Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 26, 2021

2020005329 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2021)

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.
15/471,773 03/28/2017 Mark Allen DEARTH 83747228 7449
28395 7590 01/26/2021
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
REFAI, RAMSEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/26/2021 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 MARK ALLEN DEARTH,
PAUL BRYAN HOKE, LAWRENCE C. KARAS,
ERIC GERD SCHAEFER, TIMOTHY JAMES HALLIFAX,
RAINER VOGT, VOLKER SCHEER,
and TIMOTHY JOHN WALLINGTON

Appeal 2020-005329
Application 15/471,773
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, RACHEL H. TOWNSEND, and
DEVON ZASTROW NEWMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Examiner rejected claims 1, 3–8, 11–14, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from
Examiner’s decision to reject the claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

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. 1.
Appeal 2020-005329
Application 15/471,773

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1, 3–8, 11–14, 17, and 18 stand rejected by Examiner in the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) as follows:
Claims 1, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Surnilla et al. (US 2014/0229059 A1, published Aug. 14, 2014) (“Surnilla”).
Final Act. 3.
Claims 3–5, 8, and 11–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view
of Surnilla and Reece (US 2006/0033613 A1, Feb. 16, 2006) (“Reece”).
Final Act. 4.
Claims 14, 17, 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Reece
and Surnilla. Final Act. 6.
The Examiner cited “Sunload Sensors Explained,” Auto Service
World, Apr. 1, 20092 (“Sunload Sensors”) as additional evidence.
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below:
1. An engine-off vehicle ventilating system, comprising:
at least one sun-load sensor arranged within the vehicle,
a controller configured to receive a sun-load signal
indicating a sun-load level from the sensor and programmed to
instruct at least one ventilating component to conduct a purge of
vehicle cabin air in response to the sun-load level exceeding a
sun-load threshold,
wherein the sun-load signal includes a voltage and the sun-
load threshold is approximately 4 volts.

2 Auto Service World,
https://www.autoserviceworld.com/jobbernews/sunload-sensors-explained/
(last visited Jan. 15, 2021).
Appeal 2020-005329
Application 15/471,773

3
1. OBVIOUSNESS BASED ON SURNILLA
“Sunlight entering a vehicle can account for up to 60% of the interior
heat load that the system must overcome.” Sunload Sensors. A “sun-load
sensor” is a vehicle sensor that monitors the intensity of sunlight. Id. It is
used to “adjust the HVAC control to improve the comfort level of the driver
and passengers on sunny days.” Id.
Independent claim 1 is directed to an “engine-off vehicle ventilating
system.” The system comprises a sun-load sensor and a controller that
receives signals from the sensor. The controller is programmed to purge the
vehicle cabin air when a sun-load level exceeds a threshold of approximately
4 volts.
Examiner found that Surnilla describes a sun-load sensor in a vehicle
and a controller configured to purge “vehicle cabin air in response to the
sun-load level exceeding a sun-load threshold” as recited in the claim. Final
Act. 3. Examiner acknowledged that Surnilla fails to explicitly teach the
recited sun-load threshold of approximately 4 volts. Id. However, Examiner
found that Surnilla “teaches the use of sun load sensors and determining if
the sun load sensors are beyond a threshold.” Id. at 2. Examiner further
found that it is well-known in the art “that sun load sensors monitor the
intensity of sunlight and output a signal in volts in order to adjust the climate
of the vehicle.” Id. Examiner cited Sunload Sensors as describing that such
sensors are known to “have an operating range between 0 and 5 volts.” Id.
Examiner concluded that it would have been “an obvious matter of design
choice to set the sun-load threshold to any parameter.” Id. at 3.
Appellant argues that Surnilla “fails to disclose a threshold in the form
of volts, let alone” the claimed threshold of approximately 4 volts. Appeal
Appeal 2020-005329
Application 15/471,773

4
Br. 4. Appellant also argues that the operating range recited in Sunload
Sensors does not describe a threshold as recited in the claim. Reply Br. 2.
Appellant states that “Surnilla discloses a sun load sensor, but no threshold
or even an event in response to a threshold.” Id.
Appellant’s argument does not persuade us that the Examiner erred in
determining that claim 1 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art.
To begin, it is not disputed by Appellant that Surnilla describes a sun-
load sensor in a vehicle and an HVAC controller, the two required elements
of claim 1. Surnilla specifically discloses:
Cabin space 314 may also be equipped with sun load sensor 326
to provide a signal indicative of the solar load received from each
window of a respective occupancy zone 315 to HVAC controller
312. . . . The signal provided from the sun load sensors 326 may
be combined and arranged in HVAC controller 312 to provide a
control input signal representative of the solar radiation intensity
on the vehicle interior.
Surnilla ¶ 39.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, Surnilla discloses a threshold for
the sun-load sensor in the cabin of the vehicle. Surnilla teaches:
Environmental conditions beyond threshold environmental
conditions may comprise environmental conditions exceeding
upper threshold environmental conditions, and may further
comprise environmental conditions exceeding lower threshold
environmental conditions. For example, 1070 compares the
current cabin temperature, cabin specific humidity, sun load,
portal status, and the like, measured in 1040 to upper and lower
threshold values thereof[.] The upper and lower threshold values
may be predetermined or may be set by the vehicle operator. For
example, the cabin temperature upper threshold may be 30° C.,
the cabin specific humidity upper threshold may be 15 g/kg, the
sunload upper threshold may be an upper threshold level of solar
Appeal 2020-005329
Application 15/471,773

5
radiant heat entering the vehicle cabin, the upper or lower
threshold portal status may be closed, and the like.
Surnilla ¶ 72 (emphasis added).
Surnilla therefore expressly teaches “upper and lower threshold
values,” and specifically a “sunload” threshold for “solar radiant heat
entering the vehicle cabin.” While Surnilla does not expressly teach the
recited “sun-load threshold” of “approximately 4 volts,” Examiner found,
based on Sunload Sensors, that a sun-load sensor operates in a range of 0–5
volts and, therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the
time of the invention to choose any voltage in this range as the sun-load
sensor threshold described in Surnilla to provide to the HVAC controller
(Surnilla ¶¶ 39, 733). Final Act. 2.
Appellant argues that the range is not the same as a threshold. Reply
Br. 2. We agree. Examiner did not equate the two. Examiner’s position is
that it would have been obvious to pick a value within the operating range of
a sun-load sensor as the threshold described in paragraph 72 of Surnilla.
Final Act. 3–4. Appellant did not identify a persuasive defect in this
argument, other than to assert that Surnilla does not disclose a sun-load
threshold, an assertion contradicted by the express disclosure in Surnilla at
paragraph 72 and reproduced above.
Appellant also asserts that Surnilla does not teach purging the cabin in
response to the threshold value as recited in the claim. Appeal Br. 5. This

3 “For example, if the cabin temperature is exceeding the upper threshold
cabin temperature, method 1000 (at 1080) may direct the HVAC controller
to turn on the air conditioning to cool the cabin, and may also direct the
HVAC controller to open one or more vehicle portals, for example, if the
vehicle portal statuses are closed.”
Appeal 2020-005329
Application 15/471,773

6
argument is not persuasive. As indicated in paragraph 39 of Surnilla, copied
above, the sun-load sensors provide a signal to the HVAC controller. The
purpose of this signal, as explained in Surnilla, is to provide feedback to the
HVAC system to control the vehicle climate. Surnilla ¶ 37.4 Therefore, it is
evident that the “control input signal” from the sunload sensor to the HVAC
controller (Surnilla ¶ 39) is for the purpose of controlling the air flow to
adjust the vehicle climate.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claim 1 is affirmed. Claims
6 and 7 fall with claim 1 because they were not argued separately. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

2, 3. REJECTIONS BASED ON SURNILLA/REECE
Claims 3–5, 8, 11, and 13
Claim 3, which depends from claim 1, further recites: “further
comprising at least one seat sensor arranged within a seat of a vehicle and
configured to transmit occupant sensing indicative of the presence of an
occupant in the vehicle to the controller.” Independent claim 8 is a method
similar to claim 1, but further reciting “receiving occupant sensing data
indicative of at least one vehicle occupant.”
Examiner cited Reece as describing seat sensors and stated that the
teachings of Reece would have ma de it obvious to the skilled artisan to have
included a seat sensor to detect the presence of a passenger in the vehicle.
Final Act. 4.

4 “HVAC system 320 may be configured to provide a climate-controlled air
flow to cabin space 314 through ducting 322 and one or a plurality of vents
324.”
Appeal 2020-005329
Application 15/471,773

7
Appellant relied on the same unpersuasive argument as for claim 1.
Appeal Br. 5–6. The obviousness rejection of clams 3–5, 8, 11, and 13 based
on Surnilla and Reece is therefore affirmed.
Claim 12
Claim 12 depends from claims 11 and 8. Claims 11 and 12 are copied
below:
11. The method of claim 8, further comprising receiving a state
of charge (SOC) of a vehicle battery.
12. The method of claim 11, further comprising instructing the
ventilating component to purge vehicle cabin air in response to
the SOC exceeding a SOC threshold.

Examiner found that Surnilla teaches receiving a state of charge
(SOC) of a vehicle battery and “instructing the ventilating component to
purge vehicle cabin air in response to the SOC exceeding a SOC threshold
(see at least fig 10).” Final Act. 5.
Appellant contends that while Surnilla discloses a “battery SOC,”
Surnilla does not teach the claimed SOC threshold. Appeal Br. 6.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12
as obvious.
Surnilla describes estimating or measuring the battery state-of-charge.
Surnilla ¶ 66. Figure 10 of Surnilla, is a flowchart containing box and
diamond shapes, showing text inside each shape. Box 1010, cited by the
Examiner, shows “Estimate and/or measure vehicle operating conditions
(Tq, Vs, SOC, etc.).” Id. Box 1010 is followed by a diamond containing the
text “Vehicle off conditions met.” Id. The “YES” option leads to a box
containing the text “Circulate cabin air for a circulating time period.” Id.
This disclosure, relied upon by Examiner, shows SOC as part of the “vehicle
Appeal 2020-005329
Application 15/471,773

8
off” determination. However, there is no express teaching in this figure, nor
in its description, of circulating the cabin air in response to a SOC threshold.
The discussion in Surnilla concerning thresholds relates to environmental
conditions, which are defined as “temperature, cabin specific humidity, sun
load, portal status.” Surnilla ¶ 72. There is no explicit disclosure in Surnilla
of “ventilating component to purge vehicle cabin air in response to the SOC
exceeding a SOC threshold.” The Examiner did not explain why it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so in view of the
cited prior art. Consequently, we are compelled to reverse the obviousness
rejection of claim 12.

Claims 14, 17, 18
Appellant relied on the same unpersuasive arguments as for claim 1.
Appeal Br. 6–7. The obviousness rejection of clams 14, 17, and 18 based on
Reece and Surnilla is therefore affirmed for the same reasons.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6, 7 103 Surnilla 1, 6, 7
3–5, 8, 11–
13
103 Surnilla, Reece 3–5, 8, 11,
13
12
14, 17, 18 103 Reece, Surnilla 14, 17, 18
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–8, 11,
13, 14, 17,
18
12

Appeal 2020-005329
Application 15/471,773

9
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART