Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 5, 2013

11564485 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2013)

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.
11/564,485 11/29/2006 Elaine Y. Chen 81144174 2608
28395 7590 08/05/2013
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
RUBY, TRAVIS C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/05/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ELAINE Y. CHEN, WILLIAM TREHARNE,
WAYNE BUESCHER, and THOMAS FOX
____________________

Appeal 2011-004171
Application 11/564,485
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-004171
Application 11/564,485

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-18.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The rejected claims are directed to a system as well as a method for
controlling an engine configured to drive a compressor of a vehicle air
conditioning system. Claims 1 and 10 are independent.
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the invention.
1. A system for controlling an engine
configured to drive a compressor of a vehicle air
conditioning system, the system comprising:
a control system arrangement configured to
receive a desired temperature selection, receive a
comfort-level selection, detect a vehicle interior
condition, detect a vehicle exterior condition,
determine a threshold condition based on the
desired temperature, the comfort-level, and the
exterior condition, and request the engine to run if
the interior condition exceeds the threshold
condition.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:

1 Our decision will refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed
November 29, 2006), Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed April 8, 2010), and
Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed October 22, 2010), as well as the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 24, 2010).

Appeal 2011-004171
Application 11/564,485

3
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Kawai (US 6,073,456, iss. Jun. 13, 2000).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations
a control system arrangement configured to
receive a desired temperature selection, receive a
comfort-level selection, detect a vehicle interior
condition, detect a vehicle exterior condition,
determine a threshold condition based on the
desired temperature, the comfort-level, and the
exterior condition, and request the engine to run if
the interior condition exceeds the threshold
condition.
The Examiner states that Kawai’s compartment temperature (Tr sensed by
in-temp sensor 71) teaches the claim limitation of “a vehicle interior
condition” (Ans. 3), and that Kawai’s temperature at an immediate
downstream location of an evaporator (Te sensed by Te sensor 74) teaches
the claim limitation of “a threshold condition,” and cites column 7, lines 43-
52 of Kawai as supporting these assertions (Ans. 4, 8). However, the cited
portions of Kawai do not disclose comparing Tr and Te, as required by
independent claim 1. Instead, Kawai discloses that Tr is compared to a
desired temperature Tset to determine if that difference is smaller than or
equal to 5 degrees Celsius (col. 7, ll. 42-46). Depending on that outcome of
that comparison, a separate comparison is made between Te and certain turn-
on/turn-off temperatures (col. 7, ll. 46-59). Thus, this is different than the
limitations of claim 1, which require that the engine is requested to run when
i) the compartment temperature Tr itself (i.e., the recited “interior
condition”) exceeds ii) the temperature downstream of the evaporator Te
Appeal 2011-004171
Application 11/564,485

4
(i.e., the recited “threshold condition”). The Examiner further asserts that
“(Te) can be determined based on the target temperature (Tao) (Column 12
lines 24-31) which is the desired temperature (Tset), the compartment
temperature (Tr), and atmospheric temperature (Tam) (Column 6 lines 20-
33)” (Ans. 8). However, we are unable to locate any reference to Te in the
portions of columns 6 and 12 cited by the Examiner. For these reasons, we
do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claims 2-9 depend from independent claim 1, and thus, we also do not
sustain the rejection of these claims.
Similar to independent claim 1, independent claim 10 recites
“requesting the engine to run if the interior condition exceeds the threshold
condition.” Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim
10 for reasons similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 11-18 depend from independent claim 10, and thus we do not
sustain the rejection of these dependent claims.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-18 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

mls