FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 22, 2020

2020000484 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2020)

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.
14/730,812 06/04/2015 Eric R. Yerke 83533843 3235
121691 7590 07/22/2020
Ford Global Technologies, LLC/
King & Schickli, PLLC
800 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 200
Lexington, KY 40503
EXAMINER
FAULKNER, RYAN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3762
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/22/2020 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):
laura@iplaw1.net
uspto@iplaw1.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ERIC R. YERKE, MARTHA ELIZABETH NEFCY,
ZHENGYU LIU, JAMES R. HURD, MITALI CHAKRABARTI, and
GUADALUPE RAMIREZ
____________

Appeal 2020-000484
Application 14/730,812
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1, 4–12, 14, 17, and 18.2 We have jurisdiction over
this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 2, 3, 13, 15, and 16 are canceled. Appeal Br. 18–20 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-000484
Application 14/730,812

2
In explaining our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed June 4,
2015 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action mailed April 18, 2019 (“Final
Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed June 5, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s
Answer mailed September 17, 2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed
October 25, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to air extraction systems for
motor vehicles. Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1 and 14 are independent. Claim 1,
reproduced below from page 18 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An air extraction system for a motor vehicle, comprising:
a trim air discharge outlet provided in a package tray of
the motor vehicle;
an extractor; and
an extractor duct extending between said trim air
discharge outlet and said extractor, said extractor duct having
first and second expansion chambers in series spaced along the
extractor duct, said first expansion chamber sized and shaped to
dissipate duct noise at a first duct noise frequency and said
second expansion chamber sized and shaped to dissipate duct
noise at a second duct noise frequency, wherein said first
expansion chamber has a length L1 and said second expansion
chamber has a length L2, where L1 ≠ L2.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
Thawani US 5,521,340 May 28, 1996
Ochi3 JP 2014-084015 A May 12, 2014

3 Citations herein to Ochi refer to the machine-generated English translation
Appeal 2020-000484
Application 14/730,812

3
REJECTION
Claims 1, 4–12, 14, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Ochi and Thawani.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Ochi teaches
an air extraction system for a vehicle including, in relevant part,
an extractor duct (Fig. 2 – the Examiner is interpreting the path
of airflow, as indicated by the flow arrow in Fig. 2, to represent
the elements P, Q, T, R, & V that comprise the extractor duct)
extending between said trim air discharge outlet and said
extractor (Fig. 2), said extractor duct having first and second
expansion chambers (Fig. 2 – the Examiner is interpreting the
first expansion chamber to be gap P, the second expansion
chamber to be space Q, and the third expansion chamber to be
trunk room T) in series.
Final Act. 3 (citing Ochi, Fig. 2). The Examiner finds that Ochi does not
teach that “the second expansion chamber [is] sized and shaped to dissipate
duct noise at a second duct noise frequency.” Id. at 4. However, the
Examiner finds that
Thawani teaches an extractor duct (22, Fig. 3) [that]
includes a second expansion chamber (Fig. 3 – the second
expansion chamber is noted by the length L2) sized and shaped
to dissipate duct noise at a second duct noise frequency (Col. 3,
Lines 43-59 – the desired noise frequency is relative to the
length of that section).
Id. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify
Ochi such that the second expansion chamber is sized and shaped to

made of record with the Non-Final Action mailed October 27,
2017. See Office Act. App. (Oct. 27, 2017).
Appeal 2020-000484
Application 14/730,812

4
dissipate duct noise at a second frequency in order to “reduce manufacturing
costs by providing a single member extractor duct that can provide a variety
of different frequencies without the need for a trial an[d] error determination
of a single sized expansion chamber.” Id. (citing Thawani, 3:10–21).
Appellant argues that Ochi does not teach a “duct extending between
the trim air discharge outlet in the package tray and the extractor as set forth
in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis omitted). Appellant asserts that Ochi
teaches “a first duct extending from the package tray inlet 6 through the
spaces P and Q to the opening 9 exhausting into the trunk space T and a
second duct V extending from the trunk space T behind the side trim
panel 11 to the extractor outlet 15.” Id. The Examiner responds that
the flow path set forth by Ochi is a duct, as a “duct” is
interpreted as a passageway or channel that carries air from one
place to another . . . . Ochi shows the duct’s flow path in Figure
2, as the passageway under the package tray and includes the
trunk as air flows through of elements P, Q, T, R, and V and
then exits through exhaust port 15.
Ans. 3. In this regard, Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s position.
See generally Reply Br. We also note that Ochi teaches that
air in the passenger compartment is moved in the order of the
passenger compartment opening 6 → gap P → stage gap
space Q → trunk side opening 9 → trunk room T → gap R →
space V → exhaust port 15 → space W[, a]nd is exhausted to
the outside of the vehicle through an exhaust flow path
including these openings, spaces and the like.
Ochi ¶ 51. Thus, Ochi supports the Examiner’s findings and Appellant does
not apprise us of error.
Appellant argues that, “[w]hile Thawani teaches a muffler in a
refrigerant line to dissipate compressor noise, Thawani absolutely does not
explicitly teach providing a second expansion chamber i[n] an extractor duct
Appeal 2020-000484
Application 14/730,812

5
sized and shaped to dissipate duct noise at a second duct noise frequency as
set forth in claim 1.” Reply Br. 3 (emphasis omitted). Appellant asserts that
Thawani only teaches structure relevant to attenuating the
pressure pulsations propagated from a compressor of the air
conditioning system. The Examiner then speculates that a
second expansion chamber sized and shaped to dissipate duct
noise at a second duct noise frequency could be provided in an
air extraction system as set forth in claim 1.
Id. (emphasis omitted). This argument is unpersuasive because it is not
responsive to the rejection presented. As discussed above, the Examiner
relies on Ochi to disclose a second expansion chamber in an extractor duct.
See Final Act. 3. The Examiner relies on Thawani as evidence that it is
known to use a second expansion chamber to dissipate a duct noise at a
second frequency, where “the desired noise frequency is relative to the
length of that section.” Id. at 4 (citing Thawani, 3:43–59). In other words,
the Examiner’s rejection is based on the combined teachings of Ochi and
Thawani, and, thus, Appellant’s argument against Thawani individually is
not persuasive of error. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981)
(“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.”).
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is based on
impermissible hindsight reconstruction. See Reply Br. 4. However,
Appellant does not identify, nor do we discern, any knowledge relied upon
by the Examiner that was gleaned only from Appellant’s disclosure and that
was not otherwise within the level of ordinary skill at the time of the
invention. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (“Any
judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based
upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only
Appeal 2020-000484
Application 14/730,812

6
knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the
claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only
from [Appellant’s] disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.”).
Furthermore, we note that both Ochi (see, e.g., Ochi ¶ 31) and Thawani (see,
e.g., Thawani, 3:10–21) discuss dissipating unwanted sound. As such, we
disagree with Appellant’s contention that the Examiner relied on
impermissible hindsight in reaching the determination of obviousness of the
claimed subject matter.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s determination that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been
obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as being
unpatentable over Ochi and Thawani.
Claims 4–12
In rejecting claim 4, which depends from claim 1, the Examiner finds
that Ochi teaches “a third expansion chamber (T, Fig. 2).” Final Act. 4. The
Examiner finds that Ochi does not disclose that the third expansion chamber
is “sized and shaped to dissipate duct noise at a third duct noise frequency.”
Id. However, the Examiner finds that Thawani teaches an “extractor duct
(22, Fig. 3) [that] includes a third expansion chamber (Fig. 3 – the third
expansion chamber is noted by the length L3) sized and shaped to dissipate
duct noise at a third duct noise frequency (Col. 3, Lines 43–59 – the desired
noise frequency is relative to the length of that section).” Id. at 4–5. The
Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify Ochi so that
the third expansion chamber is “sized and shaped to dissipate duct noise at a
third duct noise frequency, which would reduce manufacturing costs by
providing a single member extractor duct that can provide a variety of
Appeal 2020-000484
Application 14/730,812

7
different frequencies without the need for a trial an[d] error determination of
a single sized expansion chamber.” Id. at 5 (citing Thawani, 3:10–21).
Appellant initially relies on the arguments advanced for the
patentability of independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 13 (asserting that
Ochi’s trunk space T is not part of a duct); Reply Br. 4 (asserting that
Thawani only teaches structure relevant to attenuating air conditioning
compressor pressure pulsations, and the Examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness is speculative). For the reasons discussed above, these
arguments do not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1, and,
likewise, do not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 4.
Appellant also argues that Ochi’s
trunk space T cannot be considered an expansion chamber
‘sized and shaped’ to dissipate noise at any particular frequency
. . . because the open space of the trunk is not constant in size or
shape but varies depending upon the size, shape and volume of
any items transported therein.
Appeal Br. 13. Appellant asserts that “trunk space T in Ochi clearly does
not allow for tuning to dissipate duct noise at a third duct frequency as
explicitly set forth in claim 4.” Id. According to Appellant, “if the trunk
space T of Ochi were modified to function as a third expansion chamber
sized and shaped to dissipate noise at a third duct frequency as suggested by
the Examiner, that trunk space would be made unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose.” Id.; see also Reply Br. 5 (asserting that “[t]here is absolutely
nothing in the record to suggest this could be done and still maintain the
trunk for use as a trunk”). The Examiner responds by finding that Ochi’s
trunk space T acts as a third expansion chamber regardless of any items that
are inserted therein. Ans. 3–4. The Examiner explains that the claim
requires expansion chambers that are not equal in length, and, “[t]herefore,
Appeal 2020-000484
Application 14/730,812

8
as long as the trunk is not equal in length to the other expansion chambers,
as Ochi does show, the Examiner believes the trunk dissipates duct noise at a
third frequency, regardless of what is inserted into the trunk.” Id. at 4. In
reply, Appellant contends that “[t]he Examiner has failed to present any
factual support for this belief.” Reply Br. 5. However, Appellant does
not offer any supporting evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to rebut
the Examiner’s finding that Ochi’s trunk has a different length than the first
and second expansion chambers and, as a result, would act as a third
expansion chamber to dissipate duct noise at a third frequency. In other
words, Appellant’s argument does not persuasively refute the Examiner’s
position, and, thus, does not apprise us of error in the rejection.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 4, and its dependent
claims 5–12, for which Appellant does not present separate arguments. See
Appeal Br. 14.
Claim 14
In rejecting independent claim 14, the Examiner’s findings and
reasoning are substantially similar to those presented in the rejection of
claim 1. Compare Final Act. 8, with id. at 3–4.
In contesting the rejection of claim 14, Appellant initially relies on the
same arguments advanced for the patentability of claim 1. See Appeal Br.
14 (asserting that Ochi’s trunk space T is not a duct), 15 (asserting that
“Thawani relates to a tuned muffler and has nothing to do with extraction of
air from a passenger compartment of a motor vehicle”); Reply Br. 5
(asserting that the Examiner’s rejection is speculative and based on improper
hindsight). For the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s arguments fail to
Appeal 2020-000484
Application 14/730,812

9
apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1 and, likewise, fail to apprise us
of error in the rejection of claim 14.
Appellant also argues that “nothing in the Ochi and Thawani
references leads one skilled in the art to have a reasonable expectation of
success in modifying the size and shape of the space between the rear seat
and the trunk to dissipate noise at a second duct frequency as suggested by
the Examiner.” Appeal Br. 15. This argument is unpersuasive because it
appears to insist on an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the
prior art to establish obviousness, where such an argument has been
foreclosed by the Supreme Court. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 419 (2007) (stating that a rigid insistence on teaching, suggestion, or
motivation is incompatible with its precedent concerning obviousness). The
Court noted that an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
[an examiner] can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418. Instead, the
relevant inquiry is whether the Examiner has set forth “some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with
approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
Here, the Examiner articulates adequate reasoning based on rational
underpinnings as to why it would have been obvious to modify Ochi’s space
Q to be sized and shaped to dissipate duct noise at a second frequency. See
Final Act. 8. (explaining that such a modification “would reduce
manufacturing costs by providing a single member extractor duct that can
provide a variety of different frequencies without the need for a trial an[d]
Appeal 2020-000484
Application 14/730,812

10
error determination of a single sized expansion chamber” (citing Thawani,
3:10–21)). Appellant’s argument does not specifically address the
Examiner’s articulated reasoning or explain why the reasoning is in error.
Moreover, Appellant does not proffer factual evidence or persuasive
technical reasoning to explain how combining the teachings of Ochi and
Thawani in an operable manner would be beyond the level of ordinary skill
in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). Thus, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s contention that the proposed combination of
reference teachings would not have a reasonable expectation of success. See
Appeal Br. 15.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s determination that the subject matter of claim 14 would have
been obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 14.
Claims 17 and 18
In contesting the rejection of claims 17 and 18, which depend from
independent claim 14, Appellant relies on the same arguments advanced for
the patentability of claim 4. See Appeal Br. 15–16 (asserting that Ochi’s
trunk space T is not a third expansion chamber sized and shaped to dissipate
duct noise at a third frequency, “Thawani relates to a tuned muffler and has
nothing to do with extraction of air from a passenger compartment of a
motor vehicle,” and the proposed modification would render Ochi’s trunk
unsuitable for its intended purpose). For the reasons discussed above, these
arguments fail to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 4 and, likewise,
fail to apprise us of error in the rejection of claims 17 and 18, which we
sustain.
Appeal 2020-000484
Application 14/730,812

11
CONCLUSION
In summary,
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–12, 14,
17, 18
103 Ochi, Thawani 1, 4–12,
14, 17, 18

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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED