Ex Parte Downing

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 19, 2018

14541867 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/541,867
61654 7590
Locke Lord LLP
P.O. BOX 55874
BOSTON, MA 02205
11/14/2014
11/21/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert S. Downing
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1510801.315US 1 1015
EXAMINER
RUPPERT, ERIC S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/21/2018 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
swofsy@lockelord.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERTS. DOWNING
Appeal 2018-005175
Application 14/541,867
Technology Center 3700
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5-9. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
According to Appellant, the invention "relates to heat exchangers,
[and,] more specifically[,] to condensers for condensing fluids in their vapor
1 According to Appellant, "[t]he real party in interest is HAMILTON
SUNDSTRAND CORPORATION." Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-005175
Application 14/541,867
state." Spec. 1, 11. 4--5. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal.
Below, we reproduce claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed claims.
1. A plate condenser, including:
a plate body defining an interior channel including,
an fluid inlet;
a first interior channel section having a first cross-
sectional area in fluid communication with the inlet;
a second interior channel section downstream of the first
interior channel section, wherein the second interior channel
section has a second cross-sectional area that is smaller than the
first cross-sectional area; and
a fluid outlet in fluid communication with the second
interior channel, wherein the second interior channel is tapered
in cross-sectional area.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 1, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as anticipated
by Nguyen (US 5,129,449, iss. July 14, 1992);
II. Claims 1 and 5-9 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as anticipated by
Manohar et al. (US 2011/0174291 Al, pub. July 21, 2011)
("Manohar"); and
III. Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Manohar
and Vallee et al. (US 2014/0246179 Al, pub. Sept. 4, 2014)
("Vallee").
2
Appeal 2018-005175
Application 14/541,867
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
For the reasons set forth below, we sustain rejections of all of the
claims----claims 1, 2, and 5-9-as anticipated by Manohar, and unpatentable
over Manohar and Vallee. Thus, we do not reach the anticipation rejection
of claims 1, 5, and 6 based on Nguyen.
Re} ection II
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 1 and 5-9
as anticipated by Manohar because "Manohar simply does not disclose a
plate condenser." Br. 8; see also id. 8-9. Based on our review of the record,
including the Examiner's Final Office Action and Answer, and Appellant's
Appeal Brief, Appellant does not persuade us of error. Thus, we sustain the
rejection.
Claim 1 's preamble is the only place where the claim recites a "plate
condenser." See Br., Claims App. (Claim 1 ). Although we have fully
considered Appellant's argument (see Br. 8-9), Appellant does not persuade
us that the Examiner errs in finding that the preamble is an intended use (see
Answer 7). Further, Appellants do not argue that Manohar fails to disclose
anything in claim 1 's body, including the plate body, inlet, channels, or
outlet, as claimed. Therefore, inasmuch as Appellant does not persuade us
of error, we sustain the Examiner's rejection.
Re} ection III
Appellant argues that the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
dependent claim 2, based on Manohar and Vallee, is in error for the same
3
Appeal 2018-005175
Application 14/541,867
reasons that claim 1 's anticipation rejection, based on Manohar, is in error.
Thus, inasmuch as we sustain claim 1 's rejection, we sustain the rejection of
claim 2.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 5-9 as
anticipated by Manohar.
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claim 2 as obvious based on
Manohar and Vallee.
AFFIRMED
4