Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 24, 2021

2020004058 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 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. 14/997,216 01/15/2016 Neal R. Herring 1510801.480US1 2983 61654 7590 03/24/2021 Locke Lord LLP P.O. BOX 55874 BOSTON, MA 02205 EXAMINER LEO, LEONARD R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3763 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/24/2021 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): patent@lockelord.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NEAL R. HERRING, BRIAN ST. ROCK, and ANDRZEJ E. KUCZEK Appeal 2020-004058 Application 14/997,216 Technology Center 3700 Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges. HILL, 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, 3, 6, 10, 11, and 13, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. See Final Act. 1. 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 the real party in interest as Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-004058 Application 14/997,216 2 BACKGROUND Sole independent claim 1, reproduced below, represents the claimed subject matter, with the disputed limitation italicized: 1. A heat exchanger comprising: a heat exchanger body; a first set of flow channels defined in the heat exchanger body extending axially with respect to a first flow axis, wherein the first set of the flow channels forms a first flow circuit; a second set of flow channels defined in the heat exchanger body extending axially with respect to a second flow axis, wherein the second set of the flow channels forms a second flow circuit that is in fluid isolation from the first flow circuit, wherein each flow channel is fluidly isolated from the other flow channels; and wherein at least some of the flow channels have cross- sections that vary along their respective flow axis, wherein the heat exchanger body includes a first end and a second end opposed to the first end along the first flow axis, wherein the first flow axis and the second flow axis are aligned in a common direction, wherein each flow channel of the first flow circuit includes a respective inlet on the first end of the heat exchanger body and a respective outlet on the second end of the heat exchanger body, and wherein each flow channel of the second flow circuit includes a respective inlet on one of the first and second ends of the heat exchanger body and a respective outlet on the other of the first and second ends of the heat exchanger body, wherein the flow channels of the first flow circuit have cross-sections of a first shape, and wherein the flow channels of the second flow circuit have cross-sections of a second shape different from the first shape, wherein each adjacent pair of the flow channels is separated from one another by a heat exchanger wall, wherein the heat exchanger wall changes in cross-section from the first end of the heat exchanger body to the second end of the heat exchanger body. Appeal Br. 14, Claims App. Appeal 2020-004058 Application 14/997,216 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Wachendorfer US 4,546,827 Oct. 15, 1985 Bruun US 7,285,153 B2 Oct. 23, 2007 Hamada EP 2 859 940 A1 Apr. 15, 2015 Sakai EP 2 706 318 B1 Mar. 30, 2016 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 3, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hamada and Sakai. II. Claims 6 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hamada, Sakai, and Wachendorfer. III. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hamada, Sakai, and Bruun. OPINION Rejection I Appellant argues claims 1, 3, and 10 as a group. Appeal Br. 10–12. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claims 3 and 10 stand or fall with claim 1. Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, the heat exchanger wall changing “in cross-section from the first end of the heat exchanger body to the second end of the heat exchanger body.” The Examiner finds this limitation in Hamada. Final Act. 2–3 (citing Hamada Fig. 4) (“Hamada discloses . . . the heat exchanger wall (112, 130) changes in cross-section from the first end (left) of the heat exchanger body to the second end (right) of the heat exchanger body.”). Appeal 2020-004058 Application 14/997,216 4 Appellant argues that the Examiner has given an unreasonably broad interpretation to the claim term “heat exchanger wall” to find that Hamada’s heat transfer wall 130 and its catalyst layer 112, combined, satisfy the claimed “heat exchanger wall” having a changing cross section. Appeal Br. 10–11, 12. According to Appellant, Hamada’s heat transfer walls 130 do not change in cross section, and Hamada “specifically and consistently” refers to its heat transfer wall 130 and catalyst layer 112 as two distinct parts. Id. at 11 (quoting Hamada ¶ 22 (“each reaction passage 110 includes a catalyst layer 112 which is provided on at least part of its inner wall, or preferably on the entire inner wall. The catalyst layer 112 accelerates reactions of the fluid.”)). Appellant contends that “[n]ot only is the catalyst layer 112 inside a channel and not a wall separating passages, the function of the catalyst layer is to initiate the endothermic reaction. For these reasons, the catalyst layer 112 is not a heat exchanger wall, and should not be considered one.” Id. The Examiner responds that claim 1 uses the transitional term “‘comprising’, which . . . is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements.” Ans. 8. The Examiner contends that, therefore, “the limitation of ‘a heat exchanger wall’ may include several structures. For example, the wall of a house may be composed of several structures, such as drywall, metal or wood studs, insulation, . . . .” Id. Therefore, the Examiner reasons, “the composite of two structural layers (i.e. a catalyst 112 and a heat transfer wall 130) of Hamada [can reasonably be] read as ‘the heat exchanger wall (112, 130).’” Id. The Examiner also argues that the term “heat exchanger wall” should be given its ordinary and customary meaning, because Appellant has not given the term a special Appeal 2020-004058 Application 14/997,216 5 definition, in which case “the heat exchanger wall may include multiple layers or structures, but not limited to a single structure.” Id. at 9. Appellant replies that “the word ‘comprising’ in the preamble of the independent claim . . . does not give the Examiner license to read extra elements into Hamada’s heat exchanger wall.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant also argues that “[t]he Examiner has not addressed the fact that the catalyst in Hamada is a flow-through material that does not separate from one passage to another,” and “[o]nly the heat exchanger walls in Hamada actually function as heat exchanger walls, separating flow from one passage to the next.” Id. Appellant further replies that “Appellant and Hamada use the term ‘heat exchanger wall’ consistently,” such that only Hamada’s heat transfer wall 130 meets the “heat exchanger wall” element of claim 1. Id. at 3. We agree with Appellant that the open transition ‘comprising’ in the preamble of claim 1 does not, itself, allow the Examiner to read extra elements into Hamada’s heat exchanger wall (Reply Br. 2). Nevertheless, we determine that the Examiner has the better argument. Neither the Examiner, nor Appellant, provides us with a formal construction of the term “heat exchanger wall.” While we agree with Appellant that the claim term “heat exchanger wall” is almost the same as Hamada’s “heat transfer wall 130,” which is disclosed as a structure distinct from Hamada’s catalyst layer 112, we are persuaded by the Examiner’s contention that walls typically comprise multiple elements (see Ans. 8). For instance, it would seem to us that, if a layer of paint/paneling/wallpaper is added to a wall for the distinct purpose of ornamentation, that paint or paneling becomes part of the wall itself. Thus, we are not persuaded that Appeal 2020-004058 Application 14/997,216 6 the layer of catalyst 112 does not become part of Hamada’s heat transfer wall 130 upon its application thereto, and together these two layers define the passage 110. Appellant does not argue that the existence of porous catalyst 112 layer in the passages has no flow-restriction properties. It seems to us that, despite being porous, the catalyst layer 112 would cause some flow restriction and thus further define the free flow properties of the passage it surrounds (or fills). For this reason, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1. Claims 3 and 10 fall with claim 1. Rejections II and III Appellant makes no argument that claims 6, 11, or 13 would be allowable if claim 1 is not patentable over Hamada and Sakai. Appeal Br. 12. Thus, for the reason explained above, we sustain Rejections II and III. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. Appeal 2020-004058 Application 14/997,216 7 DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 10 103 Hamada, Sakai 1, 3, 10 6, 11 103 Hamada, Sakai, Wachendorfer 6, 11 13 103 Hamada, Sakai, Bruun 13 Overall Outcome: 1, 3, 6, 10, 11, 13 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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