Ex Parte Smith et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 31, 2019

14687640 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/687,640 04/15/2015 22897 7590 02/04/2019 Kaplan Breyer Schwarz, LLP 100 Matawan Road, Suite 120 Matawan, NJ 07747 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Alexander D. Smith 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. 3057-006US1 9585 EXAMINER JONES, GORDON A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3763 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/04/2019 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@kbsiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALEXANDER D. SMITH, ARMEN ASKIJIAN, DANIEL W. FIELD, and JAMES GROSSMAN Appeal2018-005348 Application 14/687,640 Technology Center 3700 Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 "The real party of interest in this application is the assignee of this application, which is WorldVu Satellites Limited." (Appeal Br. 3.) Appeal2018-005348 Application 14/687,640 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants' invention "relates to earth-orbiting communication satellites." (Spec. ,r 1.) Illustrative Claim 1. An aerospace vehicle having a plurality of core- bearing radiator panels for radiating, to an external environment, heat that is generated by electronics contained in the satellite, wherein the aerospace vehicle includes a passive thermal system, and wherein the passive thermal system comprises: at least a first core-bearing radiator panel and a second core-bearing radiator panel of the plurality thereof; and a first heat pipe, wherein a first portion of the first heat pipe is disposed in the first core-bearing radiator panel and a second portion of the first heat pipe is disposed in the second core-bearing radiator panel, and wherein the first and second portions of the first heat pipe are fluidically coupled to one another. Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102 as anticipated by Low. 2 (Final Action 2.) ANALYSIS Claims 1, 12, and 16 are the independent claims on appeal, with the rest of the claims on appeal depending therefrom. (See Appeal Br., Claims App.) Independent claims 1 and 12 recite an "aerospace vehicle" having a "passive thermal system," and independent claim 16 recites a "method for forming a passive thermal system." (Id.) The claims on appeal require the 2 US 6,776,220 Bl, issued August 17, 2004. Our quotations to this reference omit the bolding and/or italicizing of drawing-associated reference numerals. 2 Appeal2018-005348 Application 14/687,640 passive thermal system to comprise a "first core-bearing radiator panel" and a "second core-bearing radiator panel." (Id.) The Examiner finds that Low discloses an aerospace vehicle (spacecraft 30) having a passive thermal system (satellite radiator system 10). (See Final Action 2.) Low's radiator system 10 comprises "radiator panels 11 a [ and] 11 b that each have a heat pipe matrix 13 embedded therein," and "radiator panels lla [and] llb are structurally connected by way of a transverse panel 12, such as an Earth deck panel 12." (Low, col. 2, 11. 32-34, 41--43.) The Examiner determines that Low discloses, in an anticipatory manner, a passive thermal system having the core-bearing radiator panels required by the claims on appeal. (See Final Action 2, 5, 6.) This determination relies upon the Examiner's finding that Low's Earth deck panel 12 constitutes the first "core-bearing radiator panel" recited in independent claims 1, 12, and 16. (Id.) The Appellants assert that "[i]t is not clear from Low" whether Earth deck panel 12 "is a core-bearing radiator panel" as required by the independent claims. (Appeal Br. 16-17.) Therefore, according to the Appellants, the Examiner's determination of anticipation is not supported sufficiently by the record. (See Reply Br. 6-7.) We are persuaded by the Appellants' position. The Examiner determines that Low's Earth deck panel 12 "is clearly a panel which is thermally coupled to heat loads and therefore can be considered a radiator panel." (Answer 5.) However, as pointed out by the Appellants (see Appeal Br. 16), the claim term "core-bearing radiator panel" is defined by the Specification: 3 Appeal2018-005348 Application 14/687,640 As used in this disclosure and the appended claims, the phrase "core-bearing radiator panels" refers to radiator panels that include a core material that is sandwiched by two face sheets. The core material typically provides strength to the radiator panel, while being a very lightweight structure. The face sheets are typically selected for their ability to radiate and conduct heat. This phrase also encompasses a panel that, while not including face sheets, comprises a material that is suitably thick to accommodate heat pipes therein. Panels made from, for example, solid metal, would not be considered "core-bearing radiator panels," since solid metal panels that are suitably thick to embed heat pipes would be far too heavy for use in aerospace applications. (Spec. 45.) 3 Thus, in the context of the claims on appeal, a prior art panel must be more than merely thermally coupled to heat loads to qualify as a "core-bearing radiator panel." Rather, in order for a prior art panel to constitute the "first core-bearing radiator panel" required by the claims on appeal, a prior art panel must include "a core material that is sandwiched by two face sheets," or it must be "suitably thick to accommodate heat pipes therein." (Spec. ,r 45.) As for Low's panel 12 including "a core material that is sandwiched by two face sheets" (Spec. ,r 45), the Examiner directs our attention to Low' s "descri[ption ]" and "discussion" of "radiator panels" (Answer 5). Low does 3 When evaluating a claim-construction issue, "we look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms," and, only if the specification does not provide a definition for an argued claim term, do we "apply a broad interpretation." In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Here, the Specification provides an explicit definition for the claim term "core-bearing radiator panel," and so this claim term is not necessarily given its "ordinary and customary meaning." In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 4 Appeal2018-005348 Application 14/687,640 indeed talk about radiator panels having a "honeycomb core" disposed between "inner and outer panel faceskins." (Low, col. 2, 11. 36-37, see also Abstract.) But this description/discussion pertains only to Low's radiator panels I la and I lb; and Low repeatedly distinguishes between its radiator panels 11 a and 11 b, and the transverse panel 12 that structurally connects them together. (See e.g., Low col. 1, 11. 59----67, col. 2, 11. 1-5, 41--43, col. 4, 11. 36--43.) And, as indicated above, the Examiner expressly identifies Low's panel "12" as the "first core-bearing radiator panel" required by the claims on appeal. (Final Action 2, 5, 6). As for Low's panel 12 being "suitably thick to accommodate heat pipes therein" (Spec. ,r 45), the Examiner does point out that a heat pipe 16 is "disposed along" Low's panel 12 (Answer 3). But the Examiner does not dispute the Appellants' assertion that the designated heat pipe 16 is not disposed within Low's Earth deck panel 12. (See e.g., Appeal Br. 13-14, Answer 6-7.) And we agree with the Appellants (see Reply Br. 6) that Low's disclosure, of "[a] set of crossing heat pipes 16 extend[ing] outside the plane of the Earth deck panel 12" (Low col. 3, 11. 3--4), does not necessarily support a finding that this prior art panel is suitably thick to accommodate heat pipes therein. 4 Accordingly, the Examiner does not show sufficiently that Low discloses, in an anticipatory manner, the passive thermal system required by independent claims 1, 12, and 16. The Examiner's further findings with 4 The Examiner also seems to imply that a prior art panel can qualify as the "first core-bearing radiator panel" required by the claims on appeal if it is "attached to panels with a core" and, therefore, "bearing the cores" by "indirect support." (Answer 5.) But this implication is not aligned with the definition provided by the Specification. 5 Appeal2018-005348 Application 14/687,640 respect to the dependent claims (see Final Action 3-7) do not compensate for this shortcoming. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102 as anticipated by Low. REVERSED 6