FRIGEL FIRENZE S.P.A.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 24, 2021

2021003388 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 24, 2021)

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.
15/310,926 11/14/2016 Francesco STRUMENTI 75712 6570
23872 7590 11/24/2021
MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC
P.O. BOX 9227
SCARBOROUGH STATION
SCARBOROUGH, NY 10510-9227
EXAMINER
DIAZ, MIGUEL ANGEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/24/2021 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANCESCO STRUMENTI and FILIPPO DORIN
Appeal 2021-003388
Application 15/310,926
Technology Center 3700
Before DANIEL S. SONG, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
BARRY L. GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–24. An oral hearing in accordance
with 37 C.F.R. § 41.47 was held on November 15, 2021, a transcript of
which will be entered into the record in due course. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to the applicant as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Frigel
Firenze S.P.A. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2021-003388
Application 15/310,926

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a convector for air cooling a fluid flowing
in a pipe. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A convector for air cooling of a fluid flowing in a pipe,
the convector comprising:
a path for a cooling air flow comprising an inlet from an
external environment and an outlet towards the external
environment;
a heat exchange section comprising at least one tube
bundle defining a heat exchange surface, said heat exchange
section being provided in said path for the cooling air flow;
a fan means for producing said cooling air flow along
said path, so that said cooling air flow externally invests said at
least one tube bundle on said heat exchange surface;
a humidifying section arranged in said path, upstream of
said heat exchange section, where water is atomized to be
invested by the cooling air flow;
a wetting device for wetting directly with water a portion
of the heat exchange surface of said at least one tube bundle to
further cool a portion of said at least one tube bundle, said
wetting device comprising
an adjusting means for regulating a wettable width of
said portion of said heat exchange surface, so that said portion
of said heat exchange surface can be wet from a minimum or
null dimension up to a maximum dimension different than an
overall dimension of said heat exchange surface of the at least
one tube bundle,
said wetting device comprising a plurality of nozzles,
said adjusting means for regulating the wettable width
comprising independently adjustable valves to adjust fluid
flowing to said nozzles,
said tube bundle comprising an entrance side, for said
fluid to be cooled to enter said tube bundle, and with an exit
side, other than said entrance side, for said fluid to exit said
tube bundle, so that the fluid has an overall flowing direction
from said entrance side to said exit side,
Appeal 2021-003388
Application 15/310,926

3
said wetting device being arranged along an end part of
said tube bundle such that said wetting device wets said end
part of said tube bundle, said tube bundle being a single-
passage, and
said fluid flows in said tube bundle in a single direction
from an inlet towards an outlet, wherein said heat exchange
surface increases from said inlet of said fluid into the tube
bundle to said exit of the fluid from said tube bundle.

REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Korenic US 6,142,219 Nov. 7, 2000
Dorin US 7,600,743 B2 Oct. 13, 2009
Birkner US 2010/0101234 A1 Apr. 29, 2010

REJECTIONS
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References
3, 4, 15, 16 112(a) Written Description
3, 4, 15, 16 112(b) Indefinite
1–7, 9–16, 19–24 103 Korenic, Dorin
8, 17, 18 103 Korenic, Dorin,
Birkner

OPINION
Claims 3, 4, 15, and 16—§ 112(a)—Written Description
Claim 3 indirectly depends from claim 1 and additionally recites
“wherein said wetting device is configured to wet only said end part of said
at least one tube bundle with respect to said overall flowing direction.”
Claims 4, 15, and 16 recite that the wetting device be configured to wet
“only a portion” of the “flowing pipes” (claims 4 and 16) or “only a portion”
of the “heat exchange surface” (claim 15). The Examiner finds that
“applicant has not pointed out where in the specification as originally filed is
Appeal 2021-003388
Application 15/310,926

4
there support for the claimed subject matter of the wetting device being
configured to wet only a portion of the tubes/surface.” Final Act. 5. On the
contrary, according to the Examiner, “[a] review of the specification
regarding the subject matter of the wetting device shows that the wetting
device, which comprises nozzles (26), sprays water onto the tube bundle
(18) in a manner that creates a homogeneous water film (‘Y’) across the
tubes thereof.” Id. at 5–6 (citing US 2017/0082370 A1 (“the ’370
Application”) ¶¶ 103–104, Fig. 32). The Examiner thus determines that “the
specification describes that the wetting device provides a homogeneous or
consistent water layer over the tube bundles, which means that the device
wets an entire surface of the tube bundles, not just only a part of the tube
bundles, as claimed.” Id. at 6.
Appellant responds that the Specification “consistently discloses that a
portion of at least one tube bundle is wetted and that the portion of the at
least one tube bundle that is wetted is the end part of the tube bundle.”
Appeal Br. 12 (citing Spec. 5:5–9, 28–31, 9:28–30, 12:22–26). In the
Answer the Examiner counters that “although the instant invention supports
applying water (via 24) directly to an end portion (of [tube bundle] 18), the
act of ‘wetting’ occurs over the entire tube bundle (18), as evidenced by the
homogeneous water film ‘Y’ shown in the drawing(s) and described in
[paragraphs 103 and 104 of the ’370 Application].” Ans. 4.
We disagree with the Examiner’s understanding of the Specification.
The Specification describes and depicts an embodiment in which a wetting
device is arranged at the end part of a tube bundle, so that the end part of the

2 Paragraphs 103 and 104 of the ’370 Application correspond to the
Specification at page 14, line 26 to page 15, line 5.
Appeal 2021-003388
Application 15/310,926

5
tube bundle (rather than the entire tube bundle) is wetted. Spec. 12:22–26,
Fig. 2. For example, Figure 2 depicts a convector having a wetting device
arranged along a portion “H” of the tube bundles of the convector, such that
it is only this portion H “that can be wet by said device.” Id. The excerpt of
the Specification on which the Examiner relies is not to the contrary. This
excerpt reads as follows:
The nozzles 26 and the tube bundles are configured so
that the water, coming from the nozzles and wetting the tube
bundles, creates on these latter a substantially homogeneous
water film Y. The tube bundles have preferably a high-
wettability surface coating allowing this homogeneous film to
be formed; this coating is, for example, a hydrophilic paint,
preferably of the acrylic type.
Practically, the tube bundles 18 are treated with a special
surface coating, so that the water, that plenty wets the tube
bundles, creates on them a homogeneous film, so that the water
does not evaporate directly on the tube bundles 18 and, thus,
does not cover them with salts; in other words, the outer surface
layer of the water film is made evaporate, thus cooling the inner
layer that is into contact with the finned tubes 18 and that, in
turn, exchanges heat with the fins through conduction.
Spec. 14:26–15:5 (’370 Application ¶¶ 103–104). The “substantially
homogeneous water film Y” is depicted in Figure 3 of the Specification.
Figure 3 is a “cut-away front view of the convector of figure 2,” meaning
that it is a transverse view of portion H of the tube bundles depicted in figure
2, and does not depict the full length of the tube bundle along which the
process fluid flows. Thus, when Figure 3 and the above excerpt are view in
light of the Specification as a whole, they do not disclose that the
substantially homogeneous water film Y extends past portion H of the tube
bundles. Accordingly, Figure 3 and the above excerpt do not support the
Appeal 2021-003388
Application 15/310,926

6
Examiner’s finding that the Specification discloses wetting the entire tube
bundle. For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 3, 4, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing the written-
description requirement.
Claims 3, 4, 15, and 16—§ 112(b)—Indefiniteness
The Examiner determines that “there is not a clear-cut indication of
the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim[s],” because:
[T]he claimed functions of wetting only a portion of the tube
bundles can be ambiguously interpreted as either (A) the active
or positive step of providing water to only a portion of the tubes
(i.e. spraying or applying water on a specific portion, per se,
regardless of whether the water ultimately spreads or syphons
elsewhere); or (B) the intended result of only wetting a portion
of the tubes (i.e. the water merely and only wetting a partial
surface of the tubes, without spreading or syphoning
elsewhere).
Final Act. 8.
Appellant disagrees that claims 3, 4, 15, and 16 are indefinite,
contending that the disputed language of claim 3 “clearly means that only an
end part of at least one tube bundle is subjected to being wet by a wetting
device.” Appeal Br. 17. Appellant further contends that the disputed
limitations in claims 15 and 16 are “structural” features or limitations. Id. at
18–19 (citing Spec. 14:4–9).
We disagree that configured to wet only a portion3 of a tube bundle is
ambiguous. The Specification makes reasonably clear that to wet only a
portion of a tube bundle means only the wetted portion of the tube bundle

3 As the analysis is the same for the four claims subject to this rejection, for
simplicity, we address the language of claim 4.
Appeal 2021-003388
Application 15/310,926

7
actually is covered by the water (i.e., the Examiner’s option “(B),” above)
and does not encompass the situation in which only a portion of the tube
bundle is sprayed with water but the water nonetheless spreads over the
entire tube bundle (the Examiner’s option “(A),” above). For example, the
Specification discloses that the amount of cooling of the process fluid
depends on how much heat exchange surface is “wet[ted].” See, e.g., Spec.
14:10–13, Fig. 5. As depicted in Figure 5, the wetting device “wet[s] the
partial portion of width H” of the tube bundle. Id. at 13:23–25. Process
fluid temperature F decreases more rapidly only over portion H, indicating
that only this portion is actually covered by a water film. There is no
suggestion in the record that the more rapid temperature decrease would
occur beyond the portion of the tube bundle that is “wetted.” For this
reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 15, and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claims 1–7, 9–16, and 19–24—§ 103—Korenic and Dorin
Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 2–7, 9–12, 16–19, and 21–24
The Examiner finds that Korenic teaches most of the structure of the
convector of independent claim 1, including a wetting device (Korenic’s
evaporative liquid distribution system 46) for wetting directly with water a
portion of the heat exchange surface of the at least one tube bundle
(Korenic’s second indirect heat exchange section 28), the wetting device
comprising an adjusting means (spray nozzles 48, distribution system 50
“and/or a valve as described in column 8, lines 3–8”4) for regulating a

4 This excerpt of the Specification describes a valve that “could be used to
control the volume, duration or rate of flow of evaporative liquid sprayed
onto the coils of the second indirect heat exchange section 28.”
Appeal 2021-003388
Application 15/310,926

8
wettable width of the portion of the heat exchange surface, so that the
portion can be wet from a minimum or null dimension up to a maximum
dimension different than an overall dimension of the heat exchange surface
of the at least one tube bundle. Final Act. 10–11 (citing Korenic 5:29–33,
55–67, 8:3–15, 36–41, Figs. 1, 1a).
Appellant disputes that Korenic teaches a wetting device with the
claimed adjusting means. Appellant asserts that “at no point does Korenic et
al. disclose that the distribution system 46 wets a specific portion of the heat
exchange section 28.” Appeal Br. 20. Instead, according to Appellant,
Korenic’s distribution system 46 “wets the whole surface of the heat
exchange section 28 at the same time.” Id.; see id. at 21 (asserting that
Korenic “clearly discloses that a heat exchange surface of the heat exchange
section 28 is fully covered with liquid”) (citing Korenic 8:11–15). Appellant
further asserts that Korenic’s “spray nozzles 48 are disposed in series in a
conduit and the valve 49 is a unique valve that opens/closes the conduit so
that water must flow (or not flow) through all the nozzles simultaneously.”
Id. at 21. In other words, Korenic’s system cannot shut off the flow of
individual spray nozzles to thereby controlling a width that is wetted by the
spray nozzles.
The Examiner responds that Korenic’s spray nozzles apply water to
only an end portion of tube bundle 28 because the nozzles “are located at a
distal upper end of the tube bundle.” Ans. 7. The Examiner acknowledges
that “Korenic’s tube bundle gets entirely coated by water,” but this “is
entirely and equally analogous to the fact that the instant invention’s tube
bundle also gets entirely coated by water.” Id. (citing Spec. ¶¶ 103–104,
Appeal 2021-003388
Application 15/310,926

9
Fig. 3).5 The Examiner further asserts that Korenic teaches valves that
“control a flow rate or volume of fluid provided by the nozzles,” and “by
controlling the volume and/or flow rate of the fluid exiting the nozzles, one
may control the dimensions or ‘width of the fluid exiting the nozzles, similar
to how one controls the spraying ‘width’ of a conventional garden hose by
regulating the flow rate of water via the spigot or nozzle-valve.” Id. at 8.
We agree with the Examiner that Figure 1 of Korenic depicts spray
nozzles 48 located “at a distal upper end of the tube bundle,” and therefore
spray is directed to this distal upper end. However, as the Examiner
acknowledges, the sprayed water spreads to cover the entire tube bundle. As
Appellant points out, this is by design: Korenic teaches that “the flow of
evaporative liquid should be kept within the range of flow recommended for
the spray nozzles and sufficient for full coverage of the tube banks of the
second indirect heat exchange section 28.”
Further, the Examiner has not persuaded us that Korenic teaches an
adjusting means for regulating a wettable width of the heat exchange
surface. The structure identified by the Examiner as corresponding to the
claimed adjusting means—spray nozzles 48, distribution system 50 “and/or
a valve as described in column 8, lines 3–8” of the Specification—may
control the “volume, duration or rate of flow” of the liquid sprayed on the
tube bundle (including shutting off flow entirely), but controlling these
parameters does not necessarily mean “regulating the wettable width” of the
tube bundle. The Examiner’s analogy to a conventional garden hose is

5 As discussed above, we disagree with the Examiner that the Specification
discloses an embodiment in which the entire tube bundle “gets entirely
coated by water.”
Appeal 2021-003388
Application 15/310,926

10
speculative at best. The Examiner has not explained how Korenic’s
evaporative liquid distribution system, which has multiple spray nozzles and
is designed to provide “full coverage” of heat exchanger 28, is analogous to
a conventional garden hose.
Because we are not persuaded that Korenic teaches the wetting device
and adjusting means recited in claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2–7, 9–12, 16–19, and 21–24, which
ultimately depend from claim 1, as unpatentable over Korenic and Dorin.
Independent Claim 13 and Dependent Claims 14, 15, and 20
Independent claim 13 is drawn to a process for air cooling a liquid
flowing in a pipe that comprises wetting-device and adjusting-means
limitations similar to those of claim 1. Appeal Br. 44–45 (Claims App.).
Therefore, our analysis is the same as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 13, as well as claims
14, 15, and 20, which ultimately depend therefrom, as unpatentable over
Korenic and Dorin.
Claims 8, 17, and 18—§ 103—Korenic, Dorin, and Birkner
Claims 8, 17, and 18 ultimately depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. 43,
46–47 (Claims App.). This rejection relies on Korenic to teach the wetting
device and adjusting means of claim 1. Final Act. 26–31. Because, as
discussed above, we are not persuaded that Korenic does so, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of 8, 17, and 18 as unpatentable over
Korenic, Dorin, and Birkner.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.

Appeal 2021-003388
Application 15/310,926

11
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
3, 4, 15, 16 112(a) Written Description 3, 4, 15, 16
3, 4, 15, 16 112(b) Indefiniteness 3, 4, 15, 16
1–7, 9–16,
19–24
103 Korenic, Dorin 1–7, 9–16,
19–24
8, 17, 18 103 Korenic, Dorin,
Birkner
8, 17, 18
Overall
Outcome
1–24

REVERSED