Ex Parte Charnesky et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 23, 2017

13567142 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 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.
13/567,142 08/06/2012 Scott P. Charnesky P015260-GMVE-DPH 7340
72823 7590
Quinn IP Law
21500 Haggerty Road
Suite 300
Northville, MI 48167
06/27/2017 EXAMINER
GREENE, DANIEL LAWSON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3667
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2017 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):
amb@quinnlawgroup.com
U S Docketing @ quinnlawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCOTT P. CHARNESKY, DAVID J. VERBRUGGE,
DAVID A. SCHOENER, WILLIAM J. RAYMOR,
JOHN C. REMY, and BRIAN A. MACFARLANE
Appeal 2015-007551
Application 13/567,142
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Scott P. Chamesky et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the rejection of claims 1—19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2015-007551
Application 13/567,142
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of initializing operation of a shutter arranged
relative to a grille opening in a vehicle having a power-plant, the
method comprising:
detecting via a controller a start-up of the power-plant;
sensing via the controller a temperature of ambient air
upon the start-up of the power-plant;
commanding the shutter, via the controller, to achieve a
fully-opened position when the sensed temperature of ambient
air upon the start-up of the power-plant is above a predetermined
value such that a flow of ambient air to the power-plant through
the grille opening is substantially unrestricted;
sensing via the controller a temperature of the power-
plant;
commanding the shutter, via the controller, to achieve a
fully-closed position when the temperature of the power-plant is
maintained below a threshold value such that the flow of ambient
air through the grille opening to the power-plant is substantially
blocked; and
identifying via the controller that the shutter has achieved
full travel following the shutter having achieved each of the
fully-opened position and the fully-closed position in sequence;
wherein said identifying that the shutter has achieved full
travel is indicative of the operation of the shutter having been
initialized.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
REFERENCES
appeal is:
McMillan
Zhang
US 5,355,059 Oct. 11, 1994
US 6,169,379 B1 Jan. 2, 2001
US 2010/0243352 A1 Sept. 30, 2010Watanabe
2
Appeal 2015-007551
Application 13/567,142
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1—9 and 11—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Watanabe and McMillan.
II. Claims 10 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Watanabe, McMillan, and Zhang.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Method claim 1 is directed to “[a] method of initializing operation of a
shutter arranged relative to a grill opening in a vehicle having a power-
plant.” Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). In particular, claim 1 requires the step
of “identifying via the controller that the shutter has achieved full travel
following the shutter having achieved each of the fully-opened position and
the fully-closed position in sequence.” Id. The Examiner finds the
Watanabe and McMillan disclose or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1.
See Final Act. 6—9.
In the Final Action, the Examiner determines that McMillan teaches
“that it is known for a UNIVERSAL electrical control device to include
initialization means to sequentially drive output devices from full open to
full close and then full open to determine the length of time necessary to
open or close a window.” Id. at 8 (emphasis added).
Appellants argue that “neither Watanabe nor Applicants’ claims are
concerned with ‘selectively driving motors’. Instead, both Watanabe and
Applicants’ claims deal directly with controlling operation of vehicle grille
shutters.” Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis omitted).
3
Appeal 2015-007551
Application 13/567,142
In response to this argument, the Examiner changes the reasoning for
the proposed modification, determining that McMillan’s “initialization
sequence provides inter alia, the benefit of ‘calibrating’ the motor to
determine the actual position based on time which would provide the ability
to ‘more accurately’ move the shutters to any position between fully open
and fully closed.” Ans. 4.
However, McMillan’s initialization sequence does not calibrate its
motors and cannot determine the actual position of its window, because, as
noted by Appellants (Appeal Br. 11), in McMillan, “[t]he motorized window
system 10 according to the invention does not use any direct positional
sensing. Instead, for economies, the control measures the time to traverse
from full open to full closed and vice versa, with this time being used to
indicate position.” McMillan 7:45—49. Thus, in McMillan, the position of
the window is estimated rather than determined. Accordingly, the
Examiner’s reasoning lacks rational underpinning.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1, and
claims 2—9, which depend therefrom. Independent claim 11 similarly
requires a controller configured to “identify[] that the shutter has achieved
full travel following the shutter having achieved each of the fully-opened
position and the fully-closed position in sequence. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims
App.). In rejecting claim 11, the Examiner relies on the same reasoning in
support of the proposed modification as relied upon in the rejection of claim
1. See Final Act. 13; see also Ans. 4. This reasoning lacks rational
underpinning for the reasons discussed supra. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 11 and claims 12—18, which
depend therefrom.
4
Appeal 2015-007551
Application 13/567,142
Rejection II
Claim 10 depends from claim 1. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). The
rejection relies upon Zhang to meet the limitations recited in claim 10. See
Final Act. 16—17. Zhang does not cure the deficiencies in the Examiner’s
reasoning discussed supra. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claim 10 for the same reason we do not sustain the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—19 is reversed.
REVERSED
5