Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 3, 2020

2019006074 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 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.
15/136,073 04/22/2016 Hendrik NORDALM 080437.68950US 9409
23911 7590 09/03/2020
CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
EXAMINER
SHUDY, ANGELINA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/03/2020 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):
edocket@crowell.com
mloren@crowell.com
tche@crowell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HENDRIK NORDALM and SEBASTIAN GEITHNER
Appeal 2019-006074
Application 15/136,073
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, 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 2 and 4–8. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was conducted August
18, 2020.
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Bayerische Motoren
Werke Aktiengesellschaft. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-006074
Application 15/136,073
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an air supply device for a motor vehicle
seat and method for operating the air supply device. Claim 2, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
2. An air-supply device for a vehicle seat having an air
outflow opening provided in an upper region of the vehicle seat
via which a head, shoulder and neck region of a seat occupant is
suppliable with an air stream, the air-supply device comprising:
a fan controllable to adjust the air stream;
a heater configured to heat the air stream;
a controller operatively configured to control a speed of
the fan and the heater in accordance with a switch-on signal of
the air-supply device received by the controller,
wherein the controller receives a temperature signal
indicating an interior temperature of the vehicle, and
in response to the switch-on signal received by the
controller, the controller
switches on the heater and
activates the fan differently depending on comparison
between the interior temperature of the vehicle and a preset
threshold temperature value, wherein when the interior
temperature of the vehicle is lower than the preset threshold
temperature value, the controller, in response to the switch-on
signal of the air-supply device, causes the fan to be operated at a
preset minimum fan speed which is a non-zero speed.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Rauh US 2002/0105213 A1 Aug. 8, 2002
Bargheer US 2005/0238339 A1 Oct. 27, 2005
Hartmann US 2008/0136221 A1 June 12, 2008

Appeal 2019-006074
Application 15/136,073
3
REJECTIONS
Claims 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bargheer and Rauh. Final Act. 4.
Claims 6–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Bargheer, Rauh, and Hartmann. Final Act. 10.
OPINION
Appellant’s arguments for all claims and rejections are premised on
the purported incompatibilities between the teachings of Bargheer and Rauh.
Appellant first argues
Bargheer is completely silent regarding operation of the air
supply device (14) when the top is closed. Accordingly, one of
ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to measure a
vehicle interior ambient air temperature (separately from the
sensed vehicle exterior ambient air temperature in Bargheer) and
control operation of the blower (34) of the air supply device (14)
of Bargheer based on the vehicle interior ambient air
temperature
App. Br. 5.
We cannot agree with Appellant that Bargheer’s mere silence with
regard to how to operate the heated airstream control when the top is closed
is evidence that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to provide
some form of control for the system. Just because a prior art product
functions satisfactorily for a particular use does not mean that a skilled
artisan would not try to improve it or make it usable for other purposes. See
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). The silence of a
prior art reference on a particular point provides an incentive, not a
disincentive, to fill in the gaps. As the Examiner points out, the skilled
artisan would understand that Bargheer’s vehicle will not always be operated
Appeal 2019-006074
Application 15/136,073
4
with the top open. Ans. 9. When the top is closed one skilled in the art would
understand a logical input for the heated airstream controller to promote
occupant comfort would be the internal vehicle temperature as opposed to
the external temperature. Further, we see no reason why, even absent the
draught caused by an open top, delivering heated air to the head or neck
region of the vehicle occupant would be undesirable for general heating
purposes with the top closed.
Appellant next argues Bargheer and Rauh are incompatible because
they teach opposite heated airstream responses to low temperature inputs,
with Bargheer increasing the output flow and Rauh, like Appellant,2
ensuring it stays low. App. Br. 6–8. We do not think these teachings of
Bargheer and Rauh necessarily conflict or are incompatible. Rather, they are
considering two different circumstances. Bargheer is operating under the
assumption, rightly or wrongly, that Bargheer’s heater has sufficient
capacity to heat the airstream to a physiologically acceptable temperature for
the vehicle occupant without regard to how cold it might be. If Bargheer’s
heater lacked this capacity under certain circumstances, such as low
temperatures, the continued operation of Bargheer’s device would
exacerbate the draught problem contrary to Bargheer’s stated goal of
remedying it (para. 1). Rauh, on the other hand, considers whether, based on
temperature measurements, Rauh’s heater has the ability to heat the air flow

2 The claim recitation “operated at a preset minimum fan speed which is a
non-zero speed” leaves room for interpretations beyond that of “a minimum
speed which the fan is capable of operating at,” which we understand, based
on the oral arguments, to be what Appellant intended with the phrase. The
PTO applies the broadest reasonable interpretation to claim terminology.
Applying the narrow reading that Appellant suggests we should use has no
bearing on the outcome of this case.
Appeal 2019-006074
Application 15/136,073
5
sufficiently so as to be physiologically acceptable to the occupant. Rauh
paras. 2, 5, 6, 23–24. This additional factor Rauh takes into consideration
would improve Bargheer’s system, far from rendering it “unsatisfactory for
its intended purpose” as Appellant argues.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
2, 4, 5 103 Bargheer and Rauh 2, 4, 5
6–8 103 Bargheer, Rauh,
and Hartmann
6–8
Overall
Outcome
2, 4–8

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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