Ex Parte Wippler

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 15, 2019

13557928 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/557,928 07/25/2012
96411 7590 03/15/2019
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900
Cincinnati, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Erik A. Wippler
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.
22562-1083/2011-369 1560
EXAMINER
CRENSHAW, HENRY T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2019 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 ERIC A. WIPPLER
Appeal2018-003404
Application 13/557,928
Technology Center 3700
Before LISA M. GUIJT, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 8, 10-12, and 19--34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dage (US 2006/0225450 Al; published Oct. 12, 2006),
Yamine (US 4,071,336; issued Jan. 21, 1978), Roselli (US 4,032,745; issued
1 Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc.
("Appellant''), the applicant as provided for under 37 C.F.R. § 1.46, is also
identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-003404
Application 13/557,928
June 28, 1977), and Nadamoto (US 4,614,087; issued Sept. 30, 1986).2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 8, 25, and 32 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 8,
reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized for emphasis, is
exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
8. A method of operating a climate control system of an
automotive vehicle, the method comprising the steps of:
determining if the climate control system is in a defrost
mode; and
when the climate control system is in the defrost mode:
providing a flow of warmed air specifically directed
toward a window of the automotive vehicle;
measuring the humidity of air in the vicinity of the
window at a first location and at a second location;
determining a threshold humidity value based on an
ambient condition of the automotive vehicle or based on
an average condition of the automotive vehicle;
comparing the measured humidity with the
threshold humidity value;
determining if a compressor coupled to a condenser
provided as part of an air conditioning subsystem is
operating; and
if the compressor is operating, turning OFF the
compressor when the measured humidity is less than the
threshold humidity value.
2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated February 15, 2017.
2
Appeal2018-003404
Application 13/557,928
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 8 and dependent claims 10-12 and 19--243
Appellant argues claims 8, 10-12, and 19--24, as a group. Appeal Br.
11-34; Reply Br. 2-7. We select claim 8 as representative, and claims 10-
12, and 19--24 stand or fall with claim 8. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding independent claim 8, the Examiner finds that Dage teaches,
inter alia, a method of operating a climate control system, including the
steps of measuring the humidity of air in the vicinity of the window and
comparing the measured humidity with a threshold humidity value. Final
Act. 2-3 (citing Dage ,r 27, Fig. 5 (block 164 (disclosing that"% R.H.<
Table")). The Examiner determines that "Dage's use of 'relative humidity"'
(which is measured by "relative humidity(% R.H.) input 53" (Dage ,r 42))
"refer[s] to properties pertaining to the water content of air." Ans. 5.
The Examiner determines that Dage fails to disclose measuring
humidity at two locations, as claimed, and relies on Roselli for teaching "the
use of two humidity detectors at different locations on a window" (i.e.,
3 Appellant argues that the Examiner failed to "specifically reject claims 10
[and] 11." Appeal Br. 36; Reply Br. 6-7 (arguing, with reference to the
heading on page 2 of the Final Office Action, that "the heading does not
mention claim 10 or claim 11" and also that although the Examiner
addresses claim 10 and 11 on pages 4 and 5 of the Final Office Action, the
Examiner "does not use the word 'reject' as required by MPEP §
707 .07 ( d)"). We determine that the omission of claims 10 and 11 from the
statement of the rejection on page 2 of the Final Office Action is an apparent
typographical (and harmless) error in view of the Examiner's provision of a
separate and specific basis for the rejection of claims 10 and 11 on pages 4
and 5 of the Final Office Action and notwithstanding omission of the word
"rejected." Appellant does not argue that the Examiner's findings or
reasoning as stated on pages 4 and 5 of the Final Office Action are in error.
See Appeal Br. 36.
3
Appeal2018-003404
Application 13/557,928
humidity detectors Ha, Hb ). Ans. 7; see also Final Act. 3 ( citing Roselli,
Abstract, Fig. 1 ). The Examiner also determines that Dage fails to disclose
determining a threshold humidity value based on an ambient or average
condition of the automotive vehicle, as claimed, and relies on Nadamoto for
teaching "the relationship between temperature and pressure which
determines the saturation point of humidity in the air." Id. (citing
Nadamoto, Fig. 4). In particular, the Examiner relies on Figure 4 of
Nadamoto "to show the fundamental principle that the phase changes of a
fluid in the saturated state (i.e., liquid to vapor and vice versa) are dependent
upon both the temperature and pressure in the local environment" and, thus,
"both must be determined in order to determine the threshold relative
humidity at which water will condense out of air." Ans. 11.
The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to modify
Dage, in view ofYamine, Rosselli, and Nadamoto,
to provide defogging [in the] cabin depending upon the user[']s
preferences, ... and to sense a more complete picture of the Dage
window by using a plurality of sensors to take advantage of the
plurality of sensors by treating a positive result at either one of
them as [a] triggering event, so as to ensure visibility for the
driver across the entire window, and to perform all the foregoing
based on ambient conditions of the vehicle such as pressure and
temperature.
Final Act. 4.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Dage
discloses measuring the humidity of air in the vicinity of the window, as
claimed. Appeal Br. 25. In particular, Appellant asserts that block 164 of
Dage's Figure 5, which discloses"% R.H.< Table," does not disclose
4
Appeal2018-003404
Application 13/557,928
measuring the humidity of air, but rather, "merely describes a relative
humidity input." Appeal Br. 25.
Dage provides its own definition with respect to "% R. H." by
disclosing that "[ v ]ehicle cabin relative humidity input 53 is generated by a
humidity sensor inside the vehicle cabin," and more specifically, that "[the]
humidity sensor senses the humidity inside the vehicle cabin relative to the
outside vehicle environment to generate the vehicle cabin relative humidity
input(% R.H.)." Dage i132 (emphasis added); cf WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW
INT'L DICTIONARY 66 (1993) ( defining "relative humidity" as "the ratio of
absolute humidity to the maximum possible density of water vapor in the air
at the same temperature"). Thus, a preponderance of evidence supports the
Examiner's finding that Dage discloses to one skilled in the art using a
humidity sensor to measure the humidity of the air inside the vehicle cabin
relative to the air outside the vehicle.
Regarding Dage' s [ v ]ehicle window humidity sensor input 51, which
is a separate sensor input from vehicle cabin relative humidity input 53
discussed supra, Appellant argues that although Dage discloses that the
input 51 is generated by a humidity sensor associated with a vehicle window,
the humidity sensor is operable to sense the dewpoint of the interior surface
of the vehicle window indicative of the probability of the vehicle window
fogging, such that "there is no evidence" that the humidity sensor providing
input to vehicle window humidity sensor input 51 "could be used to
determine the humidity of air as part of an estimate of the likelihood of
causing fogging." Appeal Br. 26; Dage ,r 32; see also Reply Br. 5
( acknowledging that "Dage discloses measuring a vehicle window using the
humidity sensors that are associated with the window").
5
Appeal2018-003404
Application 13/557,928
Paragraph 32 of Dage, which is relied on by the Examiner and
Appellant, discloses that
[ v ]ehicle window humidity sensor input 51 is generated by a
humidity sensor associated with a vehicle window. This
humidity sensor is operable to sense the dewpoint of the interior
surface of the vehicle window. The dewpoint is indicative of the
probability of vehicle window fogging. Vehicle cabin relative
humidity input 53 is generated by a humidity sensor inside the
vehicle cabin. This humidity sensor senses the humidity inside
the vehicle cabin relative to the outside vehicle environment to
generate the vehicle cabin relative humidity input(% R.H.). The
two sensors may be incorporated as a single sensor operable to
provide the two sensor inputs 51, 53.
Dage ,r 32 ( emphasis added). Thus, a preponderance of evidence supports
the Examiner's finding that the humidity sensor of vehicle cabin relative
humidity input 53 is in the vicinity of the window ( or associated with the
window), as claimed, when sensor inputs 51, 53 are incorporated into a
single sensor, because the function of vehicle window humidity sensor input
51 is to measure humidity with respect to the window, and therefore, the
combined sensor must also be in the vicinity of the window. 4 In other
words, to perform their respective functions, the humidity sensor of the
4 Appellant argues that "the objective evidence of Dage ... indicates that
the humidity sensors are measuring an amount of moisture on the surface of
the vehicle window which is then used to determine the probability of
vehicle window fogging." Appeal Br. 26 ( emphasis added). We disagree
for the reasons stated with respect to the combined sensor embodiment of
Dage. Further, Aoki discloses that "dew-point temperature of the glass
surface 12a may be calculated based on the glass temperature detected by
the glass temperature sensor 23 ... and the temperature and relative
humidity of air on a periphery thereof." Aoki 17: 64--18: 1 ( emphasis added).
Aoki (US 7,900,464; issued 7,900,464) is listed in the Information
Disclosure Statement submitted by Appellant on July 25, 2012.
6
Appeal2018-003404
Application 13/557,928
single sensor embodiment must measure the humidity of air that is also
associated with the window, and thus, a preponderance of evidence supports
the Examiner's finding that Dage discloses the step of measuring the
humidity of air in the vicinity of a vehicle window, as claimed.
Regarding Appellant's additional arguments that none of Roselli,
Y amine, or N adamoto cure the deficiency in the Examiner's reliance on
Dage for disclosing the step of measuring the humidity of air in the vicinity
of a vehicle window, we do not agree that the Examiner's reliance on Dage is
deficient for the reasons stated supra. Appeal Br. 27-29, 30, 31; Reply Br.
2--4.
Regarding Appellant's argument that Dage does not disclose
measuring the humidity of air in the vicinity of the window at a first
location and at a second location, as claimed, the Examiner relies on
Roselli, not Dage, as set forth supra, for disclosing that the humidity may be
measured at first and second locations in the vicinity of the window. Appeal
Br. 26-27; Reply Br. 4---6. Therefore, Appellant's argument does not apprise
us of error in the Examiner's findings.
Appellant also argues that combining Roselli' s "window heating grid"
with Dage' s "HV AC system that blows air onto the same window" changes
the principal of operation of Dage, because "the heating grid would heat the
window, thereby causing the window to defog" and therefore, the similar
function of Dage's defogging system "would be unnecessary." Appeal Br.
29-30; see Reply Br. 2--4. In addition, Appellant submits that "placement of
a heating grid on windows such as the front side windows and the
windshield would necessarily block a driver's view when driving the
vehicle, which could potentially create an unsafe driving situation." Appeal
7
Appeal2018-003404
Application 13/557,928
Br. 29--30; see Reply Br. 2--4. Appellant's argument, however, does not
address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner supra, in that the
Examiner does not propose modifying Dage' s vehicle window to incorporate
Roselli's heating grid, or even replacing Dage's sensor 53 with Roselli's
sensors Ha, Hb. Rather, the Examiner proposes duplicating Dage's sensor
53 ( or single, combined sensor 51, 53) to be a plurality of sensors, as taught
by Roselli. See also In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671 (CCPA 1960) ("It is
well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance
unless a new and unexpected result is produced."); MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Appellant further argues that the Examiner fails to "clearly articulate
a reasoning for rejecting claim 8 using Nadamoto as a basis for rejection,"
because the Examiner "merely states that Nadamoto 'teaches the relationship
between temperature and pressure which determines the saturation point of
humidity in the air' and that it would be obvious 'to perform all of the
foregoing based on ambient conditions of the vehicle such as pressure and
temperature."' Appeal Br. 31 ( emphasis added). Appellant submits that
"[ c ]laim 8 does not recite a relationship between temperature and pressure,
nor does it recite determining the saturation point of humidity in the air." Id.
A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's reliance on
Dage's "reference relative humidity" (i.e., "% R.H." listed in Table 13) as
disclosing a threshold humidity value, as claimed. See Dage ,r 13. As
discussed supra, Dage defines "relative humidity" as "the humidity inside
the vehicle cabin relative to the outside vehicle environment to generate ...
% R.H." Dage ,r 32. Appellant does not dispute that Dage's comparison of
% R.H. against the reference relative humidity discloses the claimed step of
comparing the measured humidity with a threshold humidity value.
8
Appeal2018-003404
Application 13/557,928
We understand that the Examiner is relying on Nadamoto merely for
disclosing that the measurement of temperature and pressure in a local, or
ambient5, environment is necessary to determine threshold humidity values,
such that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to determine
Dage's reference relative humidity based on an ambient condition (i.e., local
temperature or pressure conditions) of the automotive vehicle, as required by
claim 8. 6 However, the Examiner appears to be relying on the ordinary
definition of "relative humidity," as set forth supra, wherein relative
humidity is the ratio of absolute humidity to the maximum possible density
of water vapor in the air at the same temperature, necessitating at least a
temperature measurement. Here, however, as set forth supra, Dage defines
relative humidity as the humidity inside the vehicle cabin relative to the
outside vehicle environment," such that Dage's reference humidity input 53
is inherently based on a threshold humidity inside the vehicle cabin, which is
an ambient ( or encompassing atmosphere) condition of the automotive
5 An ordinary meaning of the claim term "ambient" in view of the
Specification is "an encompassing atmosphere." WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW
lNT'L DICTIONARY 66 (1993).
6 Notably, Dage discloses that controller 50 compares various inputs, such
as relative humidity(% R.H.) input 53, with reference values, wherein "[t]he
reference values depend on the comfort setting of HVAC system 20." Dage
,r 42. Dage discloses that "HV AC system 20 provides different levels of
comfort," which are "service/customer selectable" (id. ,r 34) and which are
also described as "cooling comfort" (id. ,r 3 6). In other words, Dage' s
threshold or reference values depend, at least in part, on the desired ambient
temperature conditions of the vehicle cabin. Thus, a preponderance supports
a finding that Dage discloses the claimed step of determining a threshold
humidity value based on an ambient condition of the automotive vehicle.
9
Appeal2018-003404
Application 13/557,928
vehicle, as claimed. 7 In sum, Appellant's argument does not apprise us of
error in the Examiner's reliance on Nadamoto for disclosing that local
measurements are necessary to establish threshold values.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 8, and claims 10-12, and 19--24 fall therewith.
Independent claims 25 and 32, and dependent claims 26-31 and 33-34
Appellant chose not to present separate arguments for the patentability
of independent claims 25 and 32, and claims 26-31 and 33-34 depending
therefrom, apart from the arguments presented for independent claim 8
supra. Appeal Br. 34--35. Therefore, for essentially the same reasons stated
supra, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 25-34.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 8, 10-12, and 19--34 is
AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
7 Notably, Dage further discloses that "controller 50 determines ... whether
relative humidity input 53 [ ( which is generated by a humidity sensor inside
the vehicle cabin)] is less than the reference relative humidity listed in Table
13 for the comfort setting," wherein "comfort setting" represents a desired
ambient condition of the automotive vehicle, such that determining the
reference relative humidity is based on an ambient condition of the
automotive vehicle, as broadly claimed. Dage ,r,r 75, 32; see also id. ,r 34
("HV AC system comfort mode settings input 54 is indicative of the comfort
setting that HV AC system 20 is in at any given time").
10
Appeal2018-003404
Application 13/557,928
AFFIRMED
11