FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 2, 2020

2019006425 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2020)

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.
14/625,843 02/19/2015 Robert Steven Sawyer 83503800 8791
121691 7590 06/02/2020
Ford Global Technologies, LLC/
King & Schickli, PLLC
800 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 200
Lexington, KY 40503
EXAMINER
MAY, ELIZABETH M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3762
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2020 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):
laura@iplaw1.net
uspto@iplaw1.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT STEVEN SAWYER,
MICHAEL STEVEN WALLIS, and CHARLES ROBERT STANTON
Appeal 2019-006425
Application 14/625,843
Technology Center 3700
Before JILL D. HILL, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8, 10–13, and 15–20. See Final Act.
1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-006425
Application 14/625,843
2
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention relates to a vehicle ventilation system
incorporating an inlet duct including a poppet valve. Claims 1 and 18 are
independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A vehicle ventilation system, comprising:
an inlet duct including a poppet valve, wherein said poppet
valve includes a fresh air inlet sealing face, a fresh air
passageway and a recirculating air inlet sealing face, wherein the
fresh air inlet sealing face is connected to a lower lip of the
recirculating air sealing face by a series of spaced posts and
wherein the fresh air passageway extends around an entirety of
the poppet valve between the series of spaced posts;
an evaporator core;
a heater core;
an air discharge duct;
a blower moving air from said inlet duct through at least
one of said evaporator core and said heater core to said air
discharge duct.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Albrecht US 5,010,916 Apr. 30, 1991
Ichimaru US 6,971,628 B2 Dec. 6, 2005
Hirai US 7,958,740 B2 June 14, 2011
Foster2 GB 2 123 947 A Feb. 8, 1984

2 Foster is only cited by the Examiner in support of the assertion that poppet
valves are known for use in vehicle ventilation systems. See Final Act. 7.
Appeal 2019-006425
Application 14/625,843
3
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
being indefinite. Final Act. 4.
II. Claims 1–8, 10–13, and 15–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Hirai, Ichimaru, and Albrecht. Final Act. 5.
OPINION
Rejection I; Indefiniteness
The Examiner finds that claims 1 and 18 are indefinite because it is
unclear how a poppet valve that includes a fresh air passageway can have the
fresh air passageway extend around an entirety of the poppet valve. Final
Act. 4. According to the Examiner, “the fresh air passageway cannot extend
around an entirety of itself.” Id. at 5.
Appellant argues that “the phrase at issue is entirely consistent with
Appellant’s specification and a skilled artisan would readily understand what
is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification.” Appeal Br.
10. In particular, Appellant asserts that paragraph 28 and Figure 3 provide
support for the phrase. Id.
The Examiner states that additional limitations from the preferred
embodiment would be required to make the claims definite and the
Examiner declines to import limitations from the Specification into the
claims. Ans. 15. The Examiner states that amending the claims to more
accurately reflect the disclosed structure would be sufficient to overcome the
rejection. Ans. 16.
The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
whether “those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the
claim is read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety
Appeal 2019-006425
Application 14/625,843
4
Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, we
agree with Appellant that “a skilled artisan would readily understand what is
claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification.” Appeal Br. 10.
Specifically, poppet valve 15 includes fresh air passageway 42 as depicted in
Figure 3, reproduced below.

Figure 3 is a perspective view of the poppet valve that is provided in
the air inlet duct. Spec. ¶ 16. The Specification discloses that “fresh air
passageway 42 is designed all the way around the poppet valve 15 between
the posts 48.” Spec. ¶ 28. The Specification also discloses that “the fresh
air passageway 42 extends concentrically around the fresh air inlet sealing
face 40 while the recirculating air inlet sealing face 44 extends
concentrically around the fresh air passageway 42.” Id. Based on what is
depicted in Figure 3 and disclosed in the Specification, one of ordinary skill
Appeal 2019-006425
Application 14/625,843
5
in the art would understand that the fresh air passageway is located between
the series of spaced posts and extends around the center of the poppet valve.
Although, we appreciate that the claims might be written differently,
we do not agree with the Examiner that the present language would prevent
one skilled in the art from understanding what is claimed when claims 1 and
18 are read in light of Appellant’s Specification. We do not sustain
Rejection I.
Rejection II; Obviousness
The Examiner finds that Hirai discloses most of the limitations of
claim 1, including a valve in a ventilation duct, but Hirai’s valve is not a
poppet valve. Final Act. 5–6. The Examiner finds that Ichimaru discloses a
poppet valve having sealing faces as claimed. Id. at 6. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to substitute Ichimaru’s poppet
style valve for the valve of Hirai with predictable results for air flow in a
HVAC system. Id. According to the Examiner, Foster provides a teaching
that it is known to use poppet style valves in vehicle ventilation systems. Id.
at 7. The Examiner then finds that Ichimaru’s sealing faces are connected
by a single body, but finds that Albrecht discloses a valve with sealing faces
connected by a series of posts. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to substitute Albrecht’s post connection for Ichimaru’s
single connection to obtain the “predictable results of providing an alternate
means of connecting the two opposed sealing faces.” Id. at 7–8.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the Examiner’s reason for combining
the prior art teachings lacks a rational underpinning. Appeal Br. 14.
According to Appellant, the Examiner’s combination “does not yield
predictable results.” Appeal Br. 15.
Appeal 2019-006425
Application 14/625,843
6
The Examiner responds that, because the valves are known
alternatives with equivalent structure, the combination is consistent with the
“simple substitution” analysis set forth in MPEP 2143.1.B. Ans. 18.
Appellant has the better position. Ichimaru’s poppet style valve is
used in a piston section of the vehicle, and “reciprocates between a first
valve opening and a second valve opening,” to switch between intake and
vent of exhaust gas cylinders. Ichimaru, 1:40–45; 9:29–46. The Examiner
recognizes that “Ichimaru does not explicitly teach that the valve disclosed is
intended to be used in a vehicle ventilation system.” Final Act. 7. The
Examiner’s reliance on Foster does not make the substitution of Ichimaru’s
piston valve for Hirai’s valve a simple substitution. The Examiner does not
direct us to any disclosure in Foster, to establish that it was known in the
HVAC art that Hirai and Ichimaru’s “valves are compatible in their purposes
. . . for the adjustment of flow through a three-passage joint.” Ans. 17–18.
Thus, the Examiner has not established adequately that a skilled artisan
would have understood that Ichimaru’s valve could have been substituted for
Hirai’s valve to achieve predictable results. As such, the Examiner has not
established sufficiently that the substitution of Ichimaru’s piston valve for
Hirai’s valve would have been a simple substitution consistent with MPEP
2143.1.B.
Therefore, the Examiner has not established prima facie obviousness.
We do not sustain Rejection II.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
More specifically,
Appeal 2019-006425
Application 14/625,843
7
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 18 112(b) indefiniteness 1, 18
1–8, 10–13,
15–20
103 Hirai, Ichimaru,
Albrecht, Foster
1–8, 10–13,
15–20
Overall
Outcome:
1–8, 10–
13, 15–20

REVERSED