Ex Parte Louch et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 29, 201612577942 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/577,942 10/13/2009 28395 7590 10/03/2016 BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L 1000 TOWN CENTER 22NDFLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Robert Jay Louch 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. 81191951 5323 EXAMINER TEITELBAUM, DAVID J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/03/2016 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): docketing@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT JAY LOUCH, DONALD CHARLES FRANKS, BRIAN C. MOORHEAD, and HASDI R. HASHIM Appeal2014-006011 Application 12/577,942 Technology Center 3700 Before JOHN C. KERINS, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Robert Jay Louch et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 14, and 15. Claims 2, 5-13, 16, and 17 are withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. THE INVENTION Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a vehicle climate system and method for operating such system. Claims 1 and 14, reproduced below, are illustrative: Appeal2014-006011 Application 12/577,942 1. A vehicle comprising: a cabin; at least one electrical component; an air conditioning system configured to selectively cool either or both of the cabin and at least one electrical component; and at least one controller configured to, in response to a request for cabin cooling, enable the air conditioning system to cool the cabin only if the air conditioning system is already operating to cool the at least one electrical component. 14. A method for operating a vehicle climate system compnsmg: in response to a request for cabin cooling, (i) enabling an air conditioning system to cool a cabin of a vehicle if the air conditioning system is already operating to cool at least one electrical component of the vehicle and (ii) preventing the air conditioning system from cooling the cabin if the air conditioning system is not already operating to cool the at least one electrical component. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects: (i) claims 1, 2, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 2008/0236181 Al, published Oct. 2, 2008) in view of Matsuno (US 5,937,664, issued Aug. 17, 1999); and (ii) claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Mistry (US 5,832,988, issued Nov. 10, 1998). 2 Appeal2014-006011 Application 12/577,942 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, and 4--Zhu/Matsuno The Examiner finds that Zhu lacks a teaching of a controller configured to only enable an air conditioning system to cool a vehicle cabin if the air conditioning system is already operating to cool an electrical component. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Matsuno teaches the concept of an air conditioning system operated to cool a cabin only if the air conditioning system is already cooling a battery, and concludes that it would have been obvious to employ this concept in the Zhu vehicle air conditioning system. Id. The Examiner's finding relative to the Matsuno teachings is flawed. Appellants argue that it is improper to regard Matsuno' s cooling system 20 as an air conditioning system, but even if it were, it is not an air conditioning system that is configured to cool a vehicle cabin, as further pointed out by Appellants. Appeal Br. 2; Reply Br. 2. The Examiner describes a scenario in which cooling system 20 would purportedly operate to cool the cabin. Ans. 6-7. According to the Examiner, if the temperature in the cabin were extremely high, and the ambient temperature were extremely low, "the ambient air passing through the air conditioning system of Matsuno ... and over the batteries would be capable of providing cool air to the cabin and thus cool the cabin." Id. This scenario fails to take into account that the intake air to the Matsuno cooling system 20 is air removed from the cabin through cooling duct 60, and not ambient air. Matsuno, col. 9, 11. 31-34. As such, if the temperature in the cabin were extremely high, i.e., higher than the temperature in the battery 3 Appeal2014-006011 Application 12/577,942 chamber 18, the "cooling system" would not be employed. In the only realistic scenarios for the Matsuno cooling system, the cabin air would be at a lower temperature than that of the battery chamber, and the temperature of that air circulated through the system would rise due to heat exchange with the batteries, and, if it is returned to the cabin instead of exhausted, would be at a temperature higher than the temperature of the air in the cabin. As such, the cooling system is not configured to cool the cabin, as required in claim 1. The rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2 and 4 depending therefrom, is not sustained. Claims 14 and 15--Zhu/Mistry The Examiner finds, similarly to the findings directed to claim 1, that Zhu does not teach a method in which the air conditioning system is prevented from cooling the cabin if the air conditioning system is not already operating to cool the electronic component. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Mistry teaches the concept of preventing an air conditioning system from cooling a cabin if the air conditioning system is not already operating to cool an electronic component, and concludes that it would have been obvious to configure the Zhu system to include this concept. Id. at 5. Appellants argue that claim 14 is patentable for the reasons that claim 1 is patentable. Appeal Br. 3. However, the rejection of claim 14 involves different evidence (a different reference) than was applied against claim 1. The argument is therefore not indicative of Examiner error. Appellants also present an argument in the form of reproducing language from claim 14, and baldly asserting that the claim limitation is not 4 Appeal2014-006011 Application 12/577,942 disclosed or suggested by the references. Appeal Br. 4. This assertion is essentially the same as those found to be unpersuasive in In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("we hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art"). Appellants, in the Reply Brief, challenge the Examiner's stated reason for applying the teachings of Mistry to the Zhu system. Reply Br. 2. However, this argument is made for the first time in the Reply Brief, and is not responsive to any new argument raised in the Examiner's Answer, nor has good cause been shown as to why the argument could not have been presented earlier. Accordingly, the argument will not be considered for the purposes of this appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). The rejection of claims 14 and 15 is therefore sustained. DECISION The rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. The rejection of claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation