencies in the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 as anticipated by Kallgren. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 4 and 6.
Rejection IV The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 5 depends from claim 1. Appeal Br. 15, Claims App.
Appellants do not provide separate argument for claim 5. Id. at 12. Rather,
Appellants rely upon the dependency from claim 1. As discussed supra, we
find no deficiencies in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 as
anticipated by Kallgren. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claim 5.
Rejection V The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 7 depends from claim 1. Appeal Br. 15, Claims App.
Appellants do not provide separate argument for claim 7. Id. at 12-13.
Rather, Appellants rely upon the dependency from claim 1. As discussed
supra, we find no deficiencies in the Examiner’s rejection of independent
9
Appeal 2016-006165
Application 13/540,094
claim 1 as anticipated by Kallgren. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claim 7.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 8-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2-7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
10