Ex Parte Lang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2018

13849818 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/849,818 03/25/2013 Werner Lang
47713 7590 12/12/2018
IMPERIUM PATENT WORKS
P.O. BOX607
Pleasanton, CA 94566
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.
WBF-022 5285
EXAMINER
TIGHE, DANA K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3762
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/12/2018 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WERNER LANG, STEP AN BAUER,
SIMON DEPPNER, SEBASTIAN HEGER, and
MATTHIAS ZINK
Appeal2017-007997
Application 13/849, 818
Technology Center 3700
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 16-30 and 32-35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal2017-007997
Application 13/849,818
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a housing for accommodation and
temperature regulation of an electronic device and vehicle provided with
such housing. Claims 16, 27, and 34 are independent. Claims 16 and 34,
reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
16. A vehicle comprising:
a passenger compartment;
an air conditioning system that guides a temperature-
regulated air current through a duct and into the passenger
compartment; and
a housing located at a predetermined position within the
passenger compartment, wherein the housing is adapted to
accommodate an electronic device having a temperature,
wherein the housing includes an air inlet and an air outlet through
which the temperature-regulated air current from the duct passes,
and wherein the temperature of the electronic device is regulated
exclusively by guiding the air current from the duct around the
electronic device.
3 4. A system comprising:
an air duct, wherein a temperature-regulated air current
from an air conditioning system of a vehicle passes through the
air duct;
a housing; and
an indirect vision system located inside the housing,
wherein the indirect vision system has a temperature, wherein the
housing includes an air inlet and an air outlet through which the
temperature-regulated air current passes, and wherein the
temperature of the indirect vision system is regulated by guiding
the air current from the air duct around the indirect vision system.
2
Appeal2017-007997
Application 13/849,818
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kelman
Carter
Goobeck
Hiramaki
Englander
Kazuhide
us 5,354,114
us 5,481,433
US 6,902,473 B 1
US 2009/068025 Al
US 8,520,070 B 1
JP 2007-196844
REJECTIONS
Oct. 11, 1994
Jan.2, 1996
June 7, 2005
Oct. 29, 2009
Aug. 27, 2013
Aug.9,2007
Claims 16-18, 21-23, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32, and 33 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Goobeck.
Claims 19, 20, 24, 26, 28, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Goobeck and the additional reference(s)
outlined below:
Claim 19 - Englander;
Claim 20 - Hiramaki;
Claims 24, 34 - Kazuhide;
Claim 26 - Kelman;
Claim 28 - Carter; and
Claim 3 5 - Kazuhide and Kelman.
3
Appeal2017-007997
Application 13/849,818
OPINION
35 u.s.c. § 102(b)
Claims 16, 17, and 22
Appellants argue the rejections of claims 16, 17, and 22 together. We
select independent claim 16 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that Goobeck teaches all of the
features of claim 16. See Final Act. 3-5.
Appellants argue that Goobeck does not teach "the housing is adapted
to accommodate an electronic device." Appeal Br. 6-8. Appellants argue
that the sealing adaptor 16 "merely attaches to the power inverter 40" but
does not accommodate the power inverter 40. Id. at 7.
Though we agree with Appellants that "[a] 'housing adapted to
accommodate' is ... not the same as a 'housing adapted to attach to"'
(Reply Br. 6), we do not agree Goobeck does not teach a "housing adapted
to accommodate" as required. As shown in Goobeck Figure 6, two
attachment flanges 38 with adjustable screws 39 are positioned opposite one
another to receive the power inverter 40 therebetween. As the Examiner
determines that the attachment flanges are part of the housing (Ans. 15), it is
in this way that the "the housing is adapted to accommodate an electronic
device." Appellants are also correct that the sealing adaptor 16 and body 20
by themselves do not accommodate an electric device (Appeal Br. 6-8,
Reply Br. 5---6), but these are not the solely relied upon structure of the
rejection, it is the two attachment flanges 38 with adjustable screws 39
together with the sealing adaptor 16 and body 20 that meet the claimed
limitation.
4
Appeal2017-007997
Application 13/849,818
Appellants also argue that Goobeck does not teach "an air current that
is guided around the electronic device." Appeal Br. 8. Appellants state that:
Id.
The body 20 is also too small to guide an air current around the
electronic accessory 2. . . . The air may escape through a gap
between the accessory 2 and the body 20, or the air may be
vented through openings in the body. (Goobeck, 7:1-7) But no
air current is ever guided around the electronic accessory 2.
With respect to Figure 6, Goobeck teaches that "means should be
provided for ensuring that the air flow exiting adaptor 16 is at least partially
vented. Preferably, the flanges 38 are secured such that there is a space, or
gap (not shown), between sealing member 22 of main body 20 and power
inverter 40." Goobeck 6:65-7:3; see also Ans. 15. Based on this teaching,
the Examiner determines that "the air current exiting the adaptor 16 is
guided by the size and shape of the adaptor 16 to the sides of the power
inverter 40." Ans. 15. We agree with the Examiner that this finding is
supported by the teachings of Goo beck.
Therefore, we affirm as Appellants' arguments have not identified
error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 16. Claims 17 and 22 fall with
claim 16.
Claims 2 7, 2 9, and 3 3
Appellants argue the rejections of claims 27, 29, and 33 together. We
select independent claim 27 as representative. The Examiner finds that
Goobeck teaches all of the features of claim 27. See Final Act. 7-8.
Claim 27 includes the limitation
an electronic device held by the housing, wherein the electronic
device has a temperature, wherein the housing includes an air
5
Appeal2017-007997
Application 13/849,818
inlet and an air outlet through which the temperature-regulated
air current from the air duct passes, and wherein the
temperature of the electronic device is regulated exclusively by
guiding the air current from the duct around the electronic
device.
Appellants argue that "Goobeck does not disclose the recited housing
through which an air current passes that is guided around an electronic
device held by the housing." Appeal Br. 10. In support, Appellants repeat
arguments similar to those made concerning claim 16 that we found
unconvincing. Id. at 10-12.
We affirm as Appellants' arguments have not identified error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 27. Claims 29 and 33 fall with claim 27.
Claims 18 and 30
Claim 18 depends from claim 16 and requires "wherein the air current
exiting the duct strikes the outside of the housing." Claim 30 depends from
claim 27 and requires "wherein the air current exiting the duct strikes an
outside surface of the housing." In order to find that this is taught by
Goobeck, the Examiner determines that "the underside of 16/20" is the same
as the outside "because [the duct] is open to the surroundings of 16/20."
Final Act. 5; see also id. at 9.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office gives claims 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. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Examiner's determination that the underside of
6
Appeal2017-007997
Application 13/849,818
16/20 can also be the outside of the housing is not a reasonable reading of
the claim. In this instance, what the Examiner appears to be relying on is the
inside of the housing, rather than the outside thereof. Thus, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 18 and 30.
Claims 21 and 3 2
Claim 21 depends from claim 16 and requires "wherein the housing is
integrally connected to a part of the vehicle." Claim 32 depends from claim
27 and requires "wherein the housing is an integral part of a vehicle." The
Examiner determines that the housing 16/20 is integrally connected to the
vehicle and, thus, reads on claims 21 and 32. Final Act. 5-6; see also id. at
9. At the same time, the Examiner also determines that the housing 16/20 is
detachably connected to thereby read on claims 22 and 33. Final Act. 5---6;
see also id. at 9. Thus, the Examiner determines that the same structure is
both integrally connected to the vehicle, but also detachably connected.
Goobeck teaches that "the system 1 [including housing 16/20] is
designed to be removably installed in a vehicle 44." Goobeck 4:65---66.
Thus, the Examiner's attempt to have the same embodiment teach two
opposite meanings is unsupported and we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 21 and 3 2.
Claim 23
Claim 23 depends from claim 16 and requires "wherein the housing
has an inside temperature that is maintained at an operating temperature of
the electronic device." Appellants argue that "Goobeck does not disclose
that the inside of adaptor 16 is maintained at the operating temperature of the
7
Appeal2017-007997
Application 13/849,818
power inverter 40." Appeal Br. 9. However, the claim is not as narrow as
argued by Appellants. The claim merely requires that "an" inside
temperature is maintained at "an" operating temperature of the electronic
device. The Examiner found that the temperature inside the housing 16/20 is
"influenced by the heat created by 40" and further maintained at an
operating/operational temperature of the electronic device 40 based on this
heat. Final Act. 6. The Examiner further determines that: "The temperature
inside adaptor 16 is less that the temperature in which the inverter would
overheat because of the cool air supplied through the conduit system.
Therefore, the temperature inside the adaptor 16 is maintained at an
operating temperature of inverter 40." Ans. 19.
We affirm, as Appellants' argument is not commensurate in scope to
the claim, we are not informed of error in the rejection of claim 23.
Claim 25
Claim 25 depends from claim 16 and requires "wherein the electronic
device is located in a field of view of a driver of the vehicle." The Examiner
determines that "the entire front compartment 45 of the vehicle" in Goo beck
is in a "field of view of the driver sitting in the driver's seat." Final Act. 6.
The Examiner further determines that the auxiliary sealing adaptor 16 and
inverter 40 are, therefore, in the driver's field of view. Id. at 6-7.
Appellants argue that:
The "field of view of the driver" is the view of a driver in the
operation of the vehicle, such as the view towards a rear view
mirror, other indirect vision system or towards an A-pillar. (See
Specification, ,r,r [0024 ], [0028]) The field of view of the driver
is not looking down at the seat or floor. The power inverter 40
8
Appeal2017-007997
Application 13/849,818
sitting on the floor or on the passenger seat is not located "in the
field of view of the driver".
Appeal Br. 10.
Among other things, paragraph 24 of the Specification teaches that the
A-pillar can be seen by the driver and paragraph 28 teaches that in one
embodiment "the electronic device 13 is an indirect vision system located in
the field of view of a driver of the vehicle 12." Neither paragraph attempts
to define a field of view of a driver of the vehicle.
The driver's field of view is what the driver sees at any given
moment. Appellants' argument that the seat and floor are not within the
driver's field of view attempts to unduly limit the scope of the claim. Thus,
we agree with the Examiner that "[a] driver, sitting in the driver's seat of the
vehicle, is able to tum his/her head and easily view a piece of equipment
sitting on the passenger's seat ... or on the floor in front of the passenger's
seat." Ans. 19--20. Therefore, we affirm as we are not informed of error in
the Examiner's rejection of claim 25.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 19
Claim 19 depends from claim 16 and requires "wherein the
predetermined position is in an A-pillar of the vehicle." The Examiner finds
that Englander teaches a "camera is positioned within the area defined by the
A-pillar of the vehicle." Final Act. 10. The Examiner further finds that in
view of Englander "it is known to attach a piece of equipment to the A-pillar
of the vehicle." Ans. 24.
As noted above, claim 19 requires that the "predetermined position is
in an A-pillar of the vehicle." In other words, the claim requires that the
9
Appeal2017-007997
Application 13/849,818
housing be located in the A-pillar, not attached to the A-pillar, or in the area
of the A-pillar. See Appeal Br. 13-14.
As the Examiner does not set forth a prima facie case of obviousness
of all elements of claim 19, we do not sustain the rejection.
Claim 20
Claim 20 depends from claim 16 and requires "wherein the
predetermined position is on a dashboard panel of the vehicle." The
Examiner finds that Hiramaki teaches an electronic device on a dashboard.
Final Act. 10-11. The Examiner determines that it would be a matter of
simple substitution, to substitute Hiramaki's camera and location for
Goobeck's electrical device and location. Id. at 11.
Appellants argue that "Hiramaki' s infrared camera 2 has nothing to do
with a housing with an air inlet and an air outlet through with [sic.] an air
current passes" or "to air currents that are guided around electronic devices."
Appeal Br. 15. Though this is true, the Examiner is not relying on Hiramaki
for these concepts, and thus, Appellants' arguments are not directed to the
rejection as set forth by the Examiner. Further, Appellants' arguments are
against Hiramaki individually, where the rejection is based on the
combination of Goo beck and Hiramaki. One cannot show nonobviousness
by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA
1981) ( citations omitted) ( explaining that obviousness must be considered in
light of "what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art"). For these reasons, we affirm
as we are not informed of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 20.
10
Appeal2017-007997
Application 13/849,818
Claim 24
Claim 24 depends from claim 16 and requires "wherein the electronic
device is an indirect vision system." The Examiner finds that Kazuhide
teaches an indirect vision system with a CPU and determines that it would
be obvious "to provide thermal management" of the CPU using Goo beck's
system. Final Act. 12.
Similar to claim 20, Appellants argue that Kazuhide's vision system
has nothing to do with a housing with an air inlet and an air outlet through
which an air current passes or to air currents guided around electronic
devices. Appeal Br. 16. Though this is true, the Examiner is not relying on
Kazuhide for these concepts, and thus, Appellants' arguments are not
directed to the rejection as set forth by the Examiner. Further, Appellants'
arguments are against Kazuhide individually, where the rejection is based on
the combination of Goo beck and Kazuhide. Thus, we affirm as we are not
informed of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 24.
Claim 28
Claim 2 8 depends from claim 2 7 and requires "wherein the air inlet
has a cross section that decreases in area moving towards the inside of the
housing." The Examiner finds that this is taught by Carter. Final Act. 14.
The Examiner finds that it would be obvious to modify Goobeck's inlet as
taught by Carter "to increase the velocity of the air currents entering the
housing to provide increased cooling efficiency of the electronic devices."
Id.
11
Appeal2017-007997
Application 13/849,818
Similar to claims 20, 24, and 26, Appellants argue Carter individually,
and for aspects not relied upon in the rejection. In particular, Appellants
argue that "the air that flows through Carter's heat exchanger 20 is never
guided around the high-power semiconductors 16 because the heat
exchanger 20 is not a housing for the high-power semiconductors 16."
Appeal Br. 19. The Examiner's rejection does not rely on Carter for these
teachings. Further, this argument does not address the combined teachings
of Goo beck and Carter. Thus, we affirm as we are not informed of error in
the Examiner's rejection of claim 28.
Claim 34
The Examiner finds that Goo beck teaches all of the features of claim
34 except for the electronic device being an indirect vision system. Final
Act. 15-16. The Examiner finds that Kazuhide teaches an indirect vision
system with a CPU and determines that it would be obvious "to provide
thermal management" of the CPU using Goobeck's system. Id. at 16.
Appellants argue that in Goobeck the electronic device 40 is not
inside the housing 16/20 as required by the claim. Appeal Br. 20. The
Examiner responds that
the power inverter 40 is located inside the adaptor 16 because
attachment flanges 3 8 are a part of adaptor 16. Inverter 40 is
located between body 20 and flanges 38. Therefore, the inverter
40 is located inside adaptor 16 and Goo beck teaches an electronic
accessory located inside a housing through which the
temperature-regulated air current passes.
Ans. 29.
As shown in Goo beck Figure 6, two attachment flanges 3 8 with
adjustable screws 39 are positioned opposite one another to receive the
12
Appeal2017-007997
Application 13/849,818
power inverter 40 therebetween. As the Examiner determines that the
attachment flanges are part of the housing, it is in this way that at least a part
of the electronic device is inside the housing. Thus, we are not informed of
error in the Examiner's rejection.
Appellants also argue that Goobeck does not teach guiding an air
current around the electronic device. Appeal Br. 20-21. Appellants
essentially repeat the similar argument made with respect to claim 16. Id. at
20-22.
With respect to Figure 6, Goobeck teaches that "means should be
provided for ensuring that the air flow exiting adaptor 16 is at least partially
vented. Preferably, the flanges 38 are secured such that there is a space, or
gap (not shown), between sealing member 22 of main body 20 and power
inverter 40." Goobeck 6:65-7:3; see also Ans. 29-30. Based on this
teaching, the Examiner determines that this design "allows the air current
exiting adaptor 16 to flow along the sides of power inverter 40 to cool the
electronic device" thereby guiding the air current around the electronic
device. Ans. 30. We agree with the Examiner that this finding is supported
by the teachings of Goo beck.
Therefore, we affirm as Appellants' arguments have not identified
error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 34.
Claims 2 6 and 3 5
Claim 26 depends from claim 16 and requires "wherein the vehicle
has a windshield, and wherein the air outlet is oriented such that the air
current exiting the housing strikes the windshield of the vehicle." Claim 35
13
Appeal2017-007997
Application 13/849,818
depends from claim 34 and requires "wherein the air outlet is oriented such
that the air current exiting the housing strikes a window of the vehicle."
The Examiner finds that Kelman teaches a vehicle with a vent that
delivers air to the windshield for defrosting. Final Act. 13, 17.
Similar to claims 20 and 24, Appellants argue Goobeck and Kelman
individually, and for aspects not relied upon in the rejection. Thus, we
affirm as we are not informed of error in the Examiner's rejections of claims
26 and 35.
DECISION
The Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 16, 17, 22, 23, 25, 27,
29, and 33 is affirmed.
The Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 18, 21, 30, and 32 is
reversed.
The Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 20, 24, 26, 28, 34,
and 3 5 are affirmed.
The Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 19 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
14