Ex Parte Compton et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 30, 2010

11202793 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 30, 2010)

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.
11/202,793 08/12/2005 Gene Compton 707163US1 8679
24938 7590 11/30/2010
Chrysler Group LLC
CIMS 483-02-19
800 CHRYSLER DR EAST
AUBURN HILLS, MI 48326-2757
EXAMINER
BLACK, MELISSA ANN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3612
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2010 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte GENE COMPTON, DAVE SWANSON, MICHAEL GEORGE,
and JAMES L. CARLSON
____________________

Appeal 2009-009401
Application 11/202,793
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: WILLIAM F. PATE III, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and KEN B.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-009401
Application 11/202,793
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Gene Compton et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
(2002) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-18. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

THE INVENTION
The claims are directed generally to motor vehicle power liftgates,
and more particularly to a combined pinch/temperature sensor for a power
liftgate. Spec., para. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A combination pinch/temperature sensor for a closure
member of a motor vehicle, the closure member having a left
side and a right side and mounted for articulation relative to a
body portion of the motor vehicle, the closure member driven
by a drive mechanism between an open position and a closed
position, the sensor comprising:
a first pinch sensing element coupled to one of the left
side and right side of the closure member for sensing a pinch
condition on the one of the left and right sides of the closure
member and generating a first pinch signal;
a second pinch sensing element in electrical
communication with the first pinch sensing element and
coupled to the other one of the left side and right side of the
closure member for sensing a pinch condition on the other one
of the left and right sides of the closure member and generating
a second pinch signal; and
a control module that detects one of an open circuit and a
short-to-battery condition at the first and second pinch elements
based on the first and second pinch signals, respectively,
wherein one of the first and second pinch sensing
elements is further provided for sensing an ambient temperature
outside the motor vehicle and generating an ambient
temperature signal.

Appeal 2009-009401
Application 11/202,793
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Butler
Oberheide
Shank
Young
US 6,297,605 B1
US 6,755,458 B1
US 7,132,642 B2
US 7,270,098 B2
Oct. 2, 2001
Jun. 29, 2004
Nov. 7, 2006
Sep. 18, 2007

Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), fig. 3, Spec., paras. 22, 23

REJECTIONS
Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over AAPA or Butler, either in view of Young. Ans. 3.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over AAPA or Butler, either in view of Young and
Shank. Ans. 5.
Claims 4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over AAPA or Butler, either in view of Young, Shank, and
Oberheide. Ans. 8.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.

ISSUES
1. Is Young analogous art?
2. Does Young in combination with either AAPA or Butler render obvious
the subject matter of claim 18, particularly “a control module that detects
one of an open circuit and a short-to-battery condition at the first and
Appeal 2009-009401
Application 11/202,793
4
second pinch elements based on the first and second pinch signals,
respectively”?
3. Does Shank teach the use of a pinch sensor that provides temperature
inputs sensing the ambient temperature outside the motor vehicle, as
found by Examiner (Ans. 6)?

DISCUSSION
Claims 17 and 18
Appellants argue claims 17 and 18 together as a group. In accordance
with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we select claim 18 as representative, with
claim 17 standing or falling with claim 18.
The Examiner found that either AAPA or Butler discloses all of the
limitations of claim 18, with the exception of “a control module that detects
one of an open circuit and a short-to-battery condition at the first and second
pinch elements based on the first and second pinch signals, respectively.”
Ans. 3-4. Appellants do not dispute these findings.
The Examiner found that Young teaches a control module that detects
both an open circuit (and that the sensor has faulted) and, likewise, a short
circuit (and that the sensor has shorted). Ans. 9. The Examiner then
concluded that it would have been obvious to use the control module as
taught by Young in the pinch sensor system of either AAPA or Butler in
order to detect the open or shorted circuit and shut down the control module.
Ans. 4.
Appellants argue that Young does not teach detection of one of an
open circuit and a short-to-battery condition. App. Br. 8. This argument is
not accurate. As explained by the Examiner (Ans. 9), Young’s control
module detects both an open circuit condition (when the voltage reading
Appeal 2009-009401
Application 11/202,793
5
from the sensor is lower than the Open Threshold), and detects a short-to-
battery condition (when the voltage reading from the sensor exceeds a Short
Threshold). Young, col. 11, ll. 38-43. Young recognizes either of these
conditions as a Faulted condition (i.e., readings from the sensor are not
reliable). Young, col. 11, ll. 45-59.
Appellants also argue that Young is not analogous art. App. Br. 7-8.
For the reasons that follow, we do not agree with Appellants.
For purposes of showing obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
“[a] reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be
in a different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one
which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically
would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in
considering his problem.” In other words, “familiar items may
have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.”
In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (citations omitted). Moreover, in making a determination with regard
to obviousness, we should not limit ourselves to looking only at the problem
Appellants were trying to solve. The question is not whether the
combination was obvious to Appellants but whether it was obvious to a
person with ordinary skill in the art. Thus, “[u]nder the correct analysis, any
need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and
addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in
the manner claimed.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420
(2007).
We fully appreciate that the sensor circuit on which the open and short
detecting control module of Young is employed is a temperature sensing
circuit, and not a pinch sensor circuit. Nonetheless, Young addresses a
problem faced by a designer of any sensor circuit, including a pinch sensor
Appeal 2009-009401
Application 11/202,793
6
circuit, namely, detection of an open circuit or short-circuit situation that
will result in unreliable sensor voltage readings. As such, Young logically
would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering the
problem faced by Appellants.
For the above reasons, we conclude that Young in combination with
either AAPA or Butler renders obvious the subject matter of claim 18,
particularly “a control module that detects one of an open circuit and a short-
to-battery condition at the first and second pinch elements based on the first
and second pinch signals, respectively.” We sustain the rejection of claims
17 and 18.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15, and 16
Appellants argue claims 1-3, 5-13, 15, and 16 together as a group.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we select claim 1 as representative,
with claims 2, 3, 5-13, 15, and 16 standing or falling with claim 1.
Appellants repeat the arguments asserted against the rejection of
claims 17 and 18. Ans. 9. These arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons
discussed above.
The Examiner found that Shank teaches the use of a pinch sensor that
provides temperature inputs sensing the ambient temperature outside the
motor vehicle, and concluded that it would have been obvious to include in
the pinch sensor of either AAPA or Butler a temperature sensor as taught by
Shank for use in changing the pliability of the pinch sensing element in cold
weather. Ans. 6.
Appellants do not take issue with the Examiner’s reason for
combining the temperature sensing feature of Shank’s pinch sensor with that
of either AAPA or Butler. Appellants argue that Shank’s microprocessor
determines the temperature of heating element 407, not the ambient
Appeal 2009-009401
Application 11/202,793
7
temperature. App. Br. 9. First, Appellants’ argument overlooks Shank’s
teaching that controller 14 powers conductive fabric 407 for engagement as
a heating element with inputs from a temperature sensor, “which could be
from the vehicle outside temperature sensor.” Shank, col. 17, l. 64 to col.
18, l. 1. Second, Shank further teaches that, alternatively, conductive fabric
407 could be used as a temperature sensor, with the temperature sensing
function of conductive fabric 407 being used “to provide the same
temperature inputs required to operate the anti-pinch system as described
above.” Shank, col. 18, ll. 55-56 and 59-62. Inasmuch as Shank’s sensor
405, which contains the conductive fabric 407, is used as a weather seal, and
is located on the exterior of the vehicle body (Shank, col. 17, ll. 56-57), the
Examiner’s finding, that conductive fabric 407, when acting as a
temperature sensor, senses an ambient temperature outside the motor
vehicle, appears reasonable. For both of those reasons, Appellants’
argument that Shank’s microprocessor does not determine ambient
temperature is not convincing. As explained above, Shank does teach the
use of a pinch sensor that provides temperature inputs sensing the ambient
temperature outside the motor vehicle.
For the above reasons, on the basis of the record before us, we
conclude that the combined teachings of AAPA or Butler, and Young and
Shank render obvious the subject matter of claim 1. We sustain the rejection
of claims 1-3, 5-13, 15, and 16.
Claims 4 and 14
In contesting this rejection, Appellants simply rely on the arguments
asserted against the rejection of claims 1 and 11. These arguments are
unpersuasive, for the reasons discussed above. We sustain the rejection of
claims 4 and 14.
Appeal 2009-009401
Application 11/202,793
8

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh

Chrysler Group LLC
CIMS 483-02-19
800 CHRYSLER DR EAST
AUBURN HILLS, MI 48326-2757