Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 16, 2020

15625106 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 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.
15/625,106 06/16/2017 Paul Kenneth Dellock 83839775; 67186-401PUS1 5100
46442 7590 11/16/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford
400 W. MAPLE RD.
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
BUCCI, THOMAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/16/2020 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):
cgolaw@yahoo.com
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PAUL KENNETH DELLOCK, JAMES J. SURMAN,
STUART C. SALTER, JOSE GARCIA CRESPO, and
BRAD NAPIER DOMAN
____________

Appeal 2019-006667
Application 15/625,106
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND,
and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–6, and 8–22. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Ford Global Technologies, LLC
Company as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Ford Global
Technologies, LLC is owned by Ford Motor Company. Id.
Appeal 2019-006667
Application 15/625,106

2
The invention is generally directed to heating washer fluid for a
vehicle. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1 illustrates the invention:
1. A washer fluid heating assembly, comprising:
an outer layer about an innermost layer of a hose, the innermost
layer providing an outer boundary of a fluid flow path, the
innermost layer having a material composition including a base
material and an additive that is more thermally conductive than
the base material; and
at least one heating element held by the innermost layer.
Independent claim 16 is directed to a method of heating a water fluid
using essentially the system described in claim 1.
Appellant (see generally Appeal Br.) requests review of the following
rejections from the Examiner’s Final Office Action:
I. Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Reusche (US 2014/0193143 A1, published July 10,
2014) and Chiles (US 5,022,459, issued June 11, 1991).

II. Claims 5 and 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Reusche, Chiles, and Schild (US 2010/0269917 A1, published October
28, 2010).

III. Claims 10 and 12–14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Reusche, Chiles, and Ferrone (US 8,863,782 B2, issued
October 21, 2014).

IV. Claims 16–20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Shank (US 2005/0001058 A1, published January 6, 2005) and Reusche.

V. Claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Shank, Reusche, and Chiles.

VI. Claim 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Shank, Reusche, and Ferrone.
Appeal 2019-006667
Application 15/625,106

3
OPINION
After review of the positions the Appellant provides in the Appeal and
Reply Briefs and the Examiner provides in the Final Action and the Answer,
we AFFIRM the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1, 2, 4–6, and
8–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons the Examiner presents. We add
the following for emphasis.

REJECTION I
In responding to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11,
and 15 as unpatentable over Reusche and Chiles, Appellant presents
arguments only for claims 1, 11, and 15 for this rejection. Accordingly, we
select independent claim 1 as representative of the subject matter claimed.
Claims 2, 4, 8, and 9 stand or fall with claim 1. We address claims 11 and
15 separately.
Claim 1
Independent claim 1 recites a washer fluid heating assembly
comprising an “innermost layer having a material composition including a
base material and an additive that is more thermally conductive than the base
material.”
The Examiner finds that Reusche discloses a two-layer hose that
differs from the claimed invention in that Reusche does not teach an
innermost layer having a material composition including a base material and
a thermally conductive additive. Final Act. 5–6. The Examiner finds that
Chiles discloses such a flexible heated hose having a layer comprising a
flexible polymer base material and a graphite additive for the purpose of
enhancing thermal conductivity. Id. at 6; Chiles col. 4, ll. 27–41. Relying on
Appeal 2019-006667
Application 15/625,106

4
the holding of In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1960), the Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art to modify Reusche’s hose by replacing its disclosed innermost layer
with Chiles’s layer comprising a base material (e.g., polymer) and an
additive (e.g., graphite) because it is within the general skill of a worker in
the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the
intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Final Act. 6–7.
Appellant argues that Reusche and Chiles use their respective hosing
element for opposite purposes. Appeal Br. 3. According to Appellant,
Reusche’s hose is “intend[ed] to heat water carried by the hose,” while
Chiles’s hose “is intended to transfer heat from a heat transfer fluid carried
by the hosing to concrete (or another material) within which the hosing is
embedded.” Id.; Reusche ¶ 4; Chiles col. 3, ll. 13–18. Appellant further
contends that Reusche does not disclose an intent for inner tubular core 34 to
be a thermally conductive layer. Appeal Br. 4. Appellant additionally
contends that, given the fact that Chiles applies the additive to the outer
layer of the hose for specific purposes, the Examiner has not explained how
the enhanced thermal conductivity allegedly resulting from the modification
of Reusche’s hose would be suitable for Reusche’s purposes. Id. at 5. Thus,
Appellant contends that the Examiner does not provide an adequate
explanation to modify Reusche’s hose in view of Chiles’s teachings. Id.
We have considered Appellant’s arguments but are unpersuaded that
they identify reversible error in the Examiner’s determination of
obviousness.
As the Examiner explains, Reusche, like Chiles, desires to transfer
heat to prevent fluid from freezing. Ans. 14–15; Reusche ¶ 6 (discussing
Appeal 2019-006667
Application 15/625,106

5
heating of the fluid to prevent it from freezing); Chiles col. 1, ll. 12–15
(discussing the need to “heat surfaces . . . to remove or to prevent the
accumulation of ice and snow from the surface”). As the Examiner further
explains, Chiles teaches that it is known to use an additive in a hosing
component that is more thermally conductive than the base material, such as
graphite, to enhance the heat transfer characteristics of a hosing element.
Ans. 16; Chiles col. 4, ll. 37–44. Moreover, Chiles suggests incorporating
the additive into the hosing component that more directly contacts the
material desired to be heated (in Chiles’s case, the outer hosing component
contacting the surface to be heated). Chiles col. 4, ll. 37–44. Given these
disclosures, the Examiner provides a reasonable basis why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of the cited art to
arrive at the claimed invention. In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904 (Fed.
Cir. 1988) (“For obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable
expectation of success.”). Appellant fails to explain adequately why one of
ordinary skill in the art, using no more than ordinary creativity, would not
have been capable of modifying Reusche’s hosing element by incorporating
Chiles’s additive in the inner hosing component to enhance the thermal
conductivity of the hosing element to heat the fluid passing through the
hosing element (the material desired to be heated). See Spec. 1; see also
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of
ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”); In
re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (presuming skill on the part of
one of ordinary skill in the art).
Claim 11
Appeal 2019-006667
Application 15/625,106

6
Claim 11 recites that “the inner layer and the at least one heating
element together provide an extruded component.”
The Examiner finds that Reusche teaches the claimed extruded
component. Final Act. 8; Reusche ¶ 31, Fig. 2.
We have considered Appellant’s argument for this claim, but are
unpersuaded by it because the argument does not explain why the Examiner
reversibly erred by relying on Reusche’s noted disclosure to meet the
claimed extruded component. Appeal Br. 8; Ans. 20; 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(1)(c)(iv).
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites that the washer fluid heating assembly further
comprises a washer fluid.
The Examiner determines that the claim limitation does not patentably
distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Final Act. 8.
We have considered Appellant’s arguments for this claim but find
them unavailing for the reasons the Examiner expresses. Appeal Br. 5–7;
Final Act. 8; Ans.17. Moreover, the recitation of a material intended to be
worked upon by a claimed apparatus does not differentiate the claimed
apparatus structure from the structure of a prior art apparatus. In re Rishoi,
197 F.2d 342, 345 (CCPA 1952).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1,
2, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons the Examiner
presents and those we provide above.

Appeal 2019-006667
Application 15/625,106

7
REJECTION II
Claims 5 and 6
Claim 5 recites that “the base material is a thermoplastic vulcanizate
[(TPV)],” while claim 6, which depends from claim 5, further recites that
“the additive comprises graphite.”
The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 6 as unpatentable over Reusche,
Chiles, and Schild. We refer to the Examiner’s Final Office action for the
explanation of the rejection of these claims. Final Act. 8–9.
Appellant argues that the Examiner did not provide a rational basis
that demonstrates TPV, as Schild teaches, or graphite, as Chiles teaches, are
suitable for Reusche’s purposes. Appeal Br. 7. That is, Appellant contend
that the Examiner has not explained why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have modified Reusche to prevent the hose from freezing in light of
the above noted teachings. Id.
The arguments do not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination of obviousness. As the Examiner explains in the Answer,
Reusche discloses the heated hose assembly for the purpose of preventing
the fluid passing through it from freezing. Ans. 18; Reusche ¶ 6. The
Examiner also explains that Schild teaches it was known to use TPV
materials to make heated hoses and Chiles teaches the use of graphite for the
purpose of enhancing thermal conductivity of a flexible heated hose
comprising a flexible polymer base material. Final Act. 6, 8; Ans. 18; Schild
¶ 10; Chiles col. 4, ll. 27–41. From these disclosures, the Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to arrive at the claimed invention from the teachings of the cited art. Final
Act. 8–9.
Appeal 2019-006667
Application 15/625,106

8
Based on this, the Examiner has provided a reasonable basis why one
skilled in the art would have reasonably expected that the modified hose
resulting from the combined teachings of the cited art would be suitable to
function as a heated hose for Reusche’s purposes. In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d
at 904 (“For obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable
expectation of success.”). Appellant’s arguments do not address
persuasively the Examiner’s reasons for combining the teachings of the cited
art.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 5
and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons the Examiner presents and those
we provide above.

REJECTION III
To reject claims 10 and 12–14, the Examiner adds Ferrone. Appellant
presents separate arguments for claims 10, 12, and 13. Thus, we consider
those claims separately.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites that “the at least one heating element comprises a
Nichrome resistance wire.”
The Examiner relies on Ferrone’s disclosure of a Nichrome wire as a
known heating wire for electrically heated hoses. Final Act. 9; Ferrone Fig.
3, col. 1, ll. 14–18, col. 5, ll. 33–41.
Appellant argues that the Examiner does not explain how Nichrome
resistance wires are suitable for Reusche’s purposes. Appeal Br. 7.
This argument also fails to point to reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination of obviousness.
Appeal 2019-006667
Application 15/625,106

9
As the Examiner explains, it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art to substitute Reusche’s heating wires with Ferrone’s
Nichrome resistance wires because both wires are used to heat a hosing
element and such substitution would result in an electrically heated hosing
element that would predictably heat the fluid in the hose. Final Act. 9;
Ans. 19–20. Appellant’s arguments do not address adequately the
Examiner’s reasons for combining the teachings of the cited art. In re Merck
& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425–26 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted) (“The test [for
obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”).
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites “an electrically conductive connector fluidly
coupling [a] first hose to a second hose.”
The Examiner relies on Ferrone’s disclosure of brass male/female
couplings to connect 1st and 2nd hosing elements together as meeting the
limitations of this claim. Final Act. 10; Ferrone Fig. 1; col. 4, ll. 37–45.
Appellant argues that Ferrone’s interconnection 22 (comprising the
brass male/female couplings) is not electrically conductive because Ferrone
teaches that an arch or loop is formed around hose it by an end portion of
power cord 32. Appeal Br. 8; see Ferrone Fig. 1, col. 5, ll. 17–32. That is,
Appellant argues that Ferrone does not teach conducting electricity via
interconnection 22.
This argument fails to identify reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination of obviousness for the reasons the Examiner presents. Ans.
21–22. Moreover, the subject matter of claim 12 only recites that the
Appeal 2019-006667
Application 15/625,106

10
connector is electrically conductive and does not recite that electricity is
conducted through the connector.
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites that “the electrically conductive connector comprises
a nylon blended with a metal or metal alloy.”
The Examiner determines that “it would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize an
electrically conductive connector comprising a nylon blended with a metal
or metal alloy” given Ferrone’s teachings. Final Act. 10–11.
Appellant’s argument for this claim is similar to the arguments
presented for claim 12, which we find unpersuasive. Appeal Br. 8.
Moreover, Appellant’s argument does not challenge the Examiner’s basis for
the rejection. Accordingly, the argument is not persuasive of reversible error
in the Examiner’s determination of obviousness.
Claim 14
Appellant does not argue claim 14, dependent from claim 12,
separately. Accordingly, this claim stands or falls with claim 12.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 10
and 12–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons the Examiner presents and
those we provide above.

REJECTION IV
In addressing the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16–20 as
unpatentable over Shank and Reusche, Appellant does not argue any claim
separate from the other. See generally Appeal Br. Accordingly, we select
Appeal 2019-006667
Application 15/625,106

11
independent claim 16 as representative of the subject matter claimed.
Claims 17–20 stand or fall with claim 16.
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites a washer fluid heating method using essentially the
system described in claim 1.
We refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action for a complete
statement of the rejection of this claim. Briefly, the Examiner finds that
Shank discloses a washer fluid heating method that differs from the subject
matter of claim 16 in that Shank does not disclose using at least one heating
element held by the innermost layer, the at least one heating element
providing at least a portion of an outer boundary of the fluid flow path.
Final Act. 11. The Examiner relies on Reusche’s teachings to supply the
missing feature. Id. at 12.
Appellant contends that the teachings of Shank and Reusche cannot be
combined because Shank teaches a hosing element having conductor wires
located external to the hosing element so that they do not come into contact
with the fluid while Reusche teaches the heating elements located inside the
fluid path of the disclosed hosing element would contact the fluid. Appeal
Br. 9. Thus, Appellant asserts that Shank’s hosing element conductor wires
are used within an entirely different sort of system than Reusche’s hosing
element and heating elements and, thus, there would be no predictable result
from the substitution of Shank’s features with Reusche’s features. Id. at 10.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error because
they argue the references separately without taking into account the
Examiner’s reasons for combining the cited art. Ans. 25; see Merck, 800
F.2d at 1097; see also Keller, 642 F.2d at 425–26.
Appeal 2019-006667
Application 15/625,106

12
As the Examiner explains, the rejection contemplates the substitution
of Shank’s hosing element/conductor wires with Reusche’s hosing
element/heating elements. Ans. 26. Appellant’s argument that such a
substitution is contrary to Shank’s disclosure of having the conductor wires
terminate at positions outside the fluid bottle for connection to a battery and
a ground (Appeal Br. 9) does not take into account that Reusche provides the
heating elements with lead wires to connect to a power source. Reusche Fig.
7; ¶ 47. Based on this disclosure, Appellant fails to explain adequately why
one of ordinary skill in the art, using no more than ordinary creativity, would
not have been capable of incorporating Reusche’s hosing element and
heating elements for use in Shank’s washer fluid method by ensuring that
Reusche’s lead wires terminate at positions outside the fluid bottle for
connection to a battery and a ground to power the heating elements. See
KSR, 550 U.S. at 421; Sovish, 769 F.2d at 743.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims
16–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons the Examiner presents and
those we provide above.

REJECTIONS V (Claim 21) and VI (Claim 22)
Claim 21 recites that “the innermost layer has a material composition
that includes a base material and an additive that is more thermally
conductive than the base material.” We addressed this limitation in our
discussion regarding claim 1.
The subject matter of claim 22 is the same as the subject matter of
claim 12, also addressed above.
Appeal 2019-006667
Application 15/625,106

13
The Examiner relies on the same evidence used to reject claims 1 and
12 to address these limitations of claims 21 and 22. See Final Act. 13–15.
Appellant also relies on the same line of arguments presented for claims 1
and 12 to address the limitations of these claims. See Appeal Br. 10–12.
We refer to our prior discussion of these arguments and again find
them unpersuasive of reversible error in the Examiner’s determination of
obviousness.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 21
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons the Examiner presents and
those we provide above.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 8,
9, 11, 15
103 Reusche, Chiles 1, 2, 4, 8,
9, 11, 15

5, 6 103 Reusche, Chiles,
Schild
5, 6
10, 12–14 103 Reusche, Chiles,
Ferrone
10, 12–14
16–20 103 Shank, Reusche 16–20
21 103 Shank, Reusche,
Chiles
21
22 103 Shank, Reusche,
Ferrone
22
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–6,
8–22

Appeal 2019-006667
Application 15/625,106

14
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED