Ex Parte Le et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2017

13865417 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2017)

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.
13/865,417 04/18/2013 Jialiang Le 83347472 3455
28395 7590 05/30/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER BOOMER, JEFFREY C
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/30/2017 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 JIALIANG LE, JOHNATHAN ANDREW LINE,
and MANOHARPRASAD K. RAO
Appeal 2016-001873
Application 13/865,4171
Technology Center 3600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, AARON W. MOORE, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 6—12, and 19-29, which constitute all of the pending claims in
the application on appeal.2 Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is the assignee, Ford
Global Technologies, LLC. See Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 3—5 and 13—18 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-001873
Application 13/865,417
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellants, the application relates to detecting presence
of an occupant in a vehicle and transitioning a climate control system from a
sleep mode to an enabled mode upon detection of the occupant. See
Spec. 19.* * 3
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1,19, and 23 are independent. Claims 1 and 23 are
representative and are reproduced below:
1. A system comprising:
a presence sensor embedded in a seat of the vehicle and
configured to detect a presence of an occupant in the vehicle seat
and output an occupant presence signal;
a position controller configured to receive the occupant
presence signal and adjust a position of the vehicle seat to a
predetermined driving position in response to receiving the
occupant presence signal and prior to vehicle ignition;
a wake-up sensor configured to detect when a vehicle door
is in an open state and a closed state, and to output a door state
signal representing one of the open state and the closed state;
a wake-up circuit configured to receive the door state
signal from the wake-up sensor, and to enable the presence
sensor and the position controller when the door state signal
3 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the following documents for their
respective details: (1) Appellants’ Specification filed April 18, 2013
(“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed March 13, 2015;
(3) the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed July 14, 2015; (4) the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.”) mailed October 5, 2015; and (5) the Reply Brief (“Reply
Br.”) filed November 24, 2015.
2
Appeal 2016-001873
Application 13/865,417
indicates that the door is in the open state and before the vehicle
seat is occupied; and
a climate control system configured to transition from a
sleep mode to an enabled mode upon detection of the occupant
in the vehicle seat and prior to vehicle ignition.
23. A vehicle comprising:
an entertainment system;
a climate control system; and
a controller programed to, in response to detecting an
occupant seated in the vehicle prior to ignition of the vehicle,
transition the entertainment system and the climate control
system from sleep to enabled modes to permit the occupant to
control the entertainment and climate control systems prior to
ignition of the vehicle.
Appeal Br., Claims App’x 1,4.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal includes:
Fuks et al. (“Fuks”)
Teshima et al.
(“Teshima”)
Breed
Waller
Wijaya et al. (“Wijaya”)
Yamaguchi et al.
(“Yamaguchi”)
US 2004/0252013 Al
US 2006/0284587 Al
US 2007/0096445 Al
US 2011/0148799 Al
US 2011/0166747 Al
US 8,632,125 B2
Dec. 16, 2004
Dec. 21, 2006
May 3, 2007
June 23, 2011
July 7, 2011
Jan. 21,2014
3
Appeal 2016-001873
Application 13/865,417
REJECTIONS4
(1) Claims 1, 2, 6—9, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combination of Teshima and Fuks. Final Act.
3-8.
(2) Claims 9 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Teshima, Fuks, and Yamaguchi. Final
Act. 8—9.
(3) Claims 10, 12, 19, 20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Teshima, Fuks, and
Breed. Final Act. 9—15.
(4) Claims 19, 20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Teshima, Fuks, Yamaguchi, and
Breed. Final Act. 15—20.
(5) Claims 23 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Fuks and Teshima. Final Act. 20—21.
(6) Claims 24, 25, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combination of Fuks, Teshima, and Waller.
Final Act. 21—22.
(7) Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Fuks, Teshima, and Wijaya. Final
Act. 23.
4 The Final Action rejected claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). See Final
Act. 2. In response to Appellants’ amendments to the claim, the Examiner
withdrew the rejection. See Advisory Action mailed June 15, 2015.
4
Appeal 2016-001873
Application 13/865,417
Our review in this Appeal is limited only to the above rejections and issues
raised by Appellants. We have not considered other possible issues that
have not been raised by Appellants and which are, therefore, not before us.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ISSUES
(1) Does the Examiner err in combining the teachings and
suggestions of Teshima and Fuks in the rejection of claim 1?
(2) Does the Examiner err in combining the teachings and
suggestions of Teshima and Fuks in the rejection of claim 23?
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants’ contentions, and we adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office
Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3—21) and (2) the reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-4). We highlight the following points for
emphasis.
Issue 1
The Examiner finds Teshima discloses the limitations of claim 1,
except that Teshima “does not disclose a climate control system configured
to transition from a sleep mode to an enabled mode upon detection of the
occupant in the vehicle seat and prior to vehicle ignition.” Final Act. 5, bold
emphasis omitted. The Examiner finds Fuks teaches “the known technique
of enabling [a] climate control system when the presence of a user is
detected.” Id.
5
Appeal 2016-001873
Application 13/865,417
Appellants argue the combination of Teshima and Fuks “does not
disclose the claimed invention.” Appeal Br. 5. Specifically, Appellants
argue:
The goal in Fuks is to adjust specific vehicle subsystems (e.g.,
seat position, AC activation, etc.) upon unlocking a vehicle door
prior to the user entering the vehicle so that the user’s specified
comfort levels are present upon entry into the vehicle (by
analogy, the oven is preheated before the pie is placed therein to
bake), while the goal in Teshima is to detect the physical
presence of a user in a vehicle seat and upon detection, return the
vehicle seat to an original position. Therefore, the combination
of Teshima and Fuks would yield a system that adjusts a climate
control system in response to an unlock door request from a key
fob, and returns the vehicle seat to an original position in
response to the presence of an occupant in the vehicle seat.
Appeal Br. 4—5.
We find this argument unpersuasive because Appellants have not
persuasively addressed the Examiner’s finding that the combination of
Teshima and Fuks teaches all the limitations of claim 1. For example,
Appellants’ argument that the combination “would yield a system that
adjusts a climate control system in response to an unlock door request from a
key fob, and returns the vehicle seat to an original position in response to the
presence of an occupant,” fails to explain why the Examiner’s finding that
the combination teaches all the claim limitations is erroneous. See Final
Act. 3—5. Such argument is afforded little weight in the absence of
persuasive evidence in support of the conclusion. It is well settled that mere
attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by
factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116
F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
6
Appeal 2016-001873
Application 13/865,417
Appellants’ argument also assumes that the skilled person would
bodily incorporate Fuks’ system into Teshima’s system without the exercise
of ordinary skill or creativity. However, it is well-settled that
[t]o justify combining reference teachings in support of a
rejection it is not necessary that a device shown in one reference
can be physically inserted into the device shown in the
other. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the
art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted).
Furthermore, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton,” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
421 (2007), whose “inferences and creative steps” we may consider, id. at
418.
Appellants’ arguments further appear to attack the Examiner’s
reasoning for combining the references by arguing that the goals of Fuks and
Teshima conflict with each other. Specifically, they argue the goal in Fuks
is to adjust vehicle subsystems prior to the user entering the vehicle, while
Teshima’s goal is to detect the presence of a user in a vehicle seat. In
response, the Examiner does not dispute Appellants’ characterization of
Teshima’s teaching. The Examiner notes, however, that Fuks is relied upon
“to solely teach that adjusting the climate control system of a vehicle in
response to the detection of the presence of a user” rather than for Fuks’
teaching of using an unlock door request from a key fob prior to the user
entering the vehicle. Ans. 3. Thus, in view of the Examiner’s stated
7
Appeal 2016-001873
Application 13/865,417
findings, Appellants’ argument that the goals of Teshima and Fuks are at
odds with each other is not persuasive.
Moreover, because the Examiner finds it would have been obvious to
combine the teachings of Teshima and Fuks “with the motivation of
improving driver comfort by immediately beginning a routine of adjusting
the temperature of the vehicle as soon as a driver’s presence is determined”
(Final Act. 5) this combination is adequately supported by articulated
reasoning with a rational underpinning. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds [require] some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.”) (cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
We highlight that adding Fuks’ technique of enabling a climate
control system when a presence of a user is detected to Teshima’s vehicle
control system represents the combination of a known technique to a known
device ready for improvement that does no more than yield the predictable
result of “improving driver comfort” by enabling a climate control system
“as soon as a driver’s presence is determined.” Final Act. 5; see KSR, 550
U.S. at 416. This is particularly so given that the combination would not be
“uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.”
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Accordingly, we find the Examiner has provided sufficient reasoning
for combining Teshima and Fuks, and we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§103 rejection of claim 1. The rejections of independent claim 19, and
dependent claims 2, 6—12, and 20-22, which are not argued separately, are
sustained for similar reasons.
8
Appeal 2016-001873
Application 13/865,417
Issue 2
The Examiner finds Fuks discloses the limitations of claim 23, except
that Fuks “does not disclose the entertainment system and climate control
system being enabled based on the detection of a user determined by a seat
presence detector.” Final Act. 20, bold emphasis omitted. The Examiner
finds Teshima teaches “the well-known technique of enabling vehicle
auxiliary systems (i.e. moving seats and/or steering wheel) based on the
detection of a user based on a seat sensor.” Id.
Appellants argue claim 23 is patentable over Fuks and Teshima
because the “examiner mischaracterized the teachings of Teshima.” Appeal
Br. 6, underlining omitted. Specifically, Appellants argue,
[t]he examiner also points out that “Teshima teaches the well-
known technique of enabling vehicle auxiliary systems (i.e.,
moving seats and/or steering wheel) based on the detection of a
user based on a seat sensor.” Applicant disagrees. Teshima
adjusts the vehicle seats and/or steering wheel prior to a user
entering the vehicle to provide additional clearance in a normally
confined space, such that a user may more easily enter into the
vehicle and move about the vehicle seats. (Teshima, Para. 0047).
Teshima further returns the vehicle seats and/or steering wheel
to an original position once the presence of a user is detected in
the vehicle seat. (Teshima, Para. 0050). One of ordinary skill in
the art would not have contemplated enabling entertainment and
climate control systems based on the detection of a user in the
vehicle seat since the entertainment and climate control systems
do not affect the clearance a user encounters when entering the
vehicle. The examiner has impermissibly used hindsight in
interpreting the teachings of Teshima for the purpose of finding
reason to combine the references.
Appeal Br. 6—7.
Appellants note Teshima teaches adjusting auxiliary systems like the
vehicle seats and steering wheel once the presence of a user is detected in
9
Appeal 2016-001873
Application 13/865,417
the vehicle seat but argue the Examiner has used hindsight because “[o]ne of
ordinary skill in the art would not have contemplated enabling entertainment
and climate control systems based on the detection of a user in the vehicle
seat since the entertainment and climate control systems do not affect the
clearance a user encounters when entering the vehicle.” Id.
We are not persuaded. Although Appellants argue the Examiner
mischaracterized the teachings of Teshima, Appellants fail to provide
persuasive evidence to support this conclusion. Moreover, rather than using
hindsight, the Examiner points to specific disclosures in the references that
describe all the limitations of the vehicle of claim 23. See Final Act. 20—21.
In addition, the Examiner has provided a reasoning with rational
underpinnings for the combination, namely, “the motivation of saving
energy by only turning on the climate control and entertainment systems
when it is known that the user is seated in the vehicle instead of just the
unlocking of the vehicle.” Final Act. 20; see also Kahn, 441 at 988.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 23. The rejections of dependent claims 24—29, which are not argued
separately, are sustained for similar reasons. See Appeal Br. 7.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 6—12, and
19-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
10