DAIMLER AG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 26, 2022

2021004033 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2022)

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. 16/098,590 11/02/2018 Daniel BETZ 0509-044 9729 113648 7590 01/26/2022 Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC 754 Warrenton Road Suite 113-314 Fredericksburg, VA 22406 EXAMINER AN, IG TAI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3662 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/26/2022 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): Mailroom@ppblaw.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DANIEL BETZ, FLORIAN ETTER, DANIEL FUHRMANN, and DANIEL STEFFEN SETZ Appeal 2021-004033 Application 16/098,590 Technology Center 3600 Before BRETT C. MARTIN, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 11-14 and 16-24. Claims 1-10 and 15 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a colored lighting feedback for a temperature setting of an air-conditioning device in a motor vehicle. See 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as DAIMLER AG. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-004033 Application 16/098,590 2 Spec. ¶¶ 1, 8. Claims 11 and 20 are independent claims. Claim 11, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 11. A method for feedback of a temperature setting of an air-conditioning device, which has a plurality of airflow zones, in a motor vehicle, the method comprising: determining which of the plurality of airflow zones is an active airflow zone, wherein the motor vehicle includes a plurality of lighting elements, each of the plurality of lighting elements is assigned to one of the plurality of airflow zones, wherein the airflow zones are subzones of zones of the air- conditioning device, wherein a temperature can be set individually and independently for each of the zones of the air- conditioning device, and wherein additional lighting elements are respectively assigned to each of the zones of the air- conditioning device; determining a temperature set for each of the active airflow zones; and adjusting a light color of each lighting element assigned to each of the active airflow zones and of each additional lighting element assigned to the zones of the air-conditioning device to a light color corresponding to the temperature set for the active airflow zone assigned to the lighting element and to the temperature set for the zones of the air-conditioning device assigned to the additional lighting element, respectively. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App). REJECTIONS 1. Claims 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Anderson (US 2007/0046452 A1, published Mar. 1, 2007). 2. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson and Fraser (US 2017/0102163 A1, published Apr. 13, 2017). Appeal 2021-004033 Application 16/098,590 3 3. Claims 18 and 21-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson and Audi (DE 102006030300, published June 21, 2020). ANALYSIS A. Rejection 1-Anticipation by Anderson Independent claims 11 and 20 each recite the limitation that the light color for each lighting element of an active airflow zone be adjusted “to a light color corresponding to the temperature set for the active airflow zone assigned to the lighting element.” Appeal Br. 15, 17 (emphasis added). The Examiner asserts that paragraphs 9 and 24 of Anderson teach that particular claim limitation. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 4, 9. We disagree. As Appellant correctly notes, Anderson expressly discloses adjusting the color of the lighting elements “based on the sensed temperature of the air emitted from the [air-conditioning] vents, whereas claims 11 and 20 recite that the color is adjusted based on the set temperature.” See Appeal Br. 6; see also id. at 11-12. More specifically, paragraph 9 of Anderson discloses using the “temperature of the air” and the “air temperature” for adjusting the color of the light associated with each vent. Indeed, Anderson makes clear throughout its disclosure that a detector senses the temperature of air delivered to the vent and the color of the generated light automatically changes “in response to the sensed temperature of the air.” Anderson ¶¶ 6, 7; see also id. ¶¶ 8, 16-17 (disclosing same). And paragraph 24, also relied on by the Examiner, simply discloses that the driver and passenger can select different modes, such as a floor vent or a dash vent, and the light associated with such a vent can be separately illuminated. None of those disclosures supports the Examiner’s assertion that the light color is controlled by the Appeal 2021-004033 Application 16/098,590 4 temperature set for a particular vent or zone as claimed. As such, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 11 and 20 as anticipated by Anderson.2 Claims 12, 14, 16, 17, and 19 depend from claim 11, and, thus, for the same reasons as claim 11, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of those dependent claims. B. Rejections 2 and 3-Obvious Over Anderson and Fraser or Audi Claims 13 and 18 depend from independent claim 11, and claims 21- 24 depend from independent claim 20. The Examiner rejects those dependent claims as obvious over Anderson along with the addition of either Fraser or Audi. Final Act. 6-8. However, the Examiner does not cure the above-discussed deficiency with Anderson in rendering this obviousness rejection. See id. Thus, for the same reason as the independent claims, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 13, 18, and 21- 24. 2 Our decision reversing the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of these claims should in no way be construed as an indication that the subject matter of these claims is patentable. As the Board’s function is primarily one of review, we make no determination as to whether one of the other prior art references of record (see, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 4-6), which appear to disclose that the light color within a motor vehicle may be controlled as a function of a selected temperature, might alone or in combination with Anderson, render claims 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 unpatentable. Appeal 2021-004033 Application 16/098,590 5 CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20 102(a)(1) Anderson 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20 13 103 Anderson, Fraser 13 18, 21-24 103 Anderson, Audi 18, 21-24 Overall Outcome 11-14, 16- 24 REVERSED