Ex Parte Troutman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 17, 2017

12750881 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 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.
12/750,881 03/31/2010 Stephen Troutman 018635.0296 9610
134318 7590 08/21/2017
Raker Rntts; T.T.P/I ennoY
EXAMINER
2001 Ross Avenue LEO, LEONARD R
SUITE 700
Dallas, TX 75201 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/21/2017 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):
PTOmaill @bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN TROUTMAN, CHRIS JENTZSCH,
DUSTAN ATKINSON, and LINDSAY HARRY
Appeal 2016-001383
Application 12/750,881
Technology Center 3700
Before THOMAS F. SMEGAL, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Stephen Troutman et al. (Appellants)1 seek our review under 35
U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s rejection2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 1, 2, 5—16, 19, and 20 as unpatentable over Walker (US 2,268,360,
iss. Dec. 30, 1941), Staffa (US 6,601,640 Bl, iss. Aug. 5, 2003), Merkys
(US 2005/0161202 Al, pub. July 28, 2005), and Kaess (US 3,447,598, iss.
June 3, 1969).3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Heatcraft
Refrigeration Products LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Appeal is taken from the adverse decision of the Examiner as set forth in
the Final Office Action, dated December 31, 2014 (“Final Act.”).
3 Claims 3, 4, 17, and 18 have been cancelled. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-001383
Application 12/750,881
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 12, and 16 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced
below and illustrates the claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations
emphasized.
1. A heat exchanger assembly, comprising:
an aluminum microchannel coil;
the aluminum microchannel coil comprising a coil
manifold extending in a first direction;
a frame;
the frame comprising a slot extending in a perpendicular
second direction along a length of the micro-channel coil to
position and support the microchannel coil along the length
thereof and to allow the microchannel coil to float therein;
the slot extending through a first end of the frame;
the microchannel coil extending in the perpendicular
second direction in length through the slot and beyond the first
end of the frame; and
a coil attachment connecting the coil manifold outside of
the first end of the frame;
wherein the coil attachment comprises a clamp and a
rubber or polymeric bushing so as to allow sideways motion of
the microchannel coil.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 5—16, 19, and 20 over Walker, Staff a,
Merkys, and Kaess
Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 5—16, 19, and 20 together in contesting
the rejection of these claims as obvious over Walker, Staffa, Merkys, and
Kaess. See Appeal Br. 4—6; Reply Br. 2^4. We select claim 1 as the
representative claim for this group, and the remaining claims stand or fall
with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
2
Appeal 2016-001383
Application 12/750,881
The Examiner relies on Walker for certain limitations of claim 1,
including
a frame 16 comprising a slot (Figures 1-2) extending in a
perpendicular second direction (i.e. top to bottom) along a length
of the coil 11 to allow the coil to float therein; the slot extending
through the first end of the frame 16; coil 11 extending in the
perpendicular second direction in length through the slot and
beyond the first end of the frame 16; and a coil attachment 55
connecting the coil manifold 35 outside of the first end of the
frame 16.
Final Act. 2—3 (citing to an annotated version of a portion of Figure 3 of
Walker) (emphasis added).
While acknowledging that Walker “does not disclose the
microchannel coil composed of aluminum, the coil attachment comprising a
clamp and a rubber bushing, nor the slot positioning and supporting the
length of the coil,” the Examiner finds that Merkys discloses a microchannel
coil made of aluminum tubes and that Staffa discloses a clamp and rubber
bushing, while Kaess “discloses a heat exchanger assembly comprising a
frame 17, 18 defining a slot extending a length of a coil having tubes 11 and
headers 12.” Id. at 3^4.
From the foregoing, the Examiner determines that it would have been
obvious
to employ in Walker the microchannel coil composed of
aluminum for the purpose of achieving a desired heat exchange
as recognized by Merkys [], employ in Walker a clamp and a
rubber bushing for the purpose of facilitating assembly and
minimizing vibration as recognized by Staffa [], and employ in
Walker a slot in the frame extending the length of the coil for the
purpose of facilitating installation and support of the coil as
recognized by Kaess [].
Id. at 4.
3
Appeal 2016-001383
Application 12/750,881
In taking issue with the analysis and conclusions presented in the
Final Office Action, Appellants first contend that “Walker does not even
show a frame with a slot much less a slot that supports a coil,” contending
that “Walker merely [discloses] a hollow frame 10.” Appeal Br. 4.
However, we agree with the Examiner that “Figures 1—2 of Walker disclose
a frame 16 with opposing sides to define a slot extending in a perpendicular
second direction (i.e. top to bottom) along a length of the coil 11 to allow the
coil to float therein.”4 Ans. 5. Appellants have not apprised us of any error
in the Examiner’s findings or conclusions.
Appellants continue by alleging that, because “coil 11 [of Walker] is
firmly attached to the headers 35, 36 such that there is no ‘floating’ therein
along the length of the coil even if there was a slot,” “the headers are ‘rigidly
connected.’” Appeal Br. 5 (citing Walker, col. 2,11. 36—37). Appellants also
contend that while “pintles 40 (bolts) can accommodate any movement,”
“[s]uch movement, however is not along the length of the coil.” Id.
However, Appellants misread Walker. As the Examiner explains,
the upper pintles 40 allow lateral expansion and contraction of
the upper header 35, while the lower pintles 40 of the lower
header 36 allow vertical expansion and contraction, i.e.
“floating” along the length of the tubes 37 of the coil 11. Walker
(page 2, column 1, lines 12-35) clearly discloses these features
and additionally illustrates them in Figure 3.5
Ans. 6.
4 See Walker, p. 1, col. 1,11. 4~11.
5 See also Walker, p. 2, col. 1,11. 42—51 (disclosing in part that “the lower
header may, as previously noted, move in response to the expansive
demands of a majority of the tubes”).
4
Appeal 2016-001383
Application 12/750,881
Appellants next contend that, “as is shown in Fig. 2 [of Walker], the
manifold is not ‘extending in the perpendicular second direction in length
through the slot and beyond the first end of the frame,’” but that “headers
35, 36 are clearly within the casing 10,” and that “absolutely no construction
of [Walker] would show the coil attachment connecting the coil manifold
outside of the first end of the frame.” Appeal Br. 5 (emphasis added).
Appellants misread the Examiner’s rejection, which is based on coil
manifold 35 extending outside frame 16—not casing 10—as is illustrated in
the Examiner’s annotated portion of Figure 3 of Walker. See Ans. 3; 7.
Thus, Appellants’ contention is unavailing as it is not commensurate with
the scope of claim 1, which does not recite “beyond the first end of the
casing.” See Appeal Br. 7, Claims App. As we are instructed by our
reviewing court, “limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
[Specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)); see also In re Self
671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
Appellants also contend that
Kaess does not show a frame with a slot to position and support
the microchannel coil along the length thereof and to allow the
microchannel coil to float therein. Rather, Kaess simply shows
the headers 12 and the tube supports 13 fixed within the side
channels 17, 18. The coils themselves are not supported in a slot
and certainly the coils are not allowed to float as is recited herein.
Appeal Br. 5.
However, Appellants are simply attacking Kaess in isolation for
lacking support for findings not relied upon by the Examiner, rather than
addressing the Examiner’s combination of Walker, Staffa, Merkys, and
Kaess. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references
5
Appeal 2016-001383
Application 12/750,881
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). Walker, not Kaess, was cited for disclosing a frame with a slot “to
allow the coil to float therein.” See Final Act 2—3. As the Examiner again
explains, Kaess is cited for teaching “a heat exchanger assembly comprising
a frame 17, 18 defining a slot extending a length of a coil having tubes 11
and headers 12 for the purpose of facilitating installation and support of the
coil.” Ans. 5. Appellants have not apprised us of any error in the
Examiner’s findings or conclusions.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants quote from a portion of page 7 of the
Answer, where the Examiner repeated, verbatim, the rejection from page 3
of the Final Action, and for the first time, contend that “bracket 55 is clearly
inside what the Examiner considers to be the ‘First end’ of the frame 16 as is
marked up above.” Reply Br. 2 (referring to a marked-up portion of Fig. 3
of Walker, reproduced from page 3 of the Final Action). However,
Appellants’ argument is not responsive to an argument newly raised in the
Examiner’s Answer. Appellants did not set forth this argument in a timely
manner prior to filing of the Reply Brief to permit the Examiner an
opportunity to fully respond. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2014) (“Any
argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or
is not responsive to an argument raised in the examiner’s answer . . . will not
be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good
cause is shown.”). Thus, we do not consider this argument.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1, 2, 5—16, 19, and 20 over Walker, Staffa, Merkys, and
Kaess.
6
Appeal 2016-001383
Application 12/750,881
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections.
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
7