Ex Parte Hoke et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 2018

13886490 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/886,490 05/03/2013 28395 7590 09/19/2018 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L 1000 TOWN CENTER 22NDFLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Paul Bryan Hoke 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. 83257349 3951 EXAMINER SHIRSAT, VIVEK K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3743 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/19/2018 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): docketing@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAUL BRYAN HOKE and CLAY WESLEY MARANVILLE 1 Appeal2018-000288 Application 13/886,490 Technology Center 3700 Before JAMES P. CALVE, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges. CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Office Action finally rejecting claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-24. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Ford Global Technologies, LLC is identified as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 1) and also is the applicant pursuant to 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.46. Appeal2018-000288 Application 13/886,490 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 8, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A method, comprising: when cooling based on cabin temperature exceeding a cabin temperature set-point, identifying an airflow biasing between a panel vent and a floor vent having a position settable from positions including a closed position and a plurality of open positions based on the cabin temperature and a plurality of set-point offsets to the cabin temperature set-point; and setting the position to adjust the airflow biasing between the panel vent and the floor vent. Appeal Br. A-1 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-11, 13, 16-18, 20, and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Umebayashi (US 7,210,523 B2; iss. May 1, 2007), Weissbrich (US 5,238,447; iss. Aug. 24, 1993), and Ito (US 4,852,798; iss. Aug. 1, 1989). Final Act. 4--13. Claims 3, 12, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Umebayashi, Weissbrich, Ito, and Ripoll (US 2010/02121880 Al; pub. Aug. 26, 2010). Id. at 14--15. Claims 5, 14, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Umebayashi, Weissbrich, Ito, and Prokhorov (US 8,145,383 B2; iss. Mar. 27, 2012). Id. at 15-17. 2 Appeal2018-000288 Application 13/886,490 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-11, 13, 16-18, 20, and 22-24 Over Umebayashi, Weissbrich, and Ito Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 4, 7-11, 13, 16-18, 20, and 22-24 as a group. Appeal Br. 6-9. We select claim 1 as representative, with all other claims standing or falling therewith. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that Umebayashi teaches a method of claim 1 by adjusting airflow between panel and floor vents, but lacks cooling based on the cabin temperature exceeding a set-point and setting the floor vent at different positions. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Weissbrich cools a vehicle cabin when the temperature exceeds a set point. Id. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to modify Umebayashi to initiate air conditioning when cabin temperature exceeds a set point temperature, as taught by Weissbrich, to conserve energy and minimize A/C wear. Id. The Examiner relies on Ito to teach biasing an instrument vent and a floor vent steplessly between open and closed positions in a "bi-level" mode to ensure the temperature of air blown toward a passenger's feet does not go below a threshold value to maximize comfort. Id. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to modify Umebayashi to regulate a foot vent in this way to ensure the temperature of air blown towards a passenger's feet does not go below a threshold to maximize passenger comfort. Id. at 5. Appellants argue that W eissbrich cools a vehicle by allowing air to exit through a roof vent and bears no relation to biasing airflow between a panel and a floor vent. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 2. Appellant also argues that W eissbrich does not cool based on the cabin temperature exceeding a set-point. Appeal Br. 7. 3 Appeal2018-000288 Application 13/886,490 These arguments are not persuasive because the Examiner relies on Umebayashi to teach a vehicle air conditioner with airflow biasing between panel vents and floor vents based on a cabin set-point temperature and plural offsets thereto. Final Act. 4. The Examiner relies on Weissbrich to teach a vehicle air conditioner that begins cooling when a cabin temperature exceeds a set point temperature by opening a cabin vent in the roof. Id.; Ans. 16-17. Appellants' arguments do not address these findings of the Examiner as to Umebayashi or the Examiner's reason for combining the teachings of these references to conserve energy and minimize A/C wear. See Final Act. 4. We agree with the Examiner that Umebayashi biases airflow between panel and floor vents via port switching doors 16, 17. Umebayashi, 4:21- 40. Blowout port switching doors 16-19 are rotatably driven by actuators 41--44 and servomotors to separately control the volume of blowout air sent from each blowout port 12-15 (and vent). Id. at 4:55---62. Air conditioner 150 can change blowout port modes from FACE mode, to FOOT mode, to a bi-level mode that biases conditioned air flow between PANEL and FACE ports 12, 13. Id. at 4:63---67, Figs. 1, 2A. Figure 5 illustrates how the air volume rate is balanced between foot vents and face vents in a bi-level mode depending on the desired target temperature. Id. at 5:57---64. The Examiner relies on Weissbrich only to teach the start of a cooling routine when cabin temperature exceeds a set point temperature as claimed. Final Act. 4. Weissbrich teaches a process for cooling an interior of a motor vehicle by opening a roof vent. Weissbrich, 1: 7-11. The Examiner reasons that this control routine would have been obvious to include on Umebayashi "to conserve energy and minimize A/C wear." Final Act. 4. Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error in these findings or obviousness rationale. 4 Appeal2018-000288 Application 13/886,490 Appellants acknowledge that W eissbrich "relates to a process for cooling an interior of a motor vehicle with a roof part that can be opened, and which is movable by an electric motor into at least two positions ... to varying degrees." Appeal Br. 6 (quoting Weissbrich, 1:7-12); Reply Br. 2. Weissbrich is directed to cooling a vehicle interior when cabin temperature exceeds a set-point temperature, as claimed. Weissbrich does so via airflow biasing through a roof vent as Appellants also recognize. Appeal Br. 7. Umebayashi already balances or biases air flow of an air conditioner between panel and floor vents, as claimed, and as discussed above. The Examiner relies on W eissbrich, which also teaches a vehicle cooling system (Weissbrich, 1:7-11), to teach cooling based on cabin temperature exceeding a set-point as claimed. Final Act. 4. Indeed, Weissbrich involves air flow biasing by moving a roof vent between different positions to cool a vehicle interior as Appellants recognize. The Examiner is not proposing to change the balancing taught by Umebayashi in view of Weissbrich. The Examiner modifies Umebayashi only to initiate Umebayashi's cooling process, which already includes automatic biasing when the cabin temperature exceeds a set-point as claimed. Ans. 16-17. Appellants are attacking the references individually or piecemeal rather than dealing with the combined teachings as the Examiner has done. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981)). The Examiner reasonably concludes that a skilled artisan aware of Weissbrich's teaching of automatic initiation of a vehicle cooling system would employ those teachings to improve Umebayashi similarly. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007) (skilled artisan would recognize that a technique would improve similar devices in the same way). 5 Appeal2018-000288 Application 13/886,490 Appellants argue that Ito does not disclose "cooling based on cabin temperature exceeding a cabin temperature set-point" or "a plurality of set- point offsets to the cabin temperature set-point" as claimed. Appeal Br. 8. Appellants also argue that Ito does not teach identifying an airflow biasing between a panel vent and a floor vent settable positions based on the cabin temperature and plural set-point offsets as claimed. Id.; Reply Br. 2-3. These arguments are not persuasive because the Examiner relies on Weissbrich, not Ito, to teach cooling when cabin temperature exceeds a set- point and Umebayashi, not Ito, to teach adjusting airflow biasing between a panel vent and a floor vent based on a plurality of set-point offsets. Final Act. 4; Ans. 16-17. Appellants' arguments do not address the Examiner's findings in this regard and therefore do not apprise us of Examiner error. Umebayashi biases airflow between panel and floor vents based on set-point temperature (TSET) and offsets (KSET, KR, KAM, KS gains or TS, TAM) as the Examiner finds. See Umebayashi, 5:33---60, Fig. 3; Final Act. 4. Appellants' arguments do not apprise of Examiner error in these findings. See Appeal Br. 6-8. The Examiner relies on Ito to teach stepless settings of a floor vent between closed and plural open settings to improve passenger comfort as Ito teaches. Ito, 3 :20-4: 1 O; Final Act. 4 ( citing id.); Ans. 17. The Examiner proposes to modify Umebayashi with this teaching to improve passenger comfort in the same way, as taught by Ito, where Umebayashi also biases air flow among several vents, including panel and floor vents, and controls openings of individual vents for similar reasons. See Ito, 1:13-15, 4:55---67; Fig. 1; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7-11, 13, 16-18, 20, and 22-24. 6 Appeal2018-000288 Application 13/886,490 Claims 3, 12, and 19 Over Umebayashi, Weissbrich, Ito, and Ripoll Appellants argue the patentability of claims 3, 12, and 19 based on their dependency from their respective independent claim. Appeal Br. 9. This argument is not persuasive because we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 17 from which these claims depend respectively. Thus, we also sustain the rejection of claims 3, 12, and 19. Claims 5, 14, and 21 Over Umebayashi, Weissbrich, Ito, and Prokhorov Appellants argue the patentability of claims 5, 14, and 21 based on their dependency from their respective independent claim. Appeal Br. 9--10. This argument is not persuasive because we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 17 from which these claims depend respectively. Thus, we also sustain the rejection of claims 5, 14, and 21. DECISION We affirm the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-24. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7