13156500 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2016)

Ex Parte Maranville et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 29, 2016

13156500 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2016)

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. 13/156,500 06/09/2011 Clay W. Maranville 83189864 5188 28866 7590 12/01/2016 MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD ONE MARITIME PLAZA - FIFTH FLOOR 720 WATER STREET TOLEDO, OH 43604 EXAMINER TOMPKINS, ALISSA JILL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3749 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/01/2016 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 @ mstfirm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CLAY W. MARANVILLE, CHRISTOPHER M. GREINER, PAUL B. HOKE, MICHAEL E. HESSE, LAKHI GOENKA, and JOHN C. SCHNEIDER Appeal 2014-009796 Application 13/156,5001 Technology Center 3700 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’ decision rejecting claims 1—24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants identify Ford Global Technologies, LLC and Halla Visteon Climate Control Corporation as the real parties-in-interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2014-009796 Application 13/156,500 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1 and 16 are independent, with claims 2—15 and 17—24 depending from claim 1 or 16. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal, and is reproduced below: 1. A heating, ventilating, air conditioning system for providing an airflow in a vehicle having a plurality of seating locations in a passenger cabin for respective passengers of the vehicle, comprising: a plurality of outlet vents providing a shared outlet airflow to be distributed to the plurality of seating locations; a plurality of suction returns disposed at various air return locations adjacent to the seating locations within the vehicle; an air handling unit in fluid communication between the suction returns and the outlet vents; a plurality of flow control elements each in series with at least one respective suction return for selectably modifying a respective flow of the respective suction return in response to a respective flow command so that a corresponding seating location receives a modified portion of the shared outlet airflow; an occupancy determining apparatus for identifying one or more seating locations for receiving enhanced airflow; and a controller for generating the respective flow commands in response to the identified seating locations. REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1—10, 12—19, and 21—24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Inoue (US 5,450,894, iss. Sept. 19, 1995); and 2. Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Inoue and Esaki (US 7,828,050, iss. Nov. 9, 2010). 2 Appeal 2014-009796 Application 13/156,500 OPINION The Examiner finds that the various embodiments of Inoue teach each limitation of claims 1 and 16 and proposes combining those teachings to arrive at the claimed arrangement. Final Act. 3—8. Claims 1 and 16 each require “an air handling unit in fluid communication between the suction returns and the outlet vents” and “a plurality of flow control elements each in series with at least one respective suction return for selectably modifying a respective flow of the respective suction return.” With respect to the “air handling unit,” the Examiner notes that Inoue teaches each seat zone has an air handling unit including a bottom duct, a blower fan, an evaporator and a heater; “Arranged in the bottom duct 62 is a blower fan 74, evaporator 78 and heater 80. The rotation of the fan 74 causes the air to be sucked into the duct 62 via the inlets 60, and is subjected to the heat exchange with the evaporator 78 and the heater 80 to obtain a desired temperature of the air.” Abstract, lines 6—11. Final Act. 4 (emphasis added). Inoue includes 57 embodiments. See, e.g., Inoue, 2:25—6:61. Based on the citation to the Abstract without further explanation, the exact embodiment to which the Examiner refers for this element is unclear. We at least know, however, that it is one that has the blower fan 74, evaporator 78, and heater 80 in bottom duct 62. As best we can tell, the Examiner appears to be referring to the first embodiment for this finding. As for the “flow control elements,” the Examiner cites “the blower fans 74a and 74b” in Inoue’s 56th embodiment (Fig. 142). Id. at 5. The Examiner does not appear to propose modifying any particular embodiment from Inoue to meet the “air handling unit” and “flow control elements” recited in the claims. See id. at 6 (“Inoue’s teachings for its 56th 3 Appeal 2014-009796 Application 13/156,500 embodiment (Figs. 142 & 143). . . includes the features of. . . its 1st embodiment (base embodiment) (Figs. 1—27)”). Rather, the Examiner proposes modifying Inoue’s 56th embodiment to have outlet vents having a shared outlet airflow, citing, for example, Inoue’s 44th embodiment for that teaching. Id. at 6—8. Appellants respond, for example, that “[t]he rejection erroneously uses a single aspect/element of Inoue (blower fan) to allegedly disclose separate, distinct elements of the claims (air handling unit and flow control elements).” App. Br. 5. The Examiner does not address this argument directly, but when discussing Inoue’s 44th embodiment in the Answer, notes: ‘“an air handling unit in fluid communication between the suction returns and the outlet vents’ (Axial flow fan (663).” Ans. 4. The Examiner further notes that “[t]he seat-individualized embodiments of Inoue discuss in detail many advantages for including the recited plurality of flow control elements (see e.g., Inoue, col. 55, lines 5—37, including electromagnetic flow control valves).” Id. at 5. The relevant portions of the Answer do not include any discussion, and do not even reference, blower fans 74, 74a, 74b. See id. 4—5. The 44th embodiment, which the Examiner cites in the Answer for the “air handling unit” limitation, was not cited for this limitation in the Final Action. To the extent the Examiner relies on blower fans 74 in bottom duct 62 as meeting both the “air handling unit” and the “flow control elements” limitations, which is consistent with the Final Action (see Final Act. 4—5), we agree with Appellants that this is improper, as those elements are separately recited in the claims. To the extent the Examiner considers something else from the various embodiments of Inoue as meeting those 4 Appeal 2014-009796 Application 13/156,500 limitations, as evidenced by the citations in the Answer noted above (see Ans. 4—5), it is unclear to us how those portions of Inoue meet the limitations as well. For example, the portion of Inoue cited in the Answer with respect to the “flow control elements” discusses electromagnetic valves 820a, 820b. See Inoue, 55:5—37. Those valves, however, are part of Inoue’s evaporator system, not something that controls airflow. See id. at 54:54—56 (“on the conduits to the evaporators 78a and 78b, flow control electromagnetic valves 820a and 820b, respectively, are arranged”). The rejections of the dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—24. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—24. REVERSED 5