Ex Parte Krishnan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2018

14315368 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/315,368 06/26/2014
121691 7590 09/25/2018
Ford Global Technologies, LLC/
King & Schickli, PLLC
800 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 200
Lexington, KY 40503
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Venkatesh Krishnan
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.
83450495 2911
EXAMINER
DANIELS, JASON S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2018 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):
uspto@iplawl.net
laura@iplawl.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VENKA TESH KRISHNAN and BRANDON BUCKHAL T
Appeal2017-010240
Application 14/315,368
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1, 3---6, and 8-21. We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 "[T]he real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies, LLC." (Appeal
Br. 3.)
Appeal2017-010240
Application 14/315,368
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants' invention relates "generally to interior systems for
motor vehicles and, more particularly, to a customizable console with
multiple configurations for enhanced versatility in meeting the needs and
preferences of a vehicle operator." (Spec. ,r 1.)
Illustrative Claim
1. A customizable console system for a motor vehicle,
compnsmg:
a first console organizer having a first configuration;
a second console organizer having a second
configuration;
a base unit having a first receiver with a cavity forming a
storage receptacle, said first receiver configured for alternately
holding said first console organizer or said second console
organizer such that the cavity is closed by said first console
organizer or said second console organizer; and
a storage receiver for receiving and holding said first
console organizer or said second console organizer or said first
and second console organizers, wherein said storage receiver is
at least one elastic strap.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3---6, 8-16, and 18-21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Sluis2 and Laime. 3 (Non-Final Action 4.)
The Examiner rejects claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Sluis, Laime, and Oh. 4 (Non-Final Action 6.)
2 US 7,938,470 B2, issued May 10, 2011. Our quotations to this reference
will omit, where applicable, the bolding and/or italizing of drawing-related
reference numerals.
3 FR 2963295 Al, published February 3, 2012.
4 US 2015/0175046 Al, published June 25, 2015.
2
Appeal2017-010240
Application 14/315,368
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 21 are the independent claims on appeal, with the rest of
the claims on appeal (i.e., claims 3-6 and 8-20) depending directly or
ultimately from independent claim 1. (See Appeal Br., Claims App.)
The claims on appeal are drawn to "[a] customizable console system
for a motor vehicle." (Appeal Br., Claims App.) According to the
Appellants, "a customizable console for a motor vehicle allow[ s] the console
be organized in multiple configurations to meet the individual preferences
and changing needs of a vehicle operator." (Spec. ,r 5.) For example, a user
may desire, "during working hours," a console that "holds his cell phone, his
tablet or his laptop," but "when that same person is using the vehicle for a
family vacation, he may desire a console equipped with two cup holders and
a compartment for sunglasses and another compartment to hold change for
paying turnpike tolls." (Id. ,r 4.)
The Examiner's rejections, discussed individually below, rest upon
Sluis disclosing a customizable console system for a motor vehicle. (See
Non-Final Action 4.) Sluis's invention "is related to a removable stowage
device that functions to provide a stowage area, for example[,] in the cockpit
area of an automotive vehicle." (Sluis, col. 1, 11. 12-14.) Sluis teaches that a
user may need "an office filing system during business trips," but this same
person may need "a food and drink stowage area on a vacation road trip."
(Id. at col. 3, 11. 38--41.)
The Appellants argue that the Examiner "has not adequately
established that the combination of references teaches, suggests, or in any
way renders obvious every limitation of every claim, and that therefore, the
rejections should be reversed." (Appeal Br. 8.) As discussed below, we are
3
Appeal2017-010240
Application 14/315,368
not persuaded by the Appellants' position; and we sustain the Examiner's
rejections.
Independent Claims 1 and 21
Independent claims 1 and 21 require the customizable console to
comprise a "base unit" having a component "configured for alternately
holding [a] first console organizer or [a] second console." (Appeal Br.,
Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Sluis's customizable console system,
likewise, includes such a component. (See Non-Final Action 4.) In Sluis, a
receptacle 400 is configured for alternately holding a first console organizer
( e.g., the organizer 200 shown in Figure 8A) or a second console organizer
(e.g., the organizer 200 shown in Figure 9A). (See Sluis, col. 9, 11. 17-36.)
As indicated above, the holding component of the base unit is
"configured for alternately holding [the] first console organizer or [the]
second console organizer." (Appeal Br., Claims App., emphasis added.)
Thus, in the claimed customizable console system, when the first console
organizer is being held by the base unit, the second console organizer (i.e.,
the unused console organizer) is not. Likewise, in Sluis's customizable
console system, when the first console organizer is being held by the
receptacle 400, the second console organizer (i.e., the unused console
organizer) is not.
Independent claims 1 and 21 also require "a storage receiver for
receiving and holding said first console organizer or said second console
organizer or said first and second console organizers." (Appeal Br., Claims
App.) As explained in the Specification, the storage receiver is "for
receiving and holding any console organizer not currently in use." (Spec.
,r,r 29, 30; see also Fig. 4.) Thus, when the first console organizer is being
4
Appeal2017-010240
Application 14/315,368
held by the base unit, the second console organizer (i.e., the unused console
organizer) can be stored in the storage receiver.
According to the Examiner, Sluis "does not appear to disclose where
to store the unused console organizers." (Non-Final Action 4.) However,
the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious "to keep" Sluis' s
unused console organizer "in the vehicle." (Id. at 5.) The Examiner
provides us with an express statement regarding the "motivation" for storing
Sluis' s unused console organizers in the vehicle, namely to allow the
operator to "quickly and efficiently change them out to suit the individual's
needs." (Id.)
The Appellants argue that "the Examiner is merely speculating about
a possible advantage of the combination, i.e., allowing a user to change the
configuration during a trip, but in no way does the Examiner provide any
support from the cited references that a skilled artisan would have been
motivated to do so." (Appeal Br. 9.) According to the Appellants, Sluis "is
completely silent regarding changing console organizers during the same
trip," as Sluis teaches changing the console organizers from trip to trip.
(Id. at 9, emphasis added.) The Appellants also contend that "if the console
organizers are merely being changed between different trips, the need for
storing the different console organizers within the motor vehicle is
minimized." (Id. at 9-1 O; see also Reply Br. 2.)
We are not persuaded by this argument because the Appellants are
essentially saying that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
recognized that an accessory for a vehicle could be stored somewhere in the
vehicle when not currently in use. Regardless of whether Sluis discusses
changing console organizers before, during, or after a trip, this reference
5
Appeal2017-010240
Application 14/315,368
does teach an accessory for a vehicle that can, at times, be unused. And we
agree with the Examiner's sentiment that one of ordinary skill in the art
would appreciate that storing this unused accessory in the vehicle would
allow it to be quickly and efficiently retrieved, when changing console
organizers to suit the individual's needs. 5
Independent claims 1 and 21 additionally recite that "said storage
receiver is at least one elastic strap." (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The
Examiner finds that Laime teaches "a storage system for a vehicle to store
all different sizes of items" and "said storage receiver is at least one elastic
strap." (Non-Final Action 4.) The Appellants argue that "[i]t is not clear"
that Sluis's unused console components (i.e., flexible bags and adjustable
panels) "would be capable of being stored within an elastic strap as in the
claimed invention or disclosed by Laime." (Appeal Br. 10.) We are not
persuaded by this argument because, as noted by the Examiner, Laime
teaches "an adjustable elastic strap with multiple adjustable sliding means"
for "holding multiple vehicle accessories of differing dimensions."
(Answer 5.)
The Appellants further contend that "[t]he Examiner's position clearly
ignores that safety is of paramount concern while driving a vehicle and
driver inattention or distraction is a leading cause of motor vehicle
accidents." (Reply Br. 2.) We are not persuaded by this argument because it
5 Insofar as one of ordinary skill in the art would not have appreciated, based
upon Sluis alone, that an unused accessory (i.e., an unused console
organizer) could be conventionally stored somewhere in the vehicle, Laime
bridges this gap. Specifically, Laime shows storing vehicle accessories, of
varying shape and sizes, in a vehicle's trunk, as well as other places within
the vehicle. (See Laime, Figs. 2 and 3.)
6
Appeal2017-010240
Application 14/315,368
presumes that something within the driver's reach is prone to use while
driving ( as opposed to when the vehicle is parked), which is not necessarily
true. Indeed, the Appellants' own disclosure promotes storing items that
could cause driver inattention or distraction, such as a cell phone, within the
driver's reach in an installed console organizer. (See, e.g., Spec. ,r 4.) And
the Appellants certainly do not characterize their console organizers as
creating a setting that encourages dangerous driving.
Accordingly, the Examiner establishes adequately that the
customizable console system set forth in independent claims 1 and 21 would
have been obvious over the prior art. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claims 1 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sluis and Laime.
Dependent Claims 3-6, 8-16, and 18-20
These dependent claims are not argued separately (see Appeal Br. 11 ),
and so they fall with independent claim 1. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of dependent claims 3---6, 8-16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Sluis and Laime.
Dependent Claim 17
Claim 17, which depends directly from independent claim 1, further
requires "a temperature control unit in said base unit for heating and cooling
a cup holder in either of said first console organizer or said second console
organizer." (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Sluis
discloses a console organizer that "may include cup holders" and that Oh
discloses a "temperature controlling device" to cool or heat "cup holders."
(Non-Final Action 5, 6.) And the Examiner determines that "the operator
may want a heated or cooled drink," and, therefore, it would have been
7
Appeal2017-010240
Application 14/315,368
obvious to use Oh's temperature controlling device to heat/cool Sluis's cup
holder(s). (Id. at 6.) The Examiner also explains that "[t]he use of a heated
and cooled cup holder is known and used in the prior art as disclosed by Oh"
and "one of ordinary skill in the relevant field, automotive interior design, is
tasked as the focus of their skill to create an automotive interior environment
which is wholly directed towards ensuring the comfort and safety of the
operator and passengers." (Answer 7.)
The Appellants argue that "[t]he desire of the operator is not the test
for obviousness," and that there must be an identified "reason that would
have prompted" a person of ordinary skill to combine the prior at elements.
(Appeal Br. 12.) As for the Examiner's explanation regarding the comfort
and safety of vehicle occupants (see Answer 7), the Appellants contend that
"the Examiner still fails to provide an articulated reason for combining the
Oh reference" with the Sluis and Laime references. (Reply Br. 3).
We are not persuaded by this argument because the Examiner does
provide articulated reasoning ( e.g., the desire for a heated or cooled drink),
with rational underpinnings in the record, for combining the prior art
teachings. The record reflects that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been aware that a console organizer can include "cup-holders" for
holding "hot or cold food and drink." (Sluis, col. 9, 11. 27-29.) The record
also reflects that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that,
when a cup holder is "installed in a compact space in a vehicle," a
thermoelectric element can be "used to selectively cool or heat [the] cup
holder." (Oh ,r 5.) The record further reflects that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have appreciated the advantages of a "control unit" which
"enables the user to intuitively be aware of the temperature status of the
8
Appeal2017-010240
Application 14/315,368
cup." (Id. ,r 31.) Ergo, one of ordinary skill in the art would have inferred
that vehicle occupants would desire console cup holders for hot/cold
beverages, and that such cup holders could be advantageously provided with
a temperature control unit.
Accordingly, the Examiner establishes adequately that the
customizable console system set forth in dependent claim 17 would have
been obvious over the prior art. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of dependent claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sluis,
Laime, and Oh.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3---6, and 8-21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9