Hanon SystemsDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 28, 20212020006038 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/190,527 06/23/2016 Leo Somhorst H-IP16030037US1 (205358) 5272 58637 7590 06/28/2021 Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP 1000 Jackson Street Toledo, OH 43604-5573 EXAMINER ARANT, HARRY E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3763 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/28/2021 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): cgolupski@shumaker.com dmiller@shumaker.com tlopez@shumaker.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LEO SOMHORST, SEOK JONG YOO, STEPHEN JOYCE, and KAMIL STACH Appeal 2020-006038 Application 15/190,527 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN C. KERINS, and MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, 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, set forth in the Non-Final Office Action issued September 19, 2019 (hereinafter “Non-Final Action” or “Non-Final Act.”), to reject claims 1–5, 7–10, 12, 14, 15, and 21–23.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hanon Systems. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claims 16–20 have been withdrawn from consideration. Non-Final Act. 2. Appeal 2020-006038 Application 15/190,527 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention is directed to “a heat exchanger for a motor vehicle, and more particularly, to a core and seal for a heat exchanger.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A heat exchanger for a motor vehicle comprising: a core having a plurality of plates adjacently stacked, each of the plates having a flange formed at a first end thereof and a recess formed in the flange, wherein the recesses of the plates cooperate with each other to form a continuous first groove along a first side of the core, wherein the flange includes a pair of tabs integrally formed with the flange, and wherein the pair of tabs converge towards each other and continuously extend from an outer wall of the flange inwardly into the recess; and a seal having a rail, wherein the first groove is configured to receive the rail of the seal therein. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Brost US 2005/0082049 A1 Apr. 21, 2005 Mathur US 7,004,237 B2 Feb. 28, 2006 Gluck US 2015/0068717 A1 Mar. 12, 2015 Eilemann US 9,175,596 B2 Nov. 3, 2015 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, and 21–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gluck. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gluck and Eilemann. Appeal 2020-006038 Application 15/190,527 3 Claims 4, 5, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gluck and Mathur. Claims 8–10, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mathur and Gluck. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mathur, Gluck, and Brost. OPINION Anticipation—Gluck (Claims 1, 2, and 21–23) In rejecting independent claim 1 on Gluck’s heat exchanger, the Examiner reads the claimed “pair of tabs” on the inwardly extending portions of elastic sealing lip 4 that engage strip 20 of housing 2. See Non-Final Action 3 (providing an annotated version of Gluck’s Figure 10 identifying the structure on which the Examiner reads the claimed “tabs,” “recess,” and “flange”). Appellant argues that Gluck’s “elastic sealing lip 4 is separate from the flange and is not integrally formed with the flange as recited in [c]laim 1.” Appeal Br. 13. Appellant points out that, in the invention disclosed in the present application, “the pair of tabs 38 is substantially planar and continuously formed with the outer wall 32 of the flange 30.” Id. at 14 (citing Spec. ¶ 34; Figs. 7–10). Appellant additionally submits that the further recitation in claim 1 that the “pair of tabs converge towards each other and continuously extend from an outer wall of the flange inwardly into the recess” reinforces “the integral, continuous, cohesive [nature] of the flanges with respect to the pair of tabs.” Id. at 13–14. Appellant contends that the tabs of Gluck’s elastic sealing lip 4 “do not ‘continuously extend from an outer wall of the flange” because “[t]here is clearly a non- Appeal 2020-006038 Application 15/190,527 4 continuous interruption between the equated flange of Gluck and the elastic seal 4 of Gluck as the flange and feature 4 are separate and distinct non- integrally formed features.” Id. at 14. The Examiner insists that because Appellant’s Specification does not provide “a clear and intentional use of a special definition for the” terminology “integrally formed,” this terminology may be construed in accordance with the dictionary definition of “‘integral’ as ‘composed of parts that together constitute a whole.’” Ans. 15. According to the Examiner, “since the flange and elastic lip 4 of Gluck are directly attached and thus constitute a whole they are considered integrally formed.” Id. Appellant disputes the Examiner’s characterization of Appellant’s argument as asserting a special definition of “integrally formed.” Reply Br. 2–3 (urging that legal precedent demonstrates that “formed or cast as one piece,” “formed as a unit,” and “formed with material common to the rest of the unit” are ordinary and customary definitions of “integrally formed”). Appellant submits that, additionally, Appellant’s asserted definitions of “integrally formed” “are consistent with what a person of ordinary skill in the art would refer to as the ordinary and customary definition in view of the [S]pecification and drawings” of the present application. Id. at 3. The Federal Circuit has described the correct inquiry for determining the broadest reasonable construction as follows: The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is not whether the specification proscribes or precludes some broad reading of the claim term adopted by the examiner. And it is not simply an interpretation that is not inconsistent with the specification. It is an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the Appeal 2020-006038 Application 15/190,527 5 specification, i.e., an interpretation that is “consistent with the specification.” In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted) (holding that the Board’s construction of the claim term “body” as including components consistently identified and described in the appellant’s patent application specification separately from the “body” was “unreasonable” because it gave “the term ‘body’ . . . a strained breadth in the face of the otherwise different description in the specification”). Appellant’s Specification describes “a pair of converging tabs 38 extending into the recess 34 from the opposing terminal portions of the outer wall 32 of the flange 30,” wherein “[t]he tabs 38 are substantially planar and are continuously formed with the outer wall 32 of the flange 30.” Spec. ¶ 34. Further, Figures 7–10 depict tabs 38 formed as one monolithic piece with outer wall 32 of flange 30. Consistent with this description and depiction of tabs 38 and outer wall 32 of flange 30, a person having ordinary skill in the art would interpret the claim terminology “the flange includes a pair of tabs integrally formed with the flange, and wherein the pair of tabs . . . continuously extend from an outer wall of the flange” to mean that the tabs and the flange are formed together as one monolithic piece. Gluck’s elastic sealing lip 4 is positioned in a space between projections of plates 11 to seal the space between strip 20 of housing 2 and plates 11. See Gluck ¶¶ 41–42; Fig. 10. Gluck does not specify that elastic sealing lip 4 is actually attached to plates 11. Elastic sealing lip 4 is a distinct element that is not part of the flange of the plate or formed together as one monolithic piece with the flange. Thus, the tabs of sealing lip 4 are not “integrally formed with the flange, and . . . continuously extend[ing] Appeal 2020-006038 Application 15/190,527 6 from an outer wall of the flange” as recited in claim 1, as this terminology is properly construed in light of the underlying disclosure in the present application. The Examiner’s finding that Gluck anticipates the subject matter of claim 1 is predicated on an improper construction of “the flange includes a pair of tabs integrally formed with the flange, and wherein the pair of tabs . . . continuously extend from an outer wall of the flange” in claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or of claims 2 and 21–23, which depend from claim 1, as anticipated by Gluck. Obviousness—Gluck in view of Eilemann or Mathur (Claims 3–5 and 7) The Examiner’s additional findings and reasoning in rejecting claims 3–5 and 7, which depend from claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, do not make up for the aforementioned deficiency in the anticipation rejection of claim 1. See Non-Final Act. 5–9. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over Gluck in view of Eilemann or the rejection of claims 4, 5, and 7 as unpatentable over Gluck in view of Mathur. Obviousness—Mathur and Gluck (Claims 8–10, 14, and 15) The Examiner finds that Mathur discloses a core for a heat exchanger comprising a plurality of stacked plates each formed of a pair of opposing panels having planar interior and exterior lands as recited in claim 8, but that Mathur lacks recesses formed in the flanges of the panels that cooperate to form a continuous first groove and a pair of tabs extending from an outer wall of the flanges inwardly into the recesses and converging toward one another, as also recited in claim 8. Non-Final Act. 9–10. The Examiner finds that Gluck discloses a heat exchanger having recesses formed in panels that cooperate to form a continuous groove along a first side of the core, and Appeal 2020-006038 Application 15/190,527 7 wherein a pair of tabs converge toward each other and extend from an outer wall of a flange inwardly toward the recess. Non-Final Act. 10. The Examiner’s rejection states that it would have been obvious “for Mathur to provide the rectangular plate and seal configuration of Mathur [sic] in order to allow for a stronger seal between the housing and core and thus improving the reliability of the system.” Non-Final Act. 10; see also Ans. 11 (repeating this obviousness determination in re-stating the rejection). Appellant argues, persuasively, that the rejection fails to state how, if at all, Gluck is combined with Mathur to arrive at the claimed invention, and that it is unclear how a flange, recess, tabs, and groove as recited in claim 8 could be combined with Mathur to arrive at the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 15. Appellant also asserts that the Examiner’s articulated reason for the combination consists of “conclusory statements” and “lacks any rational underpinning.” Id. In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner presents altered reasoning in an attempt to support the conclusion of obviousness. Ans. 16–17. In particular, the Examiner states: Mathur teaches heat exchange plates 38 having flanges (shown in fig 9), each pair of which are referred to as cassettes, which have a specific joining configuration relied upon in the Office Action. Similarly, Gluck teaches pairs of plates which are joined together at their flanges, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill that the flange configuration of Mathur could be implemented into Gluck to provide a strong connection between adjacent plates. It would be equally obvious that the recess, tabs, and groove of Gluck could be implemented into the flange of Mathur in order to ensure that fluid does not flow around the heat exchange plates but rather through them. Appeal 2020-006038 Application 15/190,527 8 Id. Appellant contends, and we agree, that the Examiner’s new rationale lacks sufficient explanation as to how the features of Mathur and Gluck would be combined to arrive at the claimed invention. Reply Br. 5. In particular, given the differences in the plate configurations of Mathur and Gluck, it is not apparent how the elastic seal lip of Gluck, which is designed to be positioned in the space between plate projections of Gluck’s plates, as shown in Figure 10 of Gluck, would be incorporated into the plate configuration of Mathur. Similarly, it is not apparent how Mathur’s flange arrangement, formed from abutting interior and exterior lands of adjacent plates, would be implemented in the projection portion of Gluck’s plates to cooperate with elastic sealing lip 4 of Gluck to arrive at the invention recited in claim 8. For the above reasons, the Examiner fails to provide sufficient reasoning with rational underpinnings to support the conclusion that the combined teachings of Mathur and Gluck render obvious the subject matter of claim 8. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 8, or of claims 9, 10, 14, and 15, which depend from claim 8, as unpatentable over Mathur and Gluck. Obviousness—Mathur, Gluck, and Brost (Claim 12) The Examiner’s additional findings and reasoning in rejecting claim 12, which depends from claim 8, do not cure the deficiency in the rejection of claim 8. See Non-Final Act. 14–15. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 12 as unpatentable over Mathur, Gluck, and Brost. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are REVERSED. Appeal 2020-006038 Application 15/190,527 9 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 21–23 102(a)(1) Gluck 1, 2, 21–23 3 103 Gluck, Eilemann 3 4, 5, 7 103 Gluck, Mathur 4, 5, 7 8–10, 14, 15 103 Mathur, Gluck 8–10, 14, 15 12 103 Mathur, Gluck, Brost 12 Overall Outcome 1–5, 7–10, 12, 14, 15, 21–23 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation