Ex Parte Malmgren et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 28, 2017

13381482 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 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. 13/381,482 12/29/2011 Bjorn Malmgren P/1228-308 (V 21714) 1979 2352 7590 08/30/2017 OSTROLENK FABER LLP 1180 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS NEW YORK, NY 10036-8403 EXAMINER PICON-FELICIANO, RUBEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3747 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2017 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): pat @ ostrolenk.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BJORN MALMGREN and HANS WIKSTROM Appeal 2015-006957 Application 13/381,482 Technology Center 3700 Before BRETT C. MARTIN, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2015-006957 Application 13/381,482 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Appellants’ claims are directed generally to a “method for improving performance of a motor vehicle.” Spec. 1,11. 7-8. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for improving the performance of a motor vehicle wherein the vehicle has a cooler and a fan for cooling the vehicle’s engine, the method comprising the steps of: (a) detecting a temperature-related parameter which affects the engine’s temperature during specific cooling conditions; (b) activating operation of the fan when the engine’s temperature fulfils a predetermined condition; (c) determining the predetermined condition on the basis of an outcome in regard to the engine’s temperature over a predetermined period of time, and/or an outcome in regard to the detected parameter over a predetermined period of time; (d) deciding whether the predetermined condition should be altered on the basis of a new outcome in regard to the engine’s temperature over the predetermined period of time and/or a new outcome in regard to the detected parameter over the predetermined period of time; (e) altering the predetermined condition on the basis of the new outcome in regard to the engine’s temperature over the predetermined period of time and/or the new outcome in regard to the detected parameter over the predetermined period of time if the decision in step (d) is in the affirmative; and (f) returning to step (d) if the decision in step (d) is in the negative. 2 Appeal 2015-006957 Application 13/381,482 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Letang US 6,067,489 May 23,2000 Iwasaki US 2002/0152972 A1 Oct. 24, 2002 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1—3, 5—7, 9-11, 13—15, and 17—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Iwasaki. Ans. 3. Claims 4 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iwasaki and Letang. Ans. 9. Claims 8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iwasaki, Letang, and Admitted Prior Art. Ans. 10. ANALYSIS All of the rejections at issue rely on the teachings of Iwasaki for “activating operation of the fan when the engine’s temperature fulfils a predetermined condition.” Final Act. 3,6. As the Appellants point out, however, Iwasaki “does not disclose activating operation of the fan when the engine’s temperature fulfills a predetermined condition.” Reply Br. 2. The only rebuttal provided by the Examiner is to state “in a case where the detected temperature of temperature sensor (9) does not reach to 105 -C, rotational drive motor (12) is not operated and a fan (11) is not rotated.” Ans. 12 (emphasis omitted). First, this teaching in Iwasaki does not inform us as to how Iwasaki reads on the limitation at issue. The claim language requires activating 3 Appeal 2015-006957 Application 13/381,482 operation of a fan, so a description of how the fan does not operate under certain conditions is essentially irrelevant to the claim language at issue. As the Appellants explain, “the fact that the fan 11 is not rotated when the temperature has not reached 105-C prior to the test of whether the heater switch is turned on in step SI04 in Fig. 10 does not imply that the fan will be turned on when Tw exceeds 105-C.” Reply Br. 2. Additionally, “even if the fan is off, the fan will not be turned on unless the coolant Reynolds number at tubes 6 of radiator 7 is 2600.” Id. (citing Iwasaki 175). Thus, it is possible in Iwasaki for the predetermined condition/temperature-related parameter to be achieved and the fan not to be operated as required in the claims. Accordingly, the Examiner has failed to show how Iwasaki teaches activating operation of the fan as claimed, which is present in each independent claim. This defect is not cured by either the Admitted Prior Art or Letang, and so we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1—20 DECISION For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20. REVERSED 4