Ex Parte Abihana et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2017

13534383 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2017)

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.
13/534,383 06/27/2012 Osama A. Abihana 83236197 1088
28866 7590 09/29/2017
MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD
ONE MARITIME PLAZA - FIFTH FLOOR
720 WATER STREET
TOLEDO, OH 43604
EXAMINER
MOUBRY, JAMES G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2017 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 OSAMA A. ABIHANA, SCOTT M. ROBICHAUD,
and SCOTT J. THOMPSON
Appeal 2016-000999
Application 13/534,383
Technology Center 3700
Before KEN B. BARRETT, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Osama A. Abihana et al. (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—8.1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants submit the real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies,
LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-000999
Application 13/534,383
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ invention relates to “controlling a variable speed pump
for a coolant system for an internal combustion engine.” Spec. 1. Claim 1,
reproduced below with italics added, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. Vehicle apparatus comprising:
a variable-speed coolant pump for providing a coolant flow;
a plurality of heat-transfer nodes having respective heat-transfer
devices coupled in a coolant loop with the pump, wherein each node
comprises a respective controller that generates a node flow rate request
based on an operating state of the node, and wherein the coolant loop is
configurable to a plurality of restriction states; and
a pump controller receiving the node flow rate requests, mapping
each respective node flow request to a pump flow rate that would produce
the respective node flow rate request, selecting a largest mapped pump flow
rate, identifying a restriction state in which the coolant loop is configured,
selecting a pump speed in response to the selected pump flow rate and the
identified restriction state, and commanding operation of the pump to
produce the selected pump speed.
REJECTIONS
1) Claims 1—7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Banzhaf (US 5,215,044, issued June 1, 1993), Suzuki (US
2009/0229543 Al, published Sept. 17, 2009), and Eisenhour (US
7,735,744 B2, issued June 15, 2010).
2) Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Banzhaf.
2
Appeal 2016-000999
Application 13/534,383
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
The Examiner finds that Banzhaf discloses most of the limitations of
independent claims 1 and 5 except “each node includes a node controller
that generates a flow rate request based upon the operating state of the node”
and “mapping each flow request to a pump flow rate and selecting a largest
mapped pump flow rate.” Final Act. 3^4. With respect to a node controller
that generates a flow rate request, the Examiner takes official notice “that it
is well known in the art to provide a heater core controller with the cabin of
the vehicle that is used to transmit a flow request.” Id. The Examiner
asserts Eisenhour supports the official notice finding. Id. at 5 (citing
Eisenhour 3:58—63, 12:41—44); see also Ans. 8. The Examiner then finds
that Suzuki discloses a pump controller that receives flow rate requests,
maps each flow rate request to a pump flow rate, selects the largest mapped
pump flow rate, and selects a pump speed based on the largest mapped pump
flow rate. Final Act. 5 (citing Suzuki, || 43, 45, 50, 53). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Banzhaf s variable
speed pump operation “by providing a controller configured to map the flow
rate requests to a pump flow rate and select the largest mapped rate as
described in Suzuki in order to facilitate accurately controlling the flow rate
delivered by the coolant pump to various point[s] throughout the vehicle.”
Id.
Appellants contend that “Banzhaf is devoid of any teachings of node
controllers generating any flow requests that are received by a pump
controller.” Appeal Br. 4. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s reliance on
official notice is not sufficient because the Examiner’s explanation fails to
3
Appeal 2016-000999
Application 13/534,383
include a flow rate request. Id. Appellants further argue that the Examiner’s
reliance on Eisenhour to support the official notice is unavailing because
Eisenhour “merely discloses a controller sending a flow rate command to a
pump” not “a node requesting a flow rate to be received” by a pump
controller Id. at 4—5. Appellants further contend that the Examiner’s
reliance on Banzhaf s central controller to arbitrate flow rate requests and
control pump speed based on sensor outputs is also unavailing because
Benshaf s sensor outputs do not equate to flow rate requests. Id. at 5. For
the following reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 5.
Claims 1 and 5 require that each node comprises a controller that
generates a flow rate request and a pump controller that receives the node
flow rate requests generated by the node controllers. Banzhaf discloses a
central control unit 10 that receives input from temperature sensors 18, 19,
20, and 21 and then sets the speed of pump 13. See Banzhaf 4:6—24. The
Examiner does not direct us to any disclosure of either heat-transfer nodes
comprising controllers or flow rate requests received by the central control
unit 10 from heat-transfer node controllers. Suzuki discloses one controller,
ECU 100 that controls flow rate to various heat transfer devices. See Suzuki
143, Fig. 1. Suzuki refers to “flow rate[s] requested.” Suzuki, Abstract.
The flow rates, however, are not requested by a node controller but set “by
experiment or the like.” Id. 145. Eisenhour discloses
an electronic processor 100 .. . adapted to automatically determine the
temperature difference . . . and to automatically command an increase
in the flow rate of the coolant to a second flow rate higher than the
first flow rate if the temperature difference is greater than a stored
predetermined temperature difference stored in the memory.
Eisenhour, 12:1—14, Fig. 6.
4
Appeal 2016-000999
Application 13/534,383
Eisenhour’s electronic processor 100 is directly connected to auxiliary
pump 300. See id. 12:41—44, Fig. 6.2 Consequently, the Examiner has not
established that any of the cited prior art references disclose “a plurality of
heat-transfer nodes . . . wherein each node comprises a respective controller
that generates a node flow rate request” where the node flow rate requests
are received by a pump controller.
As the rejection is based on erroneous factual findings, the conclusion
of obviousness cannot stand. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017
(CCPA 1967) (Holding that “[t]he legal conclusion of obviousness must be
supported by facts. Where the legal conclusion is not supported by facts it
cannot stand.”). We, thus, do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 5.
Claims 2-4 depend from claim 1 and claims 6 and 7 depend from claim 5.
Appeal Br. 8—11 (Claims App.). We do not sustain the rejection of claims
2-4, 6, and 7 for the same reasons.
Rejection 2
Claim 8, similar to claim 1, recites inter alia “a coolant loop having
node controllers generating respective node flow rate requests.” Appeal Br.
11 (Claims App.). The Examiner rejects claim 8 based only on Banzhaf and
the official notice noted above in connection with claims and 1 and 5. Final
Act. 8—9. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 8 for essentially the same
reasons stated for claim 1.
2 As Eisenhour does not support the Examiner’s assertion that it is well
known in the art “that each node includes a node controller that generates a
flow[] request” that is received by a pump controller, the Examiner’s
reliance on official notice is improper. Ans. 2; see also In re Zurko, 258
F.3d 1379, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
5
Appeal 2016-000999
Application 13/534,383
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—8 is reversed.
REVERSED
6