Ex Parte Kanemaru et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 17, 2017

13030465 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 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.
13/030,465 02/18/2011 Junichi Kanemaru HRA-19833.01 2764
139779 7590 07/19/2017
Rankin Hill fr (Hark T T P
EXAMINER
23755 Lorain Road FURDGE, LARRY L
Suite 200
North Olmsted, OH 44070 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/19/2017 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):
o verberger @ rankinhill. com
dragony @ rankinhill. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUNICHI KANEMARU and SHINJI KAKIZAKI
Appeal 2016-002054
Application 13/030,4651
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Junichi Kanemara and Shinji Kakizaki (Appellants) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1—3, 6,
8, 10-14, and 17—20.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
Appeal Br. 3 (filed Apr. 17, 2015).
2 Claims 4, 5, 7, 9, 15, and 16 are canceled. Appeal Br. 5.
Appeal 2016-002054
Application 13/030,465
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to “a method and apparatus for
controlling a front and rear integrated vehicle HVAC system so as to prevent
an inverse air flow.” Spec. para. 1.
Claims 1, 8, 11, and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A method for operating a front and rear integrated
vehicle HVAC system having a front HVAC portion with a
front blower, and a front vent outlet, and a rear HVAC portion
with a rear blower having a rear blower air intake, and a rear
vent outlet, comprising:
determining a minimum rear blower voltage to be
supplied to the rear blower to prevent an inverse air flow from
being expelled from either of the rear vent outlet and the rear
blower air intake; and
setting a voltage supplied to the rear blower as the greater
of the minimum rear blower voltage and a current rear blower
voltage,
wherein inverse air flow is air flow in the front HVAC
portion generated by the front blower and intended for the front
vent outlet that seeps into the rear HVAC portion and is
expelled from at least one of the rear vent outlet and the rear
blower air intake,
wherein determining the minimum rear blower voltage
further comprises:
sensing a voltage supplied to the front blower;
detecting an output mode for air flow generated by the
front blower; and
calculating the minimum rear blower voltage as a
function of both the voltage supplied to the front blower and the
front blower output mode.
2
Appeal 2016-002054
Application 13/030,465
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ito et al. (US 2004/0098995 Al,
pub. May 27, 2004) (hereinafter “Ito”), Klassen et al. (US
2006/0118290 Al, pub. June 8, 2006) (hereinafter “Klassen”), and
Liu (US 2007/0084938 Al, pub. Apr. 19, 2007).
II. The Examiner rejected claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Imoto (US 6,912,861 B2, iss. July 5, 2005),
Klassen, and Liu.
III. The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Imoto, Klassen, Liu, and Kenji (JP 06-206423 A,
pub. July 26, 1994).
IV. The Examiner rejected claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Imoto, Klassen, Liu, Kenji, and
Katsumi (US 4,962,302, iss. Oct. 9, 1990).
V. The Examiner rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Imoto, Klassen, and Liu.
VI. The Examiner rejected claims 18—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Imoto, Klassen, Liu, Kenji, and Katsumi.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “determining a minimum rear blower
voltage to be supplied to the rear blower to prevent an inverse air flow from
being expelled from either of the rear vent outlet and the rear blower air
3
Appeal 2016-002054
Application 13/030,465
intake.” Claim 1 defines the term “inverse air flow” as “air flow in the front
HVAC portion generated by the front blower and intended for the front vent
outlet that seeps into the rear HVAC portion and is expelled from at least
one of the rear vent outlet and the rear blower air intake.” Independent
claim 8 includes a substantially similar limitation.
The Examiner finds that fto discloses most of the limitations of claim
1 including a front blower 10 (main blower)3 having a front vent outlet 23
(front air outlet opening), a rear blower 27 (sub-blower) having a rear blower
intake 27g to 27j (suction ports) and a rear vent outlet 28 (rear air duct).
Final Act. 2—3. However, the Examiner finds that fto does not disclose
determining a minimum rear blower voltage to prevent an inverse air flow,
as called for by each of independent claims 1 and 8. Id. at 3. Nonetheless,
the Examiner finds that Klassen discloses an HVAC system that prevents
inverse air flow and reasons that, it would have been obvious to modify the
method of fto to operate the HVAC portions to prevent inverse air flow as
taught by Klassen “in order to ensure[] that dust and dirt are not drawn into
the operator cab and thereby keep[] the cab clean and the controls operating
properly.” Id. at 4 (citing Klassen, para. 46).
Appellants argue that based on the arrangement of Klassen’s front
recirculation blower 116, air conduit 124 and front vent outlet 122, and the
arrangement of rear blower 118 and rear outlet conduit 144, “airflow
generated by the recirculation blower 116 of the front HVAC portion and
intended for a front vent outlet located forward of the operator cannot seep
into the rear HVAC portion to be expelled by the pressurizer blower 118
though the outlet conduit 144.” Appeal Br. 13 (citing Klassen, Fig. 1).
3 Parenthetical refers to the nomenclature of Ito.
4
Appeal 2016-002054
Application 13/030,465
The Examiner responds that under a broadest reasonable interpretation
in light of the Specification, to prevent an inverse airflow one must provide a
positive airflow and, Klassen teaches this limitation because “Klassen
teaches maintaining a blower speed such that a positive airflow is
maintained i.e. preventing an inverse airflow.” Ans. 16—17.
Appellants reply that claim 1 defines inverse airflow and that the
positive air pressure of Klassen’s rear blower 118 does not act on the air
flow from the front blower as required by this definition. Reply Br. 7—8.
Appellants’ arguments are persuasive because claim 1 requires more
than the rear blower providing positive pressure. As noted above, each of
claims 1 and 8 defines the term “inverse air flow” as “air flow in the front
HVAC portion generated by the front blower and intended for the front vent
outlet that seeps into the rear HVAC portion and is expelled from at least
one of the rear vent outlet and the rear blower air intake.” Appeal Br. 18
(Claims App.) (emphasis added). Hence, positive pressure from the rear
blower must not just be present, the positive pressure must prevent air flow
generated by the front blower and intended for the front vent outlet from
seeping into and being expelled from the rear HVAC portion.
We reproduce Figure 1 of Klassen below:
5
Appeal 2016-002054
Application 13/030,465
100
Figure 1 of Klassen is a schematic left side view of the cabin of a work
vehicle.
As seen in Figure 1 of Klassen, air generated by front blower 116
exits front outlet 122 and follows conduit 124 to be expelled at front vent
outlet 112. See Klassen, para. 26. The Examiner does not point to any
portion of Klassen that discloses that any part of the flow path generated by
front blower 116 is in flow communication with rear blower outlet 136 or
rear blower intake 138 of blower 118 in a manner in which air could
possibly seep from the flow path of front blower 116 into the rear HVAC
portion and be expelled from at least one of the rear vent outlet and the rear
blower air intake of rear outlet conduit 144. Rather, in Klassen, as
Appellants correctly argue, the flow of air generated by front blower 116
cannot seep “into the rear HVAC portion to be expelled by the pressurizer
6
Appeal 2016-002054
Application 13/030,465
blower 118 though the outlet conduit 144.” Appeal Br. 13. For these
reasons, the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the
evidence that Klassen discloses determining a minimum rear blower voltage
to prevent an inverse air flow, as called for by each of claims 1 and 8.
The Examiner’s use of the disclosure of Liu does not remedy the
deficiency of Ito and Klassen discussed supra. See Final Act. 4.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) of claims 1 and 8, and of claims 2, 3, 6, and 10 depending therefrom
as unpatentable over Ito, Klassen, and Liu.
Rejections II and V
Independent claim 11 recites, in relevant part, “wherein the voltage
controller is configured to determine a minimum rear blower voltage
required to prevent an inverse airflow from being expelled from a rear outlet
and a rear blower air intake.” Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.) Independent
claim 17 recites, in relevant part, “wherein the voltage controller is further
configured to determine a minimum rear blower voltage required to prevent
an inverse airflow through the evaporator from being expelled from a rear
vent outlet and a rear blower air intake.” Id. at 21.
Unlike claims 1 and 8, claims 11 and 17 do not explicitly define the
phrase “inverse airflow.” However, claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, reading claim
language in light of the Specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this case, Appellants’ Specification defines the
term “inverse airflow” as “an air flow originating from one of the blowers
7
Appeal 2016-002054
Application 13/030,465
104, 108 intended for the respective and/or associated vent outlet 132, 134
that inadvertently or undesirably enters the adjoining HVAC portion 102,
106.” Spec. para. 27. Thus, similar to claims 1 and 8, claims 11 and 17
require not just positive pressure from the rear blower, but that the positive
pressure prevents air flow generated by the front blower and intended for the
front vent outlet from seeping into and being expelled from the rear HVAC
portion.
The Examiner rejects independent claims 11 and 17 based on the
same findings and reasoning with respect to Klassen as for Rejection I.
Final Act. 8—9, 12. In response, Appellants submit the same contentions of
error. Appeal Br. 15—16. The Examiner does not rely on the disclosures of
Imoto and Liu in any manner that would remedy the deficiencies in the
rejection based on the findings and reasoning with respect to Klassen as for
Rejection I.
Accordingly, for the same reasons stated above in connection with
Rejection I, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 17 as
unpatentable over Imoto, Klassen, and Liu.
Rejections III, IV, and VI
Claims 12—14 depend from claim 11, and claims 18—20 depend from
claim 17. See Appeal Br. 20-21 (Claims App.).
The Examiner does not rely on the disclosures of Kenji and Katsumi in
any manner that would remedy the deficiencies in the rejection based upon
the combined teachings of Imoto, Klassen, and Liu discussed supra in
Rejections II and V. See Final Act. 10, 11, 13, and 14.
8
Appeal 2016-002054
Application 13/030,465
Hence, for the same reasons stated above in connection with Rejections
11 and V, we do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim
12 as unpatentable over Imoto, Klassen, Liu, and Kenji and of claims 13, 14,
and 18—20 as unpatentable over Imoto, Klassen, Liu, Kenji, and Katsumi.
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—3, 6, 8, 10-14, and 17—20
is reversed.
REVERSED
9