Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 10, 2021

2020004661 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 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. 15/254,023 09/01/2016 Jon Shearer 94520US01; 67010-585US1 5914 26096 7590 03/10/2021 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. 400 WEST MAPLE ROAD SUITE 350 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 EXAMINER PAIK, SANG YEOP ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3761 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/10/2021 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): cgolaw@yahoo.com ptodocket@cgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JON SHEARER ____________ Appeal 2020-004661 Application 15/254,023 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before DANIEL S. SONG, EDWARD A. BROWN, and WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4–8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16, which are all the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation, ultimately owned by United Technologies Corporation, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-004661 Application 15/254,023 2 CLAIMS Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative. 1. A heater electrical short protection arrangement comprising: a heater including: a heating layer being at least partially electrically conductive; a conductive layer initially electrically insulated from the heating layer; and a protection circuit in electrical communication with the conductive layer configured to halt a supply of electrical energy to the heating layer by opening a switch in response to current flowing into the conductive layer; wherein said heating layer includes electric conductors includes [sic] a positive and a negative electrical conductor and a substrate formed of a positive temperature coefficient material, said positive and negative conductors for supplying current to the substrate and said heating layer having a design temperature and a resistance of said heating layer increasing when said design temperature is reached; wherein if there is damage to said heating layer, said conductive layer may be forced into contact with a portion of said heating layer to supply current into said conductive layer, and cause said protection circuit to open said switch; and wherein said heater is a heated floor panel. Appeal Br. 5 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date MacFarland US 3,894,282 July 8, 1975 Niibe US 4,149,066 Apr. 10, 1979 Horsma US 4,246,468 Jan. 20, 1981 Appeal 2020-004661 Application 15/254,023 3 Balmer US 4,870,252 Sept. 26, 1989 Sandberg US 6,288,372 B1 Sept. 11, 2001 Fink US 2011/0149447 A1 June 23, 2011 Nagasaka US 2013/0341318 A1 Dec. 26, 2013 Köhler US 2015/0014303 A1 Jan. 15, 2015 REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sandberg, Horsma or Nagasaka, and Fink. 2. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sandberg, Horsma or Nagasaka, Fink, and MacFarland or Balmer. 3. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sandberg, Horsma or Nagasaka, Fink, and Niibe. 4. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sandberg, Horsma or Nagasaka, Fink, and Köhler. ANALYSIS Rejection 1 Appellant argues claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, and 16 as a group. Appeal Br. 2–3. We select claim 1 as representative of the grouping to decide the appeal as to the rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claims 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, and 16 stand or fall with claim 1. As for claim 1, the Examiner finds Sandberg discloses a heater protection arrangement comprising a heating layer (heater body 16) including a substrate and electrical conductors (electrical conductors 12, 14), a conductive layer (metal wire braid 20) electrically insulated from the Appeal 2020-004661 Application 15/254,023 4 heating layer, and a protection circuit in electrical communication with the conductive layer. Final Act. 3 (citing Sandberg, Fig. 3). The Examiner also finds Sandberg discloses that a supply of electrical energy to the heating layer is halted via a switch (breaker 26 tripped) in response to current flowing in the conductive layer as a result of cutting or tearing of, or excessive blows or compressions applied to, cable 10, which forces the conductive layer into contact with a portion of the heating layer. Id. (citing Sandberg, col. 3, ll. 10–24). The Examiner concedes that Sandberg does not disclose that the electrical conductors are a positive and a negative electrical conductor, and the heater is a heated floor panel, as claimed. Id. The Examiner relies on Horsma or Nagasaka as teaching a positive and a negative electrical conductor. Final Act. 3. The Examiner further relies on Fink as teaching a heater in a floor panel (floor panel 20). Id. at 4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Sandberg’s heating element, as modified by Horsma or Nagasaka, to a floor panel, including a floor panel of an airplane cabin for heating the airplane’s floors, as taught by Fink. Id. Sandberg discloses a heating cable 10 including electrical conductors 12, 14 embedded in a heater body 16, an insulative jacket 18 surrounding heater body 16, and a metal wire braid 20 over insulative jacket 18. See Sandberg, Figures 1, 1A, 2, col. 2, ll. 12–40. Fink discloses an electrical floor panel 20 provided in an aircraft. See Fink, Fig. 1, ¶ 11. Floor panel 20 comprises a heating layer 30 disposed between upper and lower layers 22, 24. See id. Fig. 2, ¶ 12. Heating layer 30 includes a heating element 32 with leads 33, 34. See id. Appeal 2020-004661 Application 15/254,023 5 Appellant first contends that because Sandberg’s braided material 20 surrounds electrical conductors 12, 14, “one would expect the braided element of Sandberg modified into a heater panel would surround the heating layer 30 and the leads 33/34 of [Fink],” which would be directly contrary to Fink’s disclosure. Appeal Br. 3. Appellant contends that Fink’s upper layer 22 can comprise a metal, but is grounded directly and not allowed to conduct current. Id. (citing Fink ¶ 15). According to Appellant, Fink teaches that an arrangement of a braided material surrounding the conductors, such as disclosed in Sandberg, would be dangerous if utilized in a passenger aircraft heated panel. Reply Br. 1. Appellant asserts, “[g]iven this clear downside to utilizing a braided material such as in Sandberg, which surrounds the conductors, there would be no proper reason to utilize the Sandberg structure in the Fink heated floor panel.” Appeal Br. 3 (emphasis omitted). Appellant’s contentions are unpersuasive. The Examiner does not indicate that the teachings of Sandberg and Fink are combined to result in “the braided element of Sandberg modified into a heater panel . . . surround[ing] the heating layer 30 and the leads 33/34 of [Fink],” as Appellant contends. Appeal Br. 3. Rather, the rejection relies on Fink as evidence that it is known to use a heater in a heated floor panel, including in an airplane cabin, and the Examiner proposes to provide Sandberg’s heater in a floor panel to have a heated surface. Ans. 7. To the extent it is Appellant’s position that Sandberg’s heater needs to be able to be bodily incorporated into a floor panel as taught by Fink, we disagree. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.” In re Appeal 2020-004661 Application 15/254,023 6 Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Appellant’s assertion of “this clear downside to utilizing a braided material such as in Sandberg, which surrounds the conductors” is unclear. Appeal Br. 3 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner does not indicate that Sandberg and Fink are combined such that “braided material surrounds a heater floor panel, [and] the passenger would be exposed to current,” as Appellant asserts. Reply Br. 1. We are also unpersuaded that there would be no proper reason to utilize Sandberg’s heater structure in a heated floor panel as the Examiner proposes. Appeal Br. 3. The Examiner has stated a reason for utilizing Sandberg’s heater structure, as modified by Horsma or Nagasaka, in a floor panel of an airplane cabin; namely, “for heating the floors thereof wherein such heating element not only provides the heating temperature thereof but can also be a self-regulating heating device that is convenient for use as desired by the user.” Final Act. 4. Appellant’s contention does not apprise us of error in this rationale. Regarding Appellant’s contention that, “in Appellant’s disclosed floor panel, the conductive layer 222 is spaced away from the surface that any passenger will face,” claim 1 does not recite this spacing for the conductive layer. As this contention is premised on an unclaimed limitation, it is thus unpersuasive. Second, Appellant contends that Sandberg’s device does not operate as claim 1 requires. Specifically, it is Appellant’s position that, as recited, 2 We note that Appellant’s Specification discloses heating layer 22 and conductive layer 26. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 4. Appellant appears to be referring to conductive layer 26. Appeal 2020-004661 Application 15/254,023 7 the protective circuit is in electrical communication with the conductive layer and a switch is opened in response to current flowing into the conductive layer, whereas Sandberg’s protective circuit is in electrical communication with electrical conductors 12, 14, but there is no electrical communication between braided material 20 and the protective circuit; rather, braided material 20 is simply connected to ground. Appeal Br. 3. Appellant’s contention is unpersuasive. The Examiner submits that Figure 3 of Sandberg shows that metal wire braid (conductive layer) 20 is connected with the protection circuit. Ans. 7. This figure shows wire braid 20 extending from cable 10 into breaker panel 24. Sandberg describes that wire braid 20 is connected to ground. See Sandberg, col. 3, ll. 4–5. Appellant does not, however, explain persuasively why wire braid 20, which is an electrical conductor, cannot reasonably be considered to be in electrical communication with a protection circuit in Sandberg. Furthermore, Figure 3 of Sandberg shows that electrical conductor 12 is electrically connected to circuit breaker 26 and ground fault protective device (GFPD) 32, and electrical conductor 14 is electrically connected to GFPD 32. See Sandberg, Fig. 3, col. 2, l. 65–col. 3, l. 4. The Examiner submits Sandberg teaches that when a cut or tear of heater (cable) 10 occurs, a current leakage path 34 trips circuit breaker 26 and disconnects the power. Ans. 7 (citing Sandberg, col. 3, ll. 10–24). Sandberg discloses that GFPD 32 detects a current imbalance between electrical conductors 12 and 14, which can result from a ground fault between wire braid 20 and electrical conductor 12, such as current leakage path 34 along cable 10. See Sandberg, col. 3, ll. 10–13, Fig. 3. Current leakage path 34 can be caused by damage to cable 10. See id. at col. 3, ll. 13–17. GFPD 32 detects the ground fault Appeal 2020-004661 Application 15/254,023 8 and trips circuit breaker 26, which disconnects electrical conductor 12. See id. at col. 3, ll. 18–24. Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s finding that damage to cable 10 can result in metal wire braid 20 (conductive layer) being forced into contact with heating body 16 (heating layer). Final Act. 3. As discussed, such damage to cable 10 can cause a ground fault between wire braid 20 and electrical conductor 12, such as current leakage path 34. Appellant also does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s finding that damage to cable 10 causes electrical current to flow through metal wire braid 20, or in the Examiner’s finding that circuit breaker 26 is tripped in response to current flowing into metal wire braid 20, thereby halting supply of electrical energy to heating body 16 (and thus, to electrical conductor 12 contained in heating body 16). Id. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that Sandberg fails to disclose “a protection circuit in electrical communication with the conductive layer configured to halt a supply of electrical energy to the heating layer by opening a switch in response to current flowing into the conductive layer,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, and 16, which fall with claim 1, as unpatentable over Sandberg, Horsma or Nagasaka, and Fink. Rejection 2 Claim 5 depends ultimately from claim 1 and recites that “said switch includes an optical latch that opens said switch if current flows into said conductive layer.” Appeal Br. 5 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds MacFarland teaches that it is known to provide a switch 32 in the form of a Appeal 2020-004661 Application 15/254,023 9 mechanical switch, or an optical switching device. Final Act. 5 (citing MacFarland, col. 6, ll. 9–12). The Examiner also finds Balmer teaches that it is known to provide a switch including an optical coupler that controls the current flow to a heater. Id. The Examiner concludes that, in view of MacFarland or Balmer, it would have been obvious to adapt Sandberg, as modified by Horsma or Nagasaka, and Fink, with a switch in the form of an optical coupler, as an alternative electrical switch known to latch or open the switch to control the flow of the current. Id. Appellant contends that Sandberg has a known ground fault switch, and there is no proper suggestion to modify this switch. Appeal Br. 4. The Examiner responds that MacFarland and Balmer are applied to show an optical latch, and the combination of Sandberg with MacFarland or Balmer would predictably yield the claimed switching device. Id. Appellant’s contention is unpersuasive. We understand that the Examiner’s proposed combination effectively replaces (substitutes) one known element (i.e., Sandberg’s switch) with a known, alternative element (i.e., a switch including an optical latch, as taught by MacFarland or Balmer). According to the simple substitution rationale, “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Appellant does not contend that one of ordinary skill in the art would have lacked the requisite skill to achieve this substitution, or that the results of the substitution would have been unpredictable. Even if Sandberg’s device includes a known ground fault switch, this does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rationale. Appeal 2020-004661 Application 15/254,023 10 Rejections 3 and 4 For these rejections, Appellant merely asserts that “[t]he addition [of] Niibe or K[ö]hler to reject claims 8 and 11 do not overcome the deficiencies mentioned above.” Appeal Br. 4. As Appellant does not apprise us of error in the rejection of parent claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claim 8 as unpatentable over Sandberg, Horsma or Nagasaka, Fink, and Niibe, and the rejection of claim 11 as unpatentable over Sandberg, Horsma or Nagasaka, Fink, and Köhler for the same reasons as for claim 1. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 16 103 Sandberg, Horsma, Nagasaka, Fink 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 16 5 103 Sandberg, Horsma, Nagasaka, Fink, MacFarland, Balmer 5 8 103 Sandberg, Horsma, Nagasaka, Fink, Niibe 8 11 103 Sandberg, Horsma, Nagasaka, Fink, Köhler 11 Overall Outcome 1, 4–8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16 Appeal 2020-004661 Application 15/254,023 11 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED