Ex Parte Hoke et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2018

13886490 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/886,490 05/03/2013
28395 7590 09/19/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Paul Bryan Hoke
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.
83257349 3951
EXAMINER
SHIRSAT, VIVEK K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2018 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL BRYAN HOKE
and CLAY WESLEY MARANVILLE 1
Appeal2018-000288
Application 13/886,490
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Office Action
finally rejecting claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-24. Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Ford Global Technologies, LLC is identified as the real party in interest
(Appeal Br. 1) and also is the applicant pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.46.
Appeal2018-000288
Application 13/886,490
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 8, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method, comprising:
when cooling based on cabin temperature exceeding a
cabin temperature set-point, identifying an airflow biasing
between a panel vent and a floor vent having a position settable
from positions including a closed position and a plurality of
open positions based on the cabin temperature and a plurality of
set-point offsets to the cabin temperature set-point; and
setting the position to adjust the airflow biasing between
the panel vent and the floor vent.
Appeal Br. A-1 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-11, 13, 16-18, 20, and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Umebayashi (US 7,210,523 B2; iss. May 1, 2007),
Weissbrich (US 5,238,447; iss. Aug. 24, 1993), and Ito (US 4,852,798; iss.
Aug. 1, 1989). Final Act. 4--13.
Claims 3, 12, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Umebayashi, Weissbrich, Ito, and Ripoll (US 2010/02121880 Al; pub. Aug.
26, 2010). Id. at 14--15.
Claims 5, 14, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Umebayashi, Weissbrich, Ito, and Prokhorov (US 8,145,383 B2; iss. Mar.
27, 2012). Id. at 15-17.
2
Appeal2018-000288
Application 13/886,490
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-11, 13, 16-18, 20, and 22-24
Over Umebayashi, Weissbrich, and Ito
Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 4, 7-11, 13, 16-18, 20, and 22-24 as a
group. Appeal Br. 6-9. We select claim 1 as representative, with all other
claims standing or falling therewith. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Umebayashi teaches a method of claim 1 by
adjusting airflow between panel and floor vents, but lacks cooling based on
the cabin temperature exceeding a set-point and setting the floor vent at
different positions. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Weissbrich cools
a vehicle cabin when the temperature exceeds a set point. Id. The Examiner
determines it would have been obvious to modify Umebayashi to initiate air
conditioning when cabin temperature exceeds a set point temperature, as
taught by Weissbrich, to conserve energy and minimize A/C wear. Id.
The Examiner relies on Ito to teach biasing an instrument vent and a
floor vent steplessly between open and closed positions in a "bi-level" mode
to ensure the temperature of air blown toward a passenger's feet does not go
below a threshold value to maximize comfort. Id. The Examiner determines
it would have been obvious to modify Umebayashi to regulate a foot vent in
this way to ensure the temperature of air blown towards a passenger's feet
does not go below a threshold to maximize passenger comfort. Id. at 5.
Appellants argue that W eissbrich cools a vehicle by allowing air to
exit through a roof vent and bears no relation to biasing airflow between a
panel and a floor vent. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 2. Appellant also argues
that W eissbrich does not cool based on the cabin temperature exceeding a
set-point. Appeal Br. 7.
3
Appeal2018-000288
Application 13/886,490
These arguments are not persuasive because the Examiner relies on
Umebayashi to teach a vehicle air conditioner with airflow biasing between
panel vents and floor vents based on a cabin set-point temperature and plural
offsets thereto. Final Act. 4. The Examiner relies on Weissbrich to teach a
vehicle air conditioner that begins cooling when a cabin temperature exceeds
a set point temperature by opening a cabin vent in the roof. Id.; Ans. 16-17.
Appellants' arguments do not address these findings of the Examiner as to
Umebayashi or the Examiner's reason for combining the teachings of these
references to conserve energy and minimize A/C wear. See Final Act. 4.
We agree with the Examiner that Umebayashi biases airflow between
panel and floor vents via port switching doors 16, 17. Umebayashi, 4:21-
40. Blowout port switching doors 16-19 are rotatably driven by actuators
41--44 and servomotors to separately control the volume of blowout air sent
from each blowout port 12-15 (and vent). Id. at 4:55---62. Air conditioner
150 can change blowout port modes from FACE mode, to FOOT mode, to a
bi-level mode that biases conditioned air flow between PANEL and FACE
ports 12, 13. Id. at 4:63---67, Figs. 1, 2A. Figure 5 illustrates how the air
volume rate is balanced between foot vents and face vents in a bi-level mode
depending on the desired target temperature. Id. at 5:57---64.
The Examiner relies on Weissbrich only to teach the start of a cooling
routine when cabin temperature exceeds a set point temperature as claimed.
Final Act. 4. Weissbrich teaches a process for cooling an interior of a motor
vehicle by opening a roof vent. Weissbrich, 1: 7-11. The Examiner reasons
that this control routine would have been obvious to include on Umebayashi
"to conserve energy and minimize A/C wear." Final Act. 4. Appellants do
not apprise us of Examiner error in these findings or obviousness rationale.
4
Appeal2018-000288
Application 13/886,490
Appellants acknowledge that W eissbrich "relates to a process for
cooling an interior of a motor vehicle with a roof part that can be opened,
and which is movable by an electric motor into at least two positions ... to
varying degrees." Appeal Br. 6 (quoting Weissbrich, 1:7-12); Reply Br. 2.
Weissbrich is directed to cooling a vehicle interior when cabin temperature
exceeds a set-point temperature, as claimed. Weissbrich does so via airflow
biasing through a roof vent as Appellants also recognize. Appeal Br. 7.
Umebayashi already balances or biases air flow of an air conditioner
between panel and floor vents, as claimed, and as discussed above. The
Examiner relies on W eissbrich, which also teaches a vehicle cooling system
(Weissbrich, 1:7-11), to teach cooling based on cabin temperature exceeding
a set-point as claimed. Final Act. 4. Indeed, Weissbrich involves air flow
biasing by moving a roof vent between different positions to cool a vehicle
interior as Appellants recognize. The Examiner is not proposing to change
the balancing taught by Umebayashi in view of Weissbrich. The Examiner
modifies Umebayashi only to initiate Umebayashi's cooling process, which
already includes automatic biasing when the cabin temperature exceeds a
set-point as claimed. Ans. 16-17. Appellants are attacking the references
individually or piecemeal rather than dealing with the combined teachings as
the Examiner has done. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981)).
The Examiner reasonably concludes that a skilled artisan aware of
Weissbrich's teaching of automatic initiation of a vehicle cooling system
would employ those teachings to improve Umebayashi similarly. See KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007) (skilled artisan would
recognize that a technique would improve similar devices in the same way).
5
Appeal2018-000288
Application 13/886,490
Appellants argue that Ito does not disclose "cooling based on cabin
temperature exceeding a cabin temperature set-point" or "a plurality of set-
point offsets to the cabin temperature set-point" as claimed. Appeal Br. 8.
Appellants also argue that Ito does not teach identifying an airflow biasing
between a panel vent and a floor vent settable positions based on the cabin
temperature and plural set-point offsets as claimed. Id.; Reply Br. 2-3.
These arguments are not persuasive because the Examiner relies on
Weissbrich, not Ito, to teach cooling when cabin temperature exceeds a set-
point and Umebayashi, not Ito, to teach adjusting airflow biasing between a
panel vent and a floor vent based on a plurality of set-point offsets. Final
Act. 4; Ans. 16-17. Appellants' arguments do not address the Examiner's
findings in this regard and therefore do not apprise us of Examiner error.
Umebayashi biases airflow between panel and floor vents based on
set-point temperature (TSET) and offsets (KSET, KR, KAM, KS gains or
TS, TAM) as the Examiner finds. See Umebayashi, 5:33---60, Fig. 3; Final
Act. 4. Appellants' arguments do not apprise of Examiner error in these
findings. See Appeal Br. 6-8. The Examiner relies on Ito to teach stepless
settings of a floor vent between closed and plural open settings to improve
passenger comfort as Ito teaches. Ito, 3 :20-4: 1 O; Final Act. 4 ( citing id.);
Ans. 17. The Examiner proposes to modify Umebayashi with this teaching
to improve passenger comfort in the same way, as taught by Ito, where
Umebayashi also biases air flow among several vents, including panel and
floor vents, and controls openings of individual vents for similar reasons.
See Ito, 1:13-15, 4:55---67; Fig. 1; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Thus, we
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7-11, 13, 16-18, 20, and 22-24.
6
Appeal2018-000288
Application 13/886,490
Claims 3, 12, and 19
Over Umebayashi, Weissbrich, Ito, and Ripoll
Appellants argue the patentability of claims 3, 12, and 19 based on
their dependency from their respective independent claim. Appeal Br. 9.
This argument is not persuasive because we sustain the rejection of claims 1,
8, and 17 from which these claims depend respectively. Thus, we also
sustain the rejection of claims 3, 12, and 19.
Claims 5, 14, and 21
Over Umebayashi, Weissbrich, Ito, and Prokhorov
Appellants argue the patentability of claims 5, 14, and 21 based on
their dependency from their respective independent claim. Appeal Br. 9--10.
This argument is not persuasive because we sustain the rejection of claims 1,
8, and 17 from which these claims depend respectively. Thus, we also
sustain the rejection of claims 5, 14, and 21.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-24.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7