Ex Parte Willemen

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 27, 2019

13267102 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/267,102 10/06/2011 33375 7590 03/29/2019 THOMPSON HINE LLP / ITW Intellectual Property Group 10050 Innovation Drive Suite 400 DAYTON, OH 45342-4934 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Lambertus Petrus Christinus Willemen 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. 006593-02485US 5920 EXAMINER LIN,KO-WEI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3762 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2019 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): ipdocket@thompsonhine.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LAMBERTUS PETRUS CHRISTINUS WILLEMEN Appeal2017-000761 Application 13/267, 102 Technology Center 3700 Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, BRANDON J. WARNER, and ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Lambertus Petrus Christinus Willemen ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-11 and 14--17, which are all the pending claims. See Appeal Br. 1, 7-23. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Illinois Tool Works Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal2017-000761 Application 13/267,102 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant's disclosed invention "relates to a heating device for a soldering system, as well as to a selective soldering system." Spec., p. 1, 11. 9--10. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A heating device for a soldering system for soldering of electronic boards, the heating device heating at least one flat side of a board which is to be soldered by means of a gaseous heating current, the heating device comprising at least one heating nozzle in order to guide the heating current in the direction of the flat side of each board, said at least one heating nozzle being equipped with at least two tubular outlet channels, and at least one of the at least two tubular outlet channels of the at least one heating nozzle being arranged at an angle opposite another one of the at least two tubular outlet channels of the at least one heating nozzle for the formation of the exiting heating current. EVIDENCE The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Bahr us 4,771,929 Sept. 20, 1988 Yoshida us 4,813,867 Mar. 21, 1989 Chanasyk us 5,345,061 Sept. 6, 1994 Willenegger US 2009/0236402 Al Sept. 24, 2009 2 Appeal2017-000761 Application 13/267,102 REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: 2 I. Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bahr and Yoshida. Final Act. 2--4. II. Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bahr, Yoshida, and Chanasyk. Id. at 4--5. III. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bahr, Yoshida, and Willenegger. Id. at 5---6. IV. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bahr and Yoshida. Id. at 6-7. V. Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bahr and Yoshida. Id. at 7-8. ANALYSIS Rejection I - Claims 1-9 as unpatentable over Bahr and Yoshida Appellant presents arguments against the rejection of independent claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 7-11), and relies on the same arguments for dependent claims 2-9 (see id. at 11 ). We select claim 1 as representative of 2 We note that the substance of Rejections I, IV, and V (covering independent claims 1, 15, and 16, respectively) is substantially the same. Compare Final Act. 2--4, with id. at 6-7 and 7-8. We list these rejections separately here, and in the analysis below, simply for consistency with the presentation of the Examiner's rejections and Appellant's separately presented (though substantively similar) arguments against the same. Compare Appeal Br. 7-11, with id. at 13-17 and 17-22. 3 Appeal2017-000761 Application 13/267,102 the issues that Appellant presents in the appeal of this rejection, with claims 2-9 standing or falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner determined that a combination of teachings from Bahr and Yoshida renders obvious the subject matter recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 2-3. In particular, the Examiner found that Bahr teaches a heating device for a soldering system, where the heating device includes at least one heating nozzle, and it is readily observed that the gaseous heating current is shown as flowing out of the nozzles along diverging angled pathways. See id. at 2; see also Bahr, Figs. 1-3 (depicting heated air 60 flowing out from nozzles 61 ). The Examiner acknowledged that Bahr does not disclose structural details of the nozzles themselves. See Final Act. 2. However, the Examiner also found that Yoshida teaches a nozzle including structural details as recited in the claim. See id. at 3; see also Yoshida, Figs. 2-3 ( depicting divergent nozzle 3 a having at least two oppositely-angled tubular outlet channels as claimed, which is abundantly similar in relevant nozzle structure to that depicted in Appellant's Figures 4a and 4b ). The Examiner concluded that, given the teachings of the prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bahr, to the extent necessary, to use "the nozzle configuration of Yoshida" to ensure that the heated air (gaseous heating current) is distributed evenly on the workpiece. Final Act. 3. Appellant argues that the rejection is improper because of allegations that Yoshida is non-analogous art. See Appeal Br. 7-10. This argument is not persuasive of error in the Examiner's rejection. Appellant and the Examiner both correctly identify the two-prong test to define the scope of analogous prior art as (1) whether the art is from the field of the inventor's 4 Appeal2017-000761 Application 13/267,102 endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) even if the reference is not within the same field of endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. See id. at 7; Ans. 8. Here, we agree with the Examiner's determination that Yoshida is analogous art at least because the relevant teaching of Yoshida relied on in the rejection (nozzle structure) is "reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor," in that nozzle structure generally pertains to distribution of gaseous fluids. Ans. 8. Further, the Examiner explains that "[t]he structure of Yoshida' s nozzle [h ]as peripheral nozzle openings that are capable of widen[ing] the flow of the gaseous fluid that is discharged from [the] nozzle," which is reasonably pertinent to a problem faced by the inventor. Id. at 9. Appellant's arguments to the contrary focus on other teachings from Yoshida, such as placement of the nozzle within a burner tube or the specific fluid passing therethrough (see Appeal Br. 8-10), but these are not germane to the relevant teaching relied on, which the Examiner expressly states was "for the structure of the nozzle only" (Ans. 9; see id. at 8-9). Appellant does not persuasively refute the Examiner's position. Appellant also alleges that a combination of Bahr and Yoshida would result in an arrangement with Yoshida's nozzle being disposed within a tube, asserting that such would not produce a divergent heated air flow. See Appeal Br. 10-11. We are not persuaded by Appellant's allegation because it appears to rely on bodily incorporation of specific structural details of Yoshida (e.g., placement of the nozzle within a tube) into the heating device of Bahr, which is neither the standard for an obviousness determination, nor 5 Appeal2017-000761 Application 13/267,102 is it an accurate characterization of the rejection presented. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981). Here, as discussed above and reiterated by the Examiner in the Answer, the rejection applied the relevant teaching from Yoshida of "only the structure of [its] gaseous fluid nozzle to modify Bahr." Ans. 10; see Final Act. 2-3. In this regard, Appellant does not persuasively explain how using structural details ofYoshida's nozzle configuration in Bahr's heating device would have yielded unpredictable results or somehow been beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); see also Ans. 10. After careful consideration of the evidence of record, Appellant's arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's findings or reasoning in support of the conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2-9 falling therewith, under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bahr and Yoshida. Rejection II - Claims 10 and 11 as unpatentable over Bahr, Yoshida, and Chanasyk Appellant presents arguments against the rejection of claim 10, and does not set forth any separate arguments for claim 11, depending therefrom. See Appeal Br. 11-12. We select claim 10 as representative of the issues that Appellant presents in the appeal of this rejection, with claim 11 standing or falling therewith. Claim 10 depends from independent claim 1 and adds a further limitation that "the at least one heating nozzle is equipped with a tubular section which is connected to a nozzle head accommodating the outlet 6 Appeal2017-000761 Application 13/267,102 channels, so that the nozzle head is pushed onto the tubular section or inserted in the tubular section." Appeal Br. 25, Claims App. In rejecting the claim, the Examiner acknowledged that the combination of Bahr' s heating device with the structure of Yoshida's nozzle configuration does not teach these further limitations of the nozzle, and relied on Chanasyk for teaching the additional details. 3 See Final Act. 4--5; see also Chanasyk, Fig. 2 ( depicting heating cell 32 (broadly interpreted by the Examiner as a nozzle) including elements that the Examiner identified as a tubular section ( 44) connected to a nozzle head (50) accommodating outlet channels). In contesting the rejection of claim 10, Appellant initially relies on the arguments presented with respect to claim 1, discussed above. Appeal Br. 11. For the same reasons that Appellant's arguments do not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1, these arguments do not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 10. Additionally, Appellant takes issue with the elements of Chanasyk identified by the Examiner, asserting that the Examiner's broad interpretations of the recited "tubular section" and "nozzle head," to include the identified elements from Chanasyk, are not reasonable interpretations. See Appeal Br. 11-12. In response, the Examiner explains that a plain meaning of the underlying "nozzle," which includes the recited tubular 3 Although the Examiner turned to Chanasyk for teaching these further limitations of the nozzle, we query whether the structure of Yoshida' s nozzle configuration sufficiently discloses a nozzle being "equipped with a tubular section which is connected to a nozzle head accommodating the outlet channels," whereby "the nozzle head is ... inserted in the tubular section," as recited. For example, the nozzle in Yoshida's Figure 3 appears to depict a nozzle head ( at right) connected to a tubular section ( at left) via insertion therein. 7 Appeal2017-000761 Application 13/267,102 section connected to the nozzle head, is simply "a projecting vent of something." Ans. 11 ( citing a Merriam-Webster dictionary definition). Based on this broad interpretation, the Examiner maintains that the identified elements of Chanasyk sufficiently teach a "tubular section" ( element 44 appears to be an elongated cylindrical chamber) connected to a "nozzle head" ( element 50 appears to accommodate outlets and be connected thereto), as recited in the claim. See id. Appellant does not submit a Reply Brief to allege that the Examiner's explanation for the interpretation of the disputed claim terms-while broader than Appellant suggests them to be-is unreasonable. Appellant's arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's rejection. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 10, and of claim 11 falling therewith, under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bahr, Yoshida, and Chanasyk. Rejection III - Claim 14 as unpatentable over Bahr, Yoshida, and Willenegger Regarding claim 14, Appellant relies on the arguments presented with respect to claim 1, discussed above, adding only that "Willenegger does not make up for the deficiencies of Bahr and Yoshida." Appeal Br. 12. Accordingly, for the same reasons that Appellant's arguments do not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1, these arguments do not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 14, which we likewise sustain. 8 Appeal2017-000761 Application 13/267,102 Rejection IV - Claim 15 as unpatentable over Bahr and Yoshida With respect to Rejection IV, Appellant notes that independent claim 15 is "treated separately" because the rejection was separately designated. Appeal Br. 13; see supra note 2. The substance of Appellant's arguments against Rejection IV is the same as that with respect to Rejection I, discussed in detail above (compare Appeal Br. 13-17, with id. at 7-11); indeed, the substance of the rejections is also materially the same (compare Final Act. 6-7, with id. at 2--4). Accordingly, for the same reasons that Appellant's arguments do not apprise us of error in Rejection I, these arguments also do not apprise us of error in Rejection IV, which we likewise sustain. Rejection V - Claims 16 and 17 as unpatentable over Bahr and Yoshida With respect to Rejection V, Appellant notes that independent claim 16 (and claim 17, depending therefrom) are "treated separately" because the rejection was separately designated. Appeal Br. 17; see supra note 2. The substance of Appellant's arguments against Rejection Vis the same as that with respect to Rejection I, discussed in detail above (compare Appeal Br. 17-22, with id. at 7-11); indeed, the substance of the rejections is also materially the same (compare Final Act. 7-8, with id. at 2--4). Accordingly, for the same reasons that Appellant's arguments do not apprise us of error in Rejection I, these arguments also do not apprise us of error in Rejection V, which we likewise sustain. 9 Appeal2017-000761 Application 13/267,102 DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bahr and Yoshida. We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bahr, Yoshida, and Chanasyk. We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bahr, Yoshida, and Willen egger. We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bahr and Yoshida. We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bahr and Yoshida. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 10