Ex Parte Lee

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 13, 2017

12680602 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 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.
12/680,602 03/29/2010 Sangmu Lee 1033413-000059 5574
21839 7590 01/18/2017
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
POST OFFICE BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404
EXAMINER
TEITELBAUM, DAVID J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/18/2017 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):
ADIPDOCl@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANGMU LEE
Appeal 2015-001595
Application 12/680,602
Technology Center 3700
Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 7—12, and 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2015-001595
Application 12/680,602
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an air conditioner. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An air conditioner comprising:
an indoor machine equipped with an indoor heat
exchanger constituted by a plurality of heat transfer tubes which
have spiral grooves formed with a lead angle of 35 to 40 degrees
and whose number of threads is 40 to 60 on faces inside the tubes
and which pierce a plurality of fins, and
an outdoor machine equipped with an outdoor heat
exchanger constituted by a plurality of heat transfer tubes whose
inside faces have spiral grooves formed with a lead angle 25 to
35 degrees smaller than that of the heat transfer tubes used for
said indoor heat exchanger and whose number of threads is made
larger from that of the spiral grooves of the heat transfer tube
used for the indoor heat exchanger and the number of threads is
60-80 and which pierce a plurality of fins.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Onishi
Iwamoto
Shikazono
Althouse
Minami
US 4,480,684
US 2003/0019614 A1
JP 3430909 B2 (English Abstract)
Modem Refrigeration & Air Conditioning,
The Goodheart-Wilcox Co. Inc., p. 336.
US 2006/0234082 A1
Nov. 6, 1984
Jan. 30, 2003
July 28, 2003
2004
Oct. 19, 2006
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Shikazono and Iwamoto.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shikazono, Iwamoto, and Onishi.
2
Appeal 2015-001595
Application 12/680,602
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Shikazono, Iwamoto, and Minami.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Shikazono, Iwamoto, and Althouse.
OPINION
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim. Claim 1 is directed to an air
conditioner with indoor and outdoor heat exchangers each including, inter
alia, “a plurality of heat transfer tubes which have spiral grooves formed
with a lead angle . . . and . . . threads ... on faces inside the tubes.” The
claim also includes a relationship between the indoor and outdoor heat
exchangers, namely, the lead angle of the grooves in the outdoor heat
exchanger is 25 to 35 degrees smaller than the 35 to 40 degree lead angle of
the grooves in the indoor heat exchanger and the number of threads in the
outdoor heat exchanger is larger than the number of threads in the indoor
heat exchanger. In particular, the number of threads are in the ranges of 60—
80 threads (outdoor) and 40—60 threads (indoor).
The Examiner finds that Shikazono teaches the basic structural
components of claim 1. Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner then finds that
“Iwamoto teaches that groove geometry in a heat transfer tube determines
the heat transfer ability of the heat transfer tube” and that “the lead angle and
the number of threads in a tube determine the internal surface geometry of
the tube.” Id. at 3. The Examiner concludes that “the lead angle and
number of threads of the indoor heat transfer tubes and the outdoor heat
transfer tubes are recognized as results effective variable, i.e. a variable
which achieves a recognized result.” Id. The Examiner further explains:
3
Appeal 2015-001595
Application 12/680,602
In this case the recognized result is the heat transfer ability of the
indoor heat exchanger heat transfer tubes and the outdoor heat
exchanger heat transfer tubes will be adjusted depending on the
lead angle of the spiral grooves and the number of threads in the
indoor heat exchanger heat transfer tubes and the outdoor heat
exchanger heat transfer tubes. Therefore since the general
conditions of the claims were disclosed in the prior art by
Shikazono, as modified, it is not inventive to discover the
optimum workable range of the lead angle and number of threads
of the indoor heat exchanger heat transfer tubes and outdoor heat
exchanger heat transfer tubes by routine experimentation.
Id. at 3^4.
“[A] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective
variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the
determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be
characterized as routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) (citing In
re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977)).
We agree with the Examiner that Iwamoto teaches “that groove
geometry in a heat transfer tube determines the heat transfer ability of the
heat transfer tube.” Final Act. 3; see, Iwamoto 1 5. Iwamoto focuses on the
lead angle1, as well as, the groove depth and pitch (see e.g., id. 147), but is
silent with regard to the number of threads or as to any relationship between
the number of threads in the indoor heat transfer tubes as compared to the
number of threads in the outdoor heat transfer tubes.
1 We also note that Iwamoto specifically teaches away from the claimed lead
angle ranges. Iwamoto 119 (“In case where the angle difference with
respect to the pipe axis is less than 40°, sufficient improvement of the heat
transfer cannot be obtained .... Therefore, the direction of the grooves with
respect to the pipe axis is limited to be 45° to 90°.”); see also, id. at | 8.
4
Appeal 2015-001595
Application 12/680,602
Further, the Examiner has not identified where Iwamoto or Shikazono
disclose or suggest any relationship between the lead angle of the grooves in
the indoor heat transfer tubes as compared to those in the outdoor heat
transfer tubes. See Appeal Br. 6. In the Answer, the Examiner attempts to
overcome this deficiency by referring to the teachings of Sano (US
6,173,763 Bl, iss. Jan. 16, 2001). Ans. 10 (citing Sano col. 8:64—col. 9:13).
We first note that as stated by the Examiner Sano is “not cited in the
rejection of claim 1.” Id. In other words, the Examiner has not issued a new
ground of rejection that includes Sano. Further, Sano is not part of any
rejection before us. Secondly, even if Sano were properly part of the
rejection, the Examiner relies too heavily on general teachings concerning
the “internal geometry of. . . heat exchanger tube[s].” Id. The Examiner
has failed to sufficiently explain how Shikazono, Iwamoto, or Sano provides
any teaching of a functional relationship between the number of threads and
the heat transfer ability of tubes having such threads to support that the
number of threads is a result-effective variable. Further, the Examiner has
not identified any teaching or suggestion of any relationship between the
number of threads in the indoor heat transfer tubes as compared to those in
the outdoor heat transfer tubes that was known in the art to affect heat
transfer performance, whether in Sano, Iwamoto or Shikazono, such that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have been guided to optimize the
relationship between the number of threads in the indoor and outdoor heat
transfer tubes. See Reply Br. 3^4. Additionally, the Examiner has not
identified any teaching or suggestion in Shikazono, Iwamoto, or Sano of any
relationship between the lead angle of the spiral grooves in the indoor heat
transfer tubes as compared to those in the outdoor heat transfer tubes that
5
Appeal 2015-001595
Application 12/680,602
was known in the art to affect heat transfer performance such that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been guided to optimize the relationship
between the lead angle of the spiral grooves in the indoor and outdoor heat
transfer tubes. Id.
As such, the Examiner failed to establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to adjust the lead angle and number of threads in the indoor heat
transfer tubes as compared to those in the outdoor heat transfer tubes in
accordance with the claimed relationships.
For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred
in concluding that Iwamoto and Shikazono render obvious the subject matter
of independent claim 1, and we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1 and claims 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13 which depend therefrom, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Iwamoto and Shikazono.
Claims 2, 9, 12, and 14 depend from claim 1 and are further rejected
over one of Onishi, Minami, and Althouse. These rejections rely on the
Examiner’s erroneous conclusions discussed above. The Examiner does not
explain how Onishi, Minami, or Althouse might cure these underlying
deficiencies. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 2, 9,
12, and 14.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7—12, and 14 is reversed.
REVERSED
6