Ex Parte TSENG

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 9, 2018

13716207 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/716,207 12/17/2012 YI-MING TSENG
52293 7590 11/14/2018
YI-MING TSENG
P.O. BOX 19428
STANFORD, CA 94309-9428
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.
TSENG-P009 7492
EXAMINER
OSWALD, KIRSTIN U
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/14/2018 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):
yiming.tseng@gmail.com
ymtseng@stanfordalumni.org
zander.tseng@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YI-MING TSENG
Appeal 2018-001306
Application 13/716,207
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ARTHUR M. PESLAK, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-9, 14, 15, and 21-29. Final Act. 1
(Office Action Summary). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
For the reasons explained below, we find error in the Examiner's rejections.
Accordingly, we REVERSE.
Appeal 2018-001306
Application 13/716,207
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter relates "to a device for supporting a
person." Spec. ,r 1. Claims 1 and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative
of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A device for supporting a person, the device comprising:
a thermally conductive seat configured to support buttocks
of the person;
a container overlapping the thermally conductive seat and
comprising a thermally insulating part, a thermally conducting
part, and an inner space, wherein the thermally conducting part
is surrounded by the thermally insulating part, and wherein the
inner space is enclosed by at least one of the thermally insulating
part and the thermally conducting part; and
a thermal switch overlapping each of the container and the
thermally conductive seat, being positioned between the
container and the thermally conductive seat, and configured to
thermally disconnect the container from the thermally
conductive seat based on at least one of a temperature of the
container and a temperature of the thermally conductive seat.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Myers
Dicks
Daly
us 3,463,224
US 2005/0062323 Al
IE 2008/0084
eGullet Forums, dated September, 2006.
Aug.26, 1969
Mar. 24, 2005
July 7, 2010
https: //forums. e gullet. org/top ic/92 5 65-building-a-homemade-
proofing-bo x/[6/21/2017 8:59: 14 PM]
Seasoned Advice, dated December, 2010.
https:// cooking. stackexchange.com/ questions/I 0310/how-warm-must-
dough-be-in-order-to-rise
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1-3 are rejected as being anticipated by Myers. Final Act. 2.
2
Appeal 2018-001306
Application 13/716,207
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 14, and 15 are rejected as being unpatentable over
Daly and Myers. Final Act. 4.
Claim 6 is rejected as being unpatentable over Daly, Dicks, and
Myers. Final Act. 8.
Claims 21 and 23-29 are rejected as being unpatentable over Daly,
eGullet Forums, and Myers. Final Act. 8.
Claim 22 is rejected as being unpatentable over Daly, Myers, eGullet
Forums, and Seasoned Advice. Final Act. 12.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1-3 as anticipated by Myers
Independent claim 1 ( and hence dependent claims 2 and 3) includes
limitations pertaining to a thermally conductive seat, 1 a container, and a
thermal switch "configured to thermally disconnect the container from the
thermally conductive seat."
The Examiner identifies Myers as disclosing these limitations, and
specifically a "conductive seat (28),"2 a "container (12, 14, 10)," and "a
thermal switch (8 and 26)" which is "configured to thermally disconnect the
container from the [] seat." Final Act. 2-3.
1 One skilled in the art would understand from reading Appellant's
Specification that the seated person 102 is the heat source. For example,
Spec. ,r 16 states, "[ t ]he seat module may include a thermoelectric generator
106 configured to receive a first set of heat provided from (e.g., the rectum
and/or the legs of) person 102." Additionally, Spec. ,r 26 addresses "a
second set of heat provided from (e.g., the back of) person 102."
2 Claim 1 recites a "seat configured to support buttocks of the person" and
the Examiner states that Myers' item 28 is "configured to be able to be sat
on by a person." Ans. 15.
3
Appeal 2018-001306
Application 13/716,207
To be clear, Myers teaches a heat transfer switch 6 having heat source
2 on one side and heat sink 4 on an opposite side. See Myers Fig. 1 below.
Fig. 1,
30 !4 24 16
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Above Figure 1 of Myers is a cross section of heat transfer switch 6.
Myers discloses that heat from source 2 acts upon an expandable fluid
16 contained within walls 10, 12, and 14 as the heat moves from heat source
2 toward opposite heat sink 4. Myers 2:6-19; see also id. at 2:43--45.
Downstream these walls and expandable fluid is heat transfer plate 26 which
moves in the direction of heat flow as the fluid expands. Myers 2:19-23.
Spaced from heat transfer plate 26 is exterior plate 28, in direct engagement
with heat sink 4. See Myers Fig. 1. Myers teaches that
When the temperature of heat source 2 is at or below the
desired level, plate 26 is spaced from plate 28 and since there is
a vacuum (or ambient) in space 32, only a nominal amount of
heat will pass from source 2 to heat sink 4 . ... When the
temperature of heat source 2 rises above the desired level, fluid
16 will expand ... forcing plate 26 into physical contact with
plate 28. Heat will then be passed by conduction from heat
source 2 through ... plate 26 and plate 28 to heat sink 4.
Myers 2:34--45.
By this configuration, any heat reaching plate 28 is, according to
Myers, passed to heat sink 4. See supra. This is consistent with Appellant's
contention that Myers' "heat sink 4 is a passive device or substance that
absorbs heat from Myers's plate 28." App. Br. 10, Reply Br. 12-13. Thus,
4
Appeal 2018-001306
Application 13/716,207
the Examiner's correlation of Myers' item 28 as the recited "seat" (which
receives the heat source) is troubling because, as indicated above, any heat
reaching seat 28 is dissipated to the heat sink. In other words, the Examiner
has now placed both the heat source and the heat sink on the same side of
Myers' device thereby effectively by-passing Myers' internal fluid, walls,
and movable plate 26. Consequently, heat no longer passes across Myers'
device because the heat flow path now extends from the person to seat 28
and hence to the sink. The Examiner does not make clear how any heat
from this seat/person passes, instead, internal to or across Myers' device.
Regarding this latter point, Myers effectively precludes any flow of
heat back into the device by explaining that side wall 30 surrounding the
container is insulated, and the space between these walls ( and between plates
26 and 28) "is preferably a vacuum so as to prevent heat transfer by
convection."3 Myers 2:24--27. As a consequence, by correlating Myers'
plate 28 as the recited "seat," the heat flow path now only involves seat 28
directly joining the heat source with the heat sink on the same side of Myers'
device. This effectively renders Myers inoperable for its intended purpose
since heat no longer passes through the device itself as would occur when
the heat source and the heat sink are on opposite sides thereof.
Additionally, because Myers takes steps to prevent heat passing from
plate 28 internally (see supra), the Examiner does not explain how Myers'
thermal switch (i.e., plates 8 and 26 (Final Act. 3)) is thus still "configured
to thermally disconnect the container from the [] seat" as recited.
3 Note Myers' teaching above that heat is "passed by conduction" via direct
contact between plates 26 and 28. Myers 2:43--45.
5
Appeal 2018-001306
Application 13/716,207
Appellant addresses this lack of a "thermally disconnect" limitation
from a structural perspective. See App. Br. 11. Appellant first establishes
the Examiner's finding that "Myers's container comprises Myers's wall 30."
App. Br. 11 (referencing Final Act. 2). Appellant then states that there can
be no disconnect between the container ( comprising wall 30) and seat 28
because Myers' "wall 30 remains contacting Myers's plate 28" and hence is
not disconnectable therefrom. App. Br. 11, Reply Br. 13. Appellant's
contention is persuasive and the Examiner's statement that "Myers can be
thermally disconnected, as 30 is insulated" is unconvincing (i.e., it is not
clear how being insulated renders the wall disconnectable ). Ans. 15.
Thus, for at least the above reasons, we are not persuaded the
Examiner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Myers
anticipates the claimed device. In summation, and based on the record
presented, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3 as being
anticipated by Myers.
The rejection of claims 1-5, 7-9, 14, and 15
as being unpatentable over Daly and Myers
Under this rejection, the Examiner primarily relies on the teachings of
Daly, but again, correlates Myers plate 28 to the recited "seat," as well as
Myers items 8 and 26 to the recited switch that is "configured to thermally
disconnect" the seat from the container (i.e., Myers' items 10, 12, 14). Final
Act. 4--5. For the same reasons previously expressed, we find fault with the
Examiner's analysis and, accordingly do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-5, 7-9, 14, and 15 as being obvious over Daly and
Myers.
6
Appeal 2018-001306
Application 13/716,207
The rejection of claim 6
as being unpatentable over Daly, Dicks, and Myers
Claim 6 depends directly from claim 1. The Examiner relies on the
additional reference to Dicks for teaching the additional limitation directed
to "a lighting device." Final Act. 8. In short, the Examiner does not rely on
Dicks for curing the defect of Myers discussed above with respect to parent
claim 1. Consequently, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim
6 as being obvious over Daly, Dicks, and Myers.
The rejection of claims 21 and 23-29
as being unpatentable over Daly, eGullet Forums, and Myers
Under this rejection, the Examiner again correlates Myers plate 28 to
the recited "seat," and relies on Myers "thermal switch ( 6) to thermally
disconnect" the seat from the container (i.e., Myers' items 10, 12, 14). Final
Act. 9. For the same reasons previously expressed, we find fault with the
Examiner's analysis.
In addition to the above, the Examiner further relies on eGullet
Forums as teaching "using the first set of heat received from the person
(when a person is seated on proofing box) to warm a set of dough" inside the
proofing box. Final Act. 9. A review of this reference fails to tum up any
disclosure of a person sitting on the box and acting as the heat source for the
contained dough, and the Examiner does not identify where such a teaching
can be found. Instead, this reference teaches using such heat sources as a
"higher wattage" bulb, "a heating pad," "hot water in a pan," a "bright heat
lamp," "a thermostat controlled 40Watt lamp," "a fish heater," "a seed
sprouting heating mat," and the like.
7
Appeal 2018-001306
Application 13/716,207
Based on the record presented, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 21 and 23-29 as being obvious over Daly, eGullet
Forums, and Myers.
The rejection of claim 22 as being unpatentable
over Daly, Myers, eGullet Forums, and Seasoned Advice
Claim 22 depends from claim 21. The Examiner contends that claim
22 is unpatentable in view of Myers "as applied to claim 21 above." Final
Act. 12. We are not persuaded that Myers renders claim 21 obvious. See
supra. Additionally, the Examiner relies on Seasoned Advice for teaching a
temperature range at which dough will rise. Final Act. 12. Such teachings
do not cure the above defects of Myers. Accordingly, and based on the
record presented, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 22 as
being obvious over Daly, Myers, eGullet Forums, and Seasoned Advice.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-9, 14, 15, and 21-29 are
reversed.
REVERSED
8