Ex Parte Kumar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 8, 2017

12473945 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 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. 12/473,945 05/28/2009 Hemant Kumar 41878.3620 1566 7590 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP WASHINGTON SQUARE, SUITE 1100 1050 CONNECTICUT AVE. N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20036-5304 EXAMINER RUSSELL, DEVON L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/10/2017 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): eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com edervis @bakerlaw.com patents @ bakerlaw. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HEMANT KUMAR, JONATHAN G. SHAW, GARY A. CRAWFORD, and JES H. PETERSEN Appeal 2016-004858 Application 12/473,945 Technology Center 3700 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-004858 Application 12/473,945 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 2—6, 9-12, and 22. Claims 1, 7, 8, and 13—21 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a double-walled plate heat exchanger. Spec. 11. Sole independent claim 22, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 22. A double-walled plate heat exchanger comprising: a first plate comprising: a first skin; and a second skin wherein said second skin is connected to said first skin; a second plate comprising: a third skin; and a fourth skin wherein said fourth skin is connected to said third skin to form a heat exchange path there between; at least one port hole that allows for fluid flow over said plates; and a leakage escape path between the first and second plates for allowing leaked fluid to exit the double- walled plate heat exchanger, wherein said leakage path comprises ribs disposed therein only, the leakage escape path being in contact with: a leakage orifice disposed through the first skin between a first port of the first skin and a bridge gasket of the first skin; a depression disposed in the second skin directly underneath the leakage orifice; and 2 Appeal 2016-004858 Application 12/473,945 an outer edge of the double-walled plate heat exchanger; a gasket that substantially follows the periphery of each of said skins wherein said gasket comprises a recess or groove through which said leakage escape path extends; a vent area in fluid communication with said leakage orifice and said leakage escape path. REFERENCES Bergqvist US 5,178,207 Jan. 12, 1993 Davison US 5,487,424 Jan. 30, 1996 Engstrom US 5,913,361 June 22, 1999 Wand US 2007/0169916 A1 July 26, 2007 Krantz US 2010/0258284 A1 Oct. 14, 2010 REJECTION Claims 2—6, 9-12, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Engstrom, Davison, Wand, Krantz, and Bergqvist. Final Act. 2. ANALYSIS Appellants present arguments for the patentability of independent claim 22, and rely on those arguments to support the patentability of dependent claims 2—6 and 9-12. Br. 8—10. Therefore, we decide the appeal on the basis of claim 22 alone. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). For independent claim 22, the Examiner relies on Engstrom as teaching (1) the claimed first and second plates; (2) at least two port holes allowing for fluid flow over the plates; and (3) a leakage escape path between the first and second skins of the first plate for allowing leaked fluid to exit the heat exchanger, the leakage escape path being in contact with a leakage orifice disposed through the first skin and the outer edge of the heat 3 Appeal 2016-004858 Application 12/473,945 exchanger. Final Act. 2—3 (citing Engstrom, 1:25—61, 5:54—59, Fig. 4). The Examiner acknowledges that Engstrom does not teach a depression disposed in the second skin directly underneath the leakage orifice, and relies on Bergqvist as teaching this limitation. Id. at 3 (citing Bergqvist, Fig. 3). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to provide the device of Engstrom with a depression, “in order to form a leakage exit path for leakage through the hole of Engstrom, as taught by Bergqvist, in order to provide a defined pathway for easy leakage exit flow.” Id. The Examiner also acknowledges that Engstrom does not disclose the use of a bridge gasket. Therefore, the Examiner relies on Krantz as teaching this limitation. Id. (citing Krantz, Fig. 1). According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to provide Engstrom’s modified device with Krantz’ bridge gasket “in order to further prevent unwanted flow to the ports.” Id. The Examiner further explains that “[i]n the resulting combination, the holes (28) of Engstrom will be located in the space defined between the port and bridge gasket.” Id.1 Appellants raise a number of arguments against the Examiner’s rejection. First, Appellants argue that Bergqvist’s depression is not associated with a leakage orifice, and Bergqvist fails to disclose a leakage orifice that passes through a plate. Br. 8. We note, however, that the Examiner relies on Engstrom, not Bergqvist, as teaching a leakage orifice that passes through the first skin of the first plate. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 3, 8. Appellants next argue that “because Bergqvist fails to disclose a bridge 1 The Examiner also relies on Davison to teach the use of ribs in the leakage escape path, and on Wand to teach the use of a peripheral gasket. Final Act. 4 (citing Davison, Figs. 17, 19; Wand 45, 47, 48). 4 Appeal 2016-004858 Application 12/473,945 gasket, any leakage through a Bergqvist plate would create a free-flowing path.” Br. 8. But, again, the Examiner is not asserting that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Bergqvist by placing a leakage orifice through a Bergqvist plate. Rather, the Examiner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Engstrom’s plate heat exchanger, which already has a leakage orifice, by incorporating Bergqvist’s depression. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3, 8. Lastly, Appellants argue that incorporating Krantz’s bridge gasket would require moving “the Bergqvist depressions to some other location,” which “would render the Bergqvist heat exchang[er] unsuitable for its intended purpose.” Br. 9. Here, too, this argument is based on a mischaracterization of the proposed combination. As the Examiner explains, Engstrom, not Bergqvist, would have been modified to include Krantz’ bridge gasket. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3—4, 8—9. As noted above, Appellants’ arguments do not address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. As such, they are unpersuasive, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2—6, 9—12, and 22 as unpatentable over Engstrom, Davison, Wand, Krantz, and Bergqvist. 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 5