Ex Parte Flick

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2015

12181026 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/181,026 07/28/2008 Kenneth E. Flick
27975 7590 12/30/2015
ADDMG - 27975
1401 CITRUS CENTER 255 SOUTH ORANGE A VENUE
P.O. BOX 3791
ORLANDO, FL 32802-3791
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
58264 1166
EXAMINER
SHAIKH, MERAJ A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2015 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):
creganoa@addmg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH E. FLICK
Appeal2013---008967
Application 12/181,026 1
Technology Center 3700
Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kenneth E. Flick (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1--4, 6-12, 14--17, 19-22, 24, and
25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ziehr (US 2006/0075766
Al, pub. Apr. 13, 2006), Flick (US 2005/0179323 Al, pub. Aug. 18, 2005),
Inagaki (JP 11062793 A, pub. Mar. 5, 1999), and Kojima (US 2009/0064695
Al, pub. Mar. 12, 2009). 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Omega Patents, L.L.C.
Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 5, 13, 18, and 23 have been canceled. Id. at 2.
Appeal2013---008967
Application 12/181,026
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 11, 16, and 21 are independent claims. Claim 1 is
reproduced below and illustrates the claimed subject matter, with disputed
limitations emphasized.
1. A remote climate control system for a hybrid vehicle
comprising a combustion engine, a rechargeable electrical
power source rechargeable by the combustion engine and an
electrical air conditioning (AC) unit selectively powered
thereby, a sensor associated with the rechargeable electrical
power source, a data communications bus extending throughout
the hybrid vehicle, and at least one of the electrical AC unit and
the sensor coupled to the data communications bus, the remote
climate control system comprising:
a remote transmitter;
a receiver to be positioned at the hybrid vehicle for
receiving signals from the remote transmitter; and
a vehicle remote climate controller cooperating with the
receiver and to be coupled to the data communications bus
extending \~1ithin the hybrid vehicle for communication
thereover to selectively operate the electrical AC unit
responsive to the sensor and the remote transmitter;
said vehicle remote climate controller configured to start
the combustion engine, after beginning operation of the
electrical AC unit, based upon the sensor sensing a voltage of
the rechargeable electrical power source being below a
threshold.
OPINION
Appellant argues claims 1--4, 6-12, 14--17, 19-22, 24, and 25 together
in contesting the rejection of these claims as obvious over Ziehr, Flick,
Inagaki, and Kojima. See Appeal Br. 7-11; Reply Br. 2-5. We select claim
1 as the representative claim for this group, and the remaining claims stand
or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We have considered
2
Appeal2013---008967
Application 12/181,026
Appellant's arguments raised in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief~ but do not
find them persuasive to demonstrate error in the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1 as being obvious over Ziehr, Flick, Inagaki, and Kojima.
Independent claim 1 recites a remote climate control system for a
hybrid vehicle that includes, inter alia, a vehicle remote climate controller
"configured to start [a] combustion engine, after beginning operation of [an]
electrical AC unit, based upon [a] sensor sensing a voltage of [a]
rechargeable electrical power source [battery] being below a threshold."
Appeal Br. 12, Claim App. (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that Kojima "discloses starting [the combustion]
engine when [the] battery is low after beginning operation of the pre-air
conditioning in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of maintaining
enough battery capacity for operation." Final Act. 3--4. As the Examiner
explains, "Kojima disclose[ s both] starting the combustion engine prior to
operation of the pre-air conditioning," (id. (citing Kojima i-fi-175-77)), "and
starting the combustion engine after beginning operation of the pre-air
conditioning" (Id. at 4 (citing Kojima i184)). From the foregoing, the
Examiner reasons that "it would have been obvious ... to modify the
apparatus of Ziehr ... with starting [the] engine after [the] pre-air
conditioning unit is on if [the] battery remaining capacity [is] below the
required level." Id.
Based on first having summarized the disclosure in Figure 2 of
Kojima, Appellant contends that:
Kojima merely discloses starting a combustion engine prior to
operation of an electrical AC unit based upon a sensor sensing a
voltage of a battery being [below] a threshold, and not a vehicle
remote climate controller starting a combustion engine, after
3
Appeal2013---008967
Application 12/181,026
beginning operation of an electrical AC unit, based upon a
sensor sensing a voltage of a rechargeable electrical power
source being below a threshold during operation of the
electrical AC unit, as recited . . in independent Claim 1.
Appeal Br. 9-10. However, Appellant misreads the Examiner's rejection.
Referring to Figure 4 of Kojima, the Examiner explains that "Kojima
disclose [ s] both ( 1) starting a combustion engine prior to operation of an
electrical AC unit (Steps 200-202-204--206) and (2) starting a combustion
engine after ... operation of an electrical AC unit (Steps 208-210-212-
214--216)." Ans. 5. The Examiner points out that "Appellant's argument is
based on the ( 1) portion and Examiner's rejection is relied on the (2) portion
of the engine control as indicated in the Final Office Action." Id. At pages
5 and 6 of the Answer, the Examiner also provides a detailed explanation of
the "(2) portion" of Kojima and determines that "the limitation of 'start the
combustion engine, after beginning operation of the electrical AC unit,
based upon the sensor sensing a voltage of the rechargeable electrical po\~1er
source being below a threshold' has been disclosed by Kojima."
In response, Appellant repeats the argument asserted in the Appeal
Brief, again contending that Kojima
merely discloses starting a combustion engine prior to operation
of an electrical AC unit based upon a sensor sensing a voltage
of a battery being [below] a threshold, and not a vehicle remote
climate controller starting a combustion engine, after beginning
operation of an electrical AC unit, based upon a sensor sensing
a voltage of a rechargeable electrical power source being below
a threshold during operation of the electrical AC unit.
Reply Br. 2-3; see also Appeal Br. 9-10 (presenting same argument).
Appellant supports this repeated contention by paraphrasing several
4
Appeal2013---008967
Application 12/181,026
paragraphs of Kojima and arguing that "the Examiner's characterization of
the Kojima reference is inaccurate," because "at the very top of the
flowchart of FIG. 4, ifthe answer to the decision 200 'IS IGNITION ON?'
is -NO-, then the process reverts back to the beginning and does not then
check to see if the AC unit is operating." Reply Br. 4--5.
Upon reviewing the record, including Kojima, we agree with the
Examiner's analysis of Kojima and adopt the Examiner's analysis and
responses as our own. As such, we affirm the Examiner's rejection and add
the following for emphasis only. We agree with the Examiner that while at
the top of Figure 4, Kojima discloses starting a combustion engine prior to
operation of an electrical AC unit, Figure 4 of Kojima also discloses starting
a combustion engine after operation of an electrical AC unit (Steps 208-
210-212-214--216). See Ans. 5---6.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1--4, 6-12, 14--17, 19-22, 24, and 25 over Ziehr, Flick, Inagaki, and
Kojima.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv)
AFFIRMED
cda
5