Ex Parte PEARD et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 19, 2018

14010647 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/010,647 08/27/2013
127334 7590 06/21/2018
Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C.
(DENSO International America, Inc.)
P.O. Box 828
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tom PEARD
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.
404 lA-000265/US 8506
EXAMINER
NIEVES, NELSON J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2018 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):
cassie_poe@denso-diam.com
michele_bradley@denso-diam.com
troymailroom@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOM PEARD, GREGORY THOMPSON,
RAYMOND BAILEY, and MELISSA BUCZEK
Appeal2017-008393
Application 14/010,647
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-11, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. Final Act. 1 (Office Action Summary). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2017-008393
Application 14/010,647
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject "relates to a vehicle Heating, Ventilation and
Air Conditioning (HV AC) system." Spec. ,r 2. Apparatus claim 1 is the sole
independent claim; is illustrative of the claimed subject matter; and, is
reproduced below:
1. A heating, ventilation and air conditioning system
compnsmg:
a case defining a front face outlet and a front foot outlet;
a first door movable between a first position closing the
front face outlet and opening the front foot outlet and a second
position opening the front face outlet and closing the front foot
outlet; and
a bypass passage configured to direct air flow around the
first door to the front foot outlet without directing air flow
through a rear passenger air distribution system of the case when
the first door is in the second position.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Yamaguchi et al. US 2005/0126774 Al
Kang et al. US 8,141,622 B2
THE REJECTION ON APPEAL
June 16, 2005
Mar. 27, 2012
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. I03(a) as unpatentable over
Yamaguchi and Kang.
ANALYSIS
Sole independent claim 1 is directed to a ventilation system having a
front face outlet and a front foot outlet, and including a first door moveable
between first and second positions relative to these face and foot outlets.
Claim 1 further recites a "bypass passage" that is "configured to direct air
flow around the first door to the front foot outlet without directing air flow
2
Appeal2017-008393
Application 14/010,647
through a rear passenger air distribution system ... when the first door is in
the second position" (i.e., when the first door opens the front face outlet and
closes the front foot outlet). The Examiner acknowledges that the primary
reference to Yamaguchi "does not explicitly teach the limitation of a bypass
passage configured" as recited, and relies on Kang for teaching this
limitation. Final Act. 3. The Examiner also provides an annotation of
Figure 4e of Kang (see below) identifying where this "bypass passage" (i.e.,
"B "') can be found (Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 3), which is reproduced
below.
The above is Figure 4e of Kang, which has been annotated by the
Examiner to illustrate where bypass B ', first position FP ', second position
SP', and one end of door 138 OE' are located.
The Examiner's obviousness determination further explains the reason
a skilled artisan would "have modified [Yamaguchi] and integrated a bypass
passage ... as taught by [the] HVAC system of Kang." Final Act. 3--4.
As is well known, "[ d]uring examination, the examiner bears the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness." In re
3
Appeal2017-008393
Application 14/010,647
Kumar, 418 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Here, the Examiner relies on Figure 4e of
Kang as disclosing the recited "bypass passage." See Final Act. 3; Ans. 3.
The Examiner also references MPEP § 2125 "where [it] is clearly stated that
'when the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the features
shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification."' Final Act. 7; see
also Ans. 4.
Appellants acknowledge this reference to Section 2125 of the MPEP
but state, "[ t ]he Examiner left out the next sentence, which is very important
and states; 'The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably
disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art."' App. Br. 7-8; see
also Reply Br. 2. As such, Appellants contend, "there is no teaching or
suggestion in either Kang or the art generally from which one skilled in the
art would conclude that air flows around the door 138."1 App. Br. 8; see
also Reply Br. 2. Appellants conclude, "[t]he Examiner has therefore failed
to set forth aprimafacie rejection." Reply Br. 2.
There is merit to Appellants' assertion. Kang is silent as to any
bypass air flow around door 13 8 when door 13 8 is positioned as claimed,
i.e., to close or block floor vent 136. In fact, Kang only describes flow
1 Appellants' reliance on what "one skilled in the art would conclude" is
consistent with the above instructions provided by MPEP § 2125 above and
also those provided in In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914 (CCPA 1979), i.e.,
"a drawing in a utility patent can be cited against the claims of a utility
patent application even though the feature shown in the drawing was
unintended or unexplained in the specification of the reference patent."
Emphasis added. In other words, we understand that a drawing cannot be
viewed in a vacuum when the accompanying specification addresses the
topic in question.
4
Appeal2017-008393
Application 14/010,647
"through face vent 134" (and not floor vent 136) when door 138 closes or
blocks floor vent 136. See Kang 6:47-56, Fig. 4e. Hence, from a reading of
Kang, one skilled in the art would not come to any realization or suggestion
of a bypass around door 13 8 when this door is located as depicted in Figure
4e of Kang. Consequently, Kang's disclosure does not support the
Examiner's finding that Figure 4e of Kang discloses a "bypass passage" as
stated and illustrated by the Examiner. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. Thus,
lacking support for any such "bypass passage," the Examiner therefore also
failed to present a prima facie case of obviousness, such case being based on
the existence of a bypass passage. 2 See also Reply Br. 2. Additionally, the
Examiner's further discussions regarding "implicit disclosure" and
"statement of intended use" (Final Act. 4), or a reference to "stand (A')"
(Ans. 3, 5) do not cure this lack of a prima facie case based on how one
skilled in the art would have understood Kang's drawings in view ofKang's
description thereof.
Appellants also address Figure 4e of Kang, asserting that the bottom-
most arrow pointing downward and illustrating air flow to floor vent 136 is a
result of draftsman error. App. Br. 6 (referencing Kang 6:47-58); see also
Reply Br. 3. For the reasons expressed above, we agree that this downward-
directed arrow depicted in Figure 4e of Kang is not consistent with Kang's
text describing air flow when configured as shown. Thus, we concur with
2 We note, however, that when addressing the duct configuration shown in
Figure 4d of Kang (in which door 13 8 is not positioned as claimed), Kang
describes floor vent 136 as being "open." Kang 6:36. Kang further
discloses air discharged to both "the upper portion and the floor" by
additionally passing air through "face vent 134 ... thereby evenly
performing warming" of this portion of the vehicle. Kang 6:42--46.
5
Appeal2017-008393
Application 14/010,647
Appellants that this downward-pointing arrow could very well have
stemmed from a draftsman's error. We also are of the opinion that one
skilled in the art, upon a review of Kang's written disclosure, would have
readily recognized this inconsistency in Figure 4e.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1, or claims 2-11, which depend therefrom, as
being obvious over Yamaguchi and Kang.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-11 as being obvious under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Yamaguchi and Kang is reversed.
REVERSED
6