WATLOW ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 10, 2021

2020005045 (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. 15/377,088 12/13/2016 Kevin R. Smith 0100H-000289/US/DVN 5560 110407 7590 03/10/2021 Burris Law, PLLC 300 River Place Drive, Suite 1775 Detroit, MI 48207 EXAMINER RUBY, TRAVIS C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3763 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): docketing@burrisiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte KEVIN R. SMITH, KEVIN PTASIENSKI, RAY ALLEN DERLER, CAL T. SWANSON, PHILIP S. SCHMIDT, MOHAMMAD NOSRATI, JACOB R. LINDLEY, ALLEN N. BOLDT, SANHONG ZHANG, LOUIS P. STEINHAUSER, and DENNIS S. GRIMARD ____________ Appeal 2020-005045 Application 15/377,088 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before DANIEL S. SONG, BRETT C. MARTIN, and MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). A telephonic oral hearing was held February 19, 2021.2 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Watlow Electric Manufacturing Company as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. 2 A transcript of the oral hearing will be entered into the record in due course. Appeal 2020-005045 Application 15/377,088 2 We REVERSE. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 8, and 20 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A thermal system comprising: a base member defining at least one fluid passageway; a two-phase refrigerant fluid comprising hot gas and saturated liquid, wherein the two-phase refrigerant fluid is disposed within the at least one fluid passageway; a controller, wherein the controller controls pressure of the two-phase refrigerant fluid such that the two-phase pressurized refrigerant fluid heats and cools the base member; a tuning heater secured to the base member; and a chuck secured to the tuning heater opposite the base member, wherein the tuning heater comprises a plurality of zones to fine tune a heat distribution provided by the base member to the chuck. EVIDENCE The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Name Reference Date Schaper US 5,802,856 Sept. 8, 1998 Fennewald US 2005/0109767 A1 May 26, 2005 Ricci US 2006/0144516 A1 July 6, 2006 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. Final Act. 2–3. II. Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Schaper. Id. at 4–10. Appeal 2020-005045 Application 15/377,088 3 III. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schaper and Fennewald. Id. at 11–12. IV. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schaper and Ricci. Id. at 12. V. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schaper. Id. at 12–13. OPINION Rejection I Independent claim 1 recites “wherein the controller controls pressure of the two-phase refrigerant fluid such that the two-phase refrigerant fluid heats and cools the base member.” Final Act. 2. Claims 18 and 20 recite similar language regarding the two-phase refrigerant fluid heating and cooling the base member. Id. at 3. The Examiner takes the position that “[i]t is unclear as to how the controller can regulate the pressure to simultaneously heat and cool the base member” and “the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained.” Id. at 2–3. Even if we agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the relevant claim limitation encompasses both of (i) selective or alternate heating and cooling and (ii) simultaneous heating and cooling in “the absence of any other modifiers” (Ans. 15), Appellant has explained that “one skilled in the art would understand the base member can have at least one location or region with a relatively high temperature and at least one other location or region with a relatively low temperature[,] and steam at a set temperature could heat and cool the base at the same time” (Appeal Br. 10). The Examiner responds that “this does not alleviate the Appeal 2020-005045 Application 15/377,088 4 fact that the same spot or area of the base member is required to be both cooled and heated.” Ans. 16. Appellant replies that “[c]laims 1, 18 and 20 do not recite that the same spot or area of the base member is both cooled and heated.” Reply Br. 4 (emphasis omitted). We agree with Appellant that the claims do not require the same spot or area of the base member, in particular, to be simultaneously heated and cooled. Thus, Appellant’s explanation as to how different locations or regions on a base member may have different relative temperatures so as to allow steam at a set temperature to “heat and cool the base member at the same time” (Appeal Br. 10) is sufficient to explain how simultaneous heating and cooling of the base member can occur. In light of Appellant’s explanation, we do not agree with the Examiner that the claim is unclear as to how the controller can regulate the pressure to simultaneously heat and cool the base member, and consequently, we do not agree with the Examiner that the claims are indefinite. “[A] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.” In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2014). (citing MPEP § 2173.05(e)); see also Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-006416, 2017 WL 3669566, at *5 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential) (adopting the approach for assessing indefiniteness approved by the Federal Circuit in Packard). We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 18, and 20, and claims 2–17 and 19 which depend therefrom, as indefinite. Rejection II The Examiner finds that Schaper discloses all of the limitations of independent claims 1, 18, and 20, including, among other things, “a two- phase refrigerant fluid (44) comprising hot gas and saturated liquid” Appeal 2020-005045 Application 15/377,088 5 disposed within a fluid passageway of a base member. Final Act. 4 (citing Schaper 4:22–32, 55–67, Figs. 3–6). More particularly, the Examiner finds that Schaper “teaches a variety of fluid that can be liquid or gas, as well as using pressurized steam, wherein steam is a two-phase fluid.” Id. (citing Schaper 7:6–18). The Examiner states that “[a]s is well understood in the art, steam is a mixture of water droplets and vapor” and “[t]he water droplets constitute a first phase and vapor constitutes a second phase.” Id. at 13. As to the claimed controller that “controls pressure of the two-phase refrigerant fluid such that the two-phase pressurized refrigerant fluid heats and cools the base member (Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.)), the Examiner finds that Schaper discloses such a “controller that can regulate the fluid to achieve heating or cooling of the base member.” Final Act. 4–5 (citing Schaper Figs. 3–6, 13; 4:22–32, 55–67; 7:6–18; 9:36–46). The Examiner states that “in order to create pressurized steam, the pressure of the steam is clearly controlled” and “[i]f the pressure of the steam was not controlled, then the two-phase pressurized steam would not achieve proper pressurization for heat transfer and would either over-condense or over- evaporate.” Id. at 13. Thus, the Examiner takes the position that “in order to achieve proper heat transfer through the device, the pressure of the two- phase fluid of pressurized steam is controlled to control the temperature of the fluid.” Id. The Examiner further outlines the Examiner’s position in the Answer, stating that “[a]ny controller that can generate a pressurized fluid would . . . read on th[e] limitation” of controlling the two-phased pressurized refrigerant fluid. Ans. 17. According to the Examiner, this is because the “claims fail to recite how the pressurized refrigerant is generated as well as Appeal 2020-005045 Application 15/377,088 6 how the pressurized refrigerant is specifically controlled,” and there is no recitation of, for example, “a pressure sensor to actively monitor the pressure to regulate the control aspect of the invention.” Id. at 17–18. Appellant argues that “Schaper discloses a controller that controls the temperature and flow of fluids, not the pressure of the fluids.” Appeal Br. 12–13 (emphasis omitted); Reply Br. 6 (emphasis omitted). Appellant explains that “Schaper has multiple fluid supplies at different temperature setpoints and controls the amount of fluid provided by each of the fluid supplies to control the temperature of the substrate,” rather than disclosing “controlling the pressure of fluid or a two-phase fluid to control the temperature of the substrate.” Appeal Br. 13. Appellant further asserts that “it is not inherent that the controller 54 in Schaper has any control of the pressure of the ‘pressurized steam’ since the controller 54 is primarily described as controlling fluid flow from different fluid supplies to ultimately control substrate temperature.” Id. at 13–14 (emphasis omitted). Appellant additionally asserts that “Schaper fails to disclose how the pressurized steam is generated and whether or not the pressure of the pressurized steam is controlled, much less controlled by the controller 54 to control the temperature of the substrate.” Id. at 13. We give claim terms “their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” and “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). According to the Federal Circuit: 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 Appeal 2020-005045 Application 15/377,088 7 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 specification, i.e., an interpretation that is “consistent with the specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also In re Suitco Surface, 603 F.3d 1255, 1259-60 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Specification describes that in heater systems including a two- phase refrigerant fluid, “[t]he condensed liquid [of the refrigerant fluid] is expanded to a vaporous mix, and the gaseous refrigerant is added to reach a target temperature determined by its pressure,” and that “[t]emperature corrections can thus be made very rapidly by gas pressure adjustments.” Spec. ¶ 54. Claim 1 recites a “controller that controls pressure of the two- phase refrigerant fluid such that the two-phase pressurized refrigerant fluid heats and cools the base member.” Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). Claim 18 recites that “pressure of the hot gas and the saturated liquid from the refrigerant fluid disposed in the plurality of fluid passageways is controlled by a controller such that the two-phase pressurized refrigerant fluid provides heating and cooling to the base member.” Id. at 22 (Claims App.). Claim 20 recites “flow of the hot gas and the saturated liquid from the refrigerant fluid through the at least one fluid passageway is controlled by a controller such that a pressure of the two-phase pressurized refrigerant fluid is controlled and heating and cooling to the base member is provided.” Id. at 23 (Claims App.). In light of the Specification, one ordinary skill in the art would understand that it is the control or regulation of the pressure of the two-phase refrigerant fluid to a particular specification that has the purpose or result of providing the desired heating and cooling effects. In other words, there is a Appeal 2020-005045 Application 15/377,088 8 direct link between the regulation of the pressure of the two-phase refrigerant fluid and the resulting desired heating and cooling. Schaper discloses a controller that regulates fluid flow (via valves) of a fluid that may be “pressurized steam” (see, e.g., Schaper 7:10, 19–65). Merely because the fluid may be “pressurized steam” does not explain adequately how Schaper’s controller regulates pressure of the pressurized steam to particular specifications in order to attain the result of providing desired heating and cooling. That is, it is not the regulation of pressure in Schaper that results in providing desired heating and cooling; instead it is the regulation of the flow of fluids of various temperatures that controls fluid temperature, which in turn, provides desired heating and cooling. Moreover, merely because Schaper contemplates “pressurized steam” as a possible fluid to be used in its heat exchanger does not explain adequately how Schaper explicitly or inherently discloses control or regulation of the pressure of the pressurized steam by the Examiner-identified controller that regulates fluid flow, considering that Schaper is silent as to how the pressurized steam is generated and/or maintained. See Appeal Br. 13–14. For the foregoing reasons, Appellant apprises us of error in the Examiner’s finding that Schaper discloses all of the limitations of independent claims 1, 18, and 20. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 18, and 20, and claims 3, 5, 7–17, and 19 depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Schaper. Rejections III–V The Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 4, and 6 rely on the Examiner’s erroneous finding that Schaper discloses a controller that controls pressure of a two-phase refrigerant fluid such that it heats and cools Appeal 2020-005045 Application 15/377,088 9 a base member of a thermal system. Final Act. 11–13. Accordingly, we do not sustain, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the rejections of: claim 2 as unpatentable over Schaper and Fennewald; claim 4 as unpatentable over Schaper and Ricci; and claim 6 as unpatentable over Schaper. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–20 112 Indefiniteness 1–20 1, 3, 5, 7–20 102(b) Schaper 1, 3, 5, 7–20 2 103(a) Schaper, Fennewald 2 4 103(a) Schaper, Ricci 4 6 103(a) Schaper 6 Overall Outcome 1–20 REVERSED