FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 1, 2020

2019005822 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 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.
15/253,099 08/31/2016 William Stewart Johnston 83683619 9957
121691 7590 06/01/2020
Ford Global Technologies, LLC/
King & Schickli, PLLC
800 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 200
Lexington, KY 40503
EXAMINER
TANKERSLEY, BLAKE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2020 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 WILLIAM STEWART JOHNSTON, LAWRENCE C. KARAS,
and UPENDRA J. PATEL
Appeal 2019-005822
Application 15/253,099
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, BRETT C. MARTIN, and LISA M. GUIJT,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–16, and 18–20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “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.
Appeal 2019-005822
Application 15/253,099

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is directed to “an air quality monitoring system
for a motor vehicle providing a plurality of air sampling points and a single
air quality sensor for testing the air quality at those sampling points.” Spec.
¶ 1. Claims 1 and 14 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. An air quality monitoring system for a motor vehicle,
comprising:
a plurality of air sampling points on said motor vehicle;
a single air quality sensor; and
a conduit system connecting said plurality of air
sampling points with said single air quality sensor wherein said
conduit system includes a switching mechanism and a plurality
of hoses extending from said switching mechanism to said
plurality of air sampling points.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Olcerst US 5,742,516 Apr. 21, 1998
Sangwan US 6,758,739 B1 July 6, 2004
Marra US 7,857,892 B2 Dec. 28, 2010
Weast US 9,676,250 B2 June 13, 2017

REJECTIONS
Claims 14–16 and 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
indefinite.
Claims 1 and 3–11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Weast and Olcerst.
Appeal 2019-005822
Application 15/253,099

3
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Weast, Olcerst, and Marra.
Claims 14, 15, and 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Weast, Olcerst, and Sangwan.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Weast, Olcerst, Sangwan, and Marra.
OPINION
Indefiniteness
Appellant does not address the rejection of claims 14–16 and 18–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. Thus, Appellant has
waived any argument of error, and we summarily sustain the rejection. See
In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984, 985 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that the
Board did not err in sustaining a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, when the applicant failed to contest the rejection on appeal);
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1205.02 (9th ed. rev.
08.2017 Jan. 2018) (“If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not
addressed in the appellant’s brief, appellant has waived any challenge to that
ground of rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it, unless the
examiner subsequently withdrew the rejection in the examiner’s answer.”).
Obviousness—Weast and Olcerst
The Examiner finds that Weast discloses an air quality monitoring
system for a motor vehicle comprising a plurality of air sampling points as
called for in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose a conduit system
including a switching system and a plurality of hoses connecting the
plurality of air sampling points with a single air quality sensor. Final Act. 4
(citing Weast 3:62–4:16, 5:63–6:8). However, the Examiner finds that
Appeal 2019-005822
Application 15/253,099

4
Olcerst teaches a conduit system including a switching mechanism (rotating
solenoid valve) and a plurality of hoses connecting a plurality of sampling
points with a single air quality sensor. Id. at 4–5 (citing Olcerst, Fig. 4,
3:39–47, 4:53–57, 5:60–6:15). The Examiner determines it would have been
obvious “to have incorporated the conduit system of Olcerst into the device
of Weast in order to reduce the number of sensors necessary and thus reduce
costs.” Id. at 5.
Appellant does not specifically contest the Examiner’s findings with
respect to the teachings of Weast and Olcerst. Further, Appellant
acknowledges that “one sensor costs less than multiple sensors.” Appeal
Br. 11. However, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rationale fails to
consider the added costs of designing and implementing a switching system
and a conduit system. Id. at 10–11.
The Examiner responds by pointing out that Appellant’s arguments
regarding the added costs and complexity of designing and assembling an
elaborate conduit and switching system presume a scope of modification not
required by either claim 1 or the rejection set forth by the Examiner. Ans. 4.
The Examiner explains that one would not have to connect all of Weast’s
sampling points to a single sensor to satisfy the limitations of claim 1; rather,
connecting two or more sampling points to a single sensor via a conduit
system including a switching mechanism and hoses, where it makes sense to
do so, would satisfy claim 1. Id. Appellant does not specifically dispute the
Examiner’s reasoning in this regard.
Moreover, the Examiner points out that Appellant’s Specification
undercuts any argument that replacing multiple air quality sensors disposed
at multiple air sampling points with a conduit system including a switching
Appeal 2019-005822
Application 15/253,099

5
mechanism and hoses leading to a single air quality sensor would not reduce
cost and complexity. Ans. 5. In particular, the Examiner cites paragraph 20
of Appellant’s Specification as evidencing that “using a single air quality
sensor instead of multiple sensors makes the air quality control system ‘far
less complex and expensive’ and ‘requires less space and is lighter in
weight.’” Id.
Appellant also argues that modifying Weast as proposed by the
Examiner by routing air from different sampling points to a single sensor
would change, and be contrary to, the principle of operation of Weast.
Appeal Br. 12. Appellant submits that “the operating principle of Weast is
to collect data from multiple sensors at multiple locations,” and that such a
system “allows a controller to simultaneously obtain and track data from
multiple sensors at multiple locations thereby enabling the Weast system to
‘…detect proximately the source of an odor and its travel path.’” Id. (citing
Weast 5:63–6:8). According to Appellant, modifying Weast as proposed
“would handicap and limit, if not eliminate the ability of the Weast system
to, for example, detect the proximate source of an odor and its travel path.”
Id.
This argument is not persuasive. The Examiner finds, correctly, that
“Weast’s principle of operation is controlling the air quality of an interior
space by detecting air quality indicators at multiple locations and controlling
ventilation components based on the detections to increase the air quality.”
Ans. 7 (citing Weast, Abstract, 3:6–30). Furthermore, Weast discloses that
the sensing may be performed using sensors 120 “stationarily or movably
coupled with a vehicle.” Weast 3:62–63. For example, a driver or
passenger can bring into the vehicle a smartphone equipped with various
Appeal 2019-005822
Application 15/253,099

6
sensors used to measure air quality. Id. 3:63–66. Weast’s controllers 130
are configured to receive the measurements of air quality indicators taken by
sensor(s) 120 and control ventilation components 110 based at least in part
on the received measurements. Id. 4:17–22. Weast’s disclosure of using
either a single sensor that is moved around to different sampling points or
multiple sensors fixed at different sampling points belies any notion that
modifying Weast by providing a conduit system, including a switching
mechanism and a plurality of hoses, to connect a plurality of air sampling
points with a single sensor, as the Examiner proposes, would change the
principle of operation of Weast. Further, it is not apparent, and Appellant
does not provide supporting evidence or technical reasoning to explain, why
connecting a plurality of air sampling points to a single sensor using a
switching mechanism and a plurality of hoses would limit Weast’s ability to
detect the proximate source of an odor or its travel path, as Appellant asserts.
Appellant also points out that Olcerst issued more than 15 years
before Weast, and, thus, “the teachings of Olcerst were clearly known in the
art at the time Weast was filed.” Appeal Br. 11. According to Appellant, “it
is significant to note that Weast went in a different direction than what the
Examiner contends is suggested by Olcerst.” Id.
“[M]ere age of the references is not persuasive of the unobviousness
of the combination of their teachings, absent evidence that, notwithstanding
knowledge of the references, the art tried and failed to solve the problem.”
Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting In re
Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127 (CCPA 1977)), overruled on other grounds,
Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290, 1296 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2017). To
the extent that Appellant is hinting that the fact that Olcerst issued 15 years
Appeal 2019-005822
Application 15/253,099

7
earlier than Weast shows that the combination of their teachings would not
have been obvious, this is not a persuasive argument because Appellant does
not present evidence that the art tried and failed to solve a problem that
would be solved by providing a conduit system connecting a plurality of air
sampling points to a single sensor.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Weast and Olcerst. Accordingly,
we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 3–11, for which
Appellant does not present any separate arguments (see Appeal Br. 12), as
unpatentable over Weast and Olcerst.
Obviousness—Weast, Olcerst, and Marra
In contesting the rejection of claims 12 and 13, Appellant argues only
that Marra does not address the purported shortcomings of the combination
of Weast and Olcerst. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant’s arguments do not apprise
us of shortcomings in the combination of Weast and Olcerst, for the reasons
discussed above, and, likewise, fail to apprise us of error in the rejection of
claims 12 and 13. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 12 and 13
as unpatentable over Weast, Olcerst, and Marra.
Obviousness—Weast, Olcerst, and Sangwan
In contesting the rejection of claim 14, Appellant essentially reiterates
the arguments asserted against the rejection of claim 1 with respect to the
combination of Weast and Olcerst. Appeal Br. 13–14. These arguments do
not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1, for the reasons discussed
above, and, likewise, do not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 14.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 14, as well as claims 15 and
Appeal 2019-005822
Application 15/253,099

8
18–20, for which Appellant does not present any separate arguments (see
Appeal Br. 14), as unpatentable over Weast, Olcerst, and Sangwan.
Obviousness—Weast, Olcerst, Sangwan, and Marra
In contesting the rejection of claims 16, Appellant argues only that
Marra does not address the purported shortcomings of the combination of
Weast, Olcerst, and Sangwan. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant’s arguments do not
apprise us of shortcomings in the combination of Weast, Olcerst, and
Sangwan, for the reasons discussed above, and, likewise, fail to apprise us of
error in the rejection of claim 16. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 16 as unpatentable over Weast, Olcerst, Sangwan, and Marra.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
14–16, 18–
20
112, 2nd
paragraph
Indefiniteness 14–16, 18–20
1, 3–11 103 Weast, Olcerst 1, 3–11
12, 13 103 Weast, Olcerst,
Marra
12, 13
14, 15, 18–
20
103 Weast, Olcerst,
Sangwan
14, 15, 18–20
16 103 Weast, Olcerst,
Sangwan, Marra
16
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–16, 18–20

Appeal 2019-005822
Application 15/253,099

9
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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