Ex Parte Tylutki et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 29, 2019

13745917 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/745,917 01/21/2013
127334 7590 01/31/2019
Harness Dickey (DENSO International America, Inc.)
P.O. Box 828
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
Daniel Tylutki
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.
4041A-000524-US 3711
EXAMINER
THOMPSON, JASON N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2019 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):
cassie_poe@denso-diam.com
michele_bradley@denso-diam.com
troymailroom@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL TYLUTKI, Y ASUHIRO ANDO
BRAD EKLOV, KEITH BRANDAU,
STEVEN MALONEY, and ALEXANDER TAYLOR
Appeal2018-005572
Application 13/745,917 1
Technology Center 3700
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5-8. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, "DENSO International America, Inc." is the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-005572
Application 13/745,917
According to Appellants, the invention is directed to a stamped
thermal expansion relief feature for a heat exchanger. Spec., Title. Claims 1
and 7 are the independent claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as
illustrative of the appealed claims.
1. A heat exchanger comprising:
a core unit including a plurality of tubes and a plurality of
fins stacked alternately with each other;
tanks arranged at the ends in a longitudinal direction of the
tubes of the core unit and communicating with the plurality of
the tubes; and
at least one side plate arranged at one end in a stacking
direction of the tubes of the core unit and having the ends thereof
coupled to the tanks;
wherein the side plate includes a base portion in contact
with a top row of the plurality of stacked fins and two side walls
extending perpendicular from the base portion in the stacking
direction of the tubes;
wherein the base portion comprises at least one thermal
expansion zone, comprising a single elongated polygonal
aperture, perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the tubes
extending a predetermined distance towards an interface between
the base portion and each of the side walls;
wherein a pair of interface apertures, each discontinuous
and separate from the polygonal aperture, are staggered in a
latitudinal direction of the tubes on either side of the polygonal
aperture, one of which interface apertures extending a
predetermined distance up one of each of the side walls, and
across the base portion a predetermined distance so as to each
overlap in a longitudinal planar direction with the polygonal
aperture in the base portion relative to the tubes, and
wherein a flexible bridge is defined in the latitudinal
direction of, and perpendicular to the tubes located between each
interface aperture, and the polygonal aperture.
2
Appeal2018-005572
Application 13/745,917
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 1 and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
based on Horoho (US 7,921,902 B2, iss. Apr. I 2, 2011 ), Iwasaki
et al. (US 2005/0150639 Al, pub. July 14, 2005) (hereinafter
"Iwasaki"), and Kroetsch (US 7,143,512 B2, iss. Dec. 5, 2006)
(hereinafter "Kroetsch"); and
II. Claims 2 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable based
on Horoho, Iwasaki, Kroetsch, and Balci et al.
(US 2007 /0163751 Al, pub. July 19, 2007) (hereinafter
"Balci").
ANALYSIS
Reiection I
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part:
wherein the base portion comprises at least one thermal
expansion zone, comprising a single elongated polygonal
aperture, perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the tubes
extending a predetermined distance towards an interface between
the base portion and each of the side walls;
wherein a pair of interface apertures, each discontinuous
and separate from the polygonal aperture, are staggered in a
latitudinal direction of the tubes on either side of the polygonal
aperture, one of which interface apertures extending a
predetermined distance up one of each of the side walls, and
across the base portion a predetermined distance so as to each
overlap in a longitudinal planar direction with the polygonal
aperture in the base portion relative to the tubes, and
wherein a flexible bridge is defined in the latitudinal
direction of, and perpendicular to the tubes located between each
interface aperture, and the polygonal aperture.
3
Appeal2018-005572
Application 13/745,917
Appeal Br., Claims App. (Claim 1 ). The Examiner finds that, although
Horoho discloses multiple claim recitations, "Horoho is silent with respect to
the interface apertures ... staggered in (i.e.[,] along) the latitudinal
direction." Final Action 4. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that "it would
have been obvious ... to configure [Horoho's] interface apertures ... [to be]
staggered along a latitudinal direction[,] as taught by Kroetsch ... [,] to
improve longitudinal flexibility of a side plate by locating interface apertures
in a spaced relation along a longitudinal direction." Id. at 5; see also id.
at 5-7. For the following reasons, however, we do not sustain the rejection.
In particular, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner does not
provide the required "articulated reasoning with [a] rational underpinning,"
because
there is no explanation as to how the apertures/recesses disclosed
by Horoho could have been configured to be staggered without
disturbing the overall arrangement ofHoroho's fastening region,
which is configured to: (1) break under specific conditions; (2)
break in a longitudinal direction; and (3) maintain a frictional
connection after breaking.
Appeal Br. 14 ( citation to Horoho, Abstract, omitted); see also KSR Int 'l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007). In fact, the entirety ofHoroho's
disclosure is directed to the specific arrangement, best shown in Horoho' s
Figure 1, in which first recesses 16 and second recess 17 are aligned such
that, when the heat exchanger experiences its first heat load cycle (Horoho
col. 3, 11. 23-28), the heat exchanger's frame ruptures along predetermined
break points 20 (id. at col. 5, 11. 33-37). Horoho is arranged further such
that tongue 19 extends longitudinally into the resulting C-shaped recess
formed by the aligned recesses 16 and 17. Id. at col. 4, 11. 38--43. Still
further, Horoho relies on the particular arrangement of the C-shaped recess
4
Appeal2018-005572
Application 13/745,917
and tongue to provide a frictional connection between "two otherwise
separate frame sections." Id. at Abstract; see also, e.g., id. at col. 2, 11. 21-
26 ("There is a material-locking connection between the two frame
subsections. According to a preferred configuration of the predetermined
breaking point, after breaking takes place in the region of the predetermined
breaking point between the cheeks in the C-shaped recess and the material
tongue, an at least frictional connection is produced between the two frame
parts."). Consistent with Appellants' argument referenced above, the
Examiner's proposed combination results in an arrangement without any of
a C-shaped recess, a tongue disposed in the recess, and the disclosed
frictional connection. Thus, the Examiner does not establish that it would
have been obvious to modify Horoho as proposed.
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain independent claim 1 's
obviousness rejection, or the obviousness rejection of independent claim 7
that includes similar recitations as claim 1. Further, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejection of dependent claims 5 and 6.
Re;ection II
Claims 2 and 8 depend from claims 1 and 7. Inasmuch as the
Examiner does not rely on Balci to remedy the above-discussed deficiency
in the independent claims' rejection, we also do not sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 2 and 8.
5
Appeal2018-005572
Application 13/745,917
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1, 2,
and 5-8.
REVERSED
6