Ex Parte Marleau et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2017

13235779 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 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.
13/235,779 09/19/2011 James A. Marleau JR. 83201576 2536
28866 7590 08/23/2017
MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD
ONE MARITIME PLAZA - FIFTH FLOOR
720 WATER STREET
TOLEDO, OH 43604
EXAMINER
TOMPKINS, ALISSA JILL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3749
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2017 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 @ mstfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES A. MARLEAU JR., DAVID A. WADE,
KENNETH M. REO, TODD W. DISHMAN, AZFAR QAMAR,
and PAUL REPP1
Appeal 2015-003520
Application 13/235,779
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, AMANDA F. WIEKER, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
James A. Marleau Jr. et al. (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—16. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 1 (filed July 29, 2014).
Appeal 2015-003520
Application 13/235,779
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention concerns “a pressure relief valve assembly for
extracting air from a vehicular passenger compartment.” Spec. 1:18—19.
Claims 1,4, 10, 12, and 15 are independent. Claim 4 is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal, and recites:
4. A passenger vehicle comprising:
a passenger compartment with an interior space;
an HVAC system for conditioning fresh air from the
outside of the vehicle, wherein the HVAC system includes
a main blower for delivering a flow of conditioned air to
the interior space;
an air extractor valve fluidically coupled between
the interior space and the outside, wherein the air extractor
valve opens in response to a higher pressure in the interior
space than an outside pressure, and wherein the air
extractor valve substantially blocks air flow from the
outside to the interior space; and
a supplemental blower integrated with the air
extractor valve for directing an exhaust flow from the
interior space through the air extractor valve to the
outside, wherein the supplemental blower is activated as a
function of the main blower.
Appeal Br. 11—12 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Independent claims
1, 10, 12, and 15 contain limitations similar to that emphasized in claim 4.
See id. at 11, 13—14 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows:
I. Claims 4—11, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Major (US 2009/0088062 Al, pub. Apr. 2,
2009).
2
Appeal 2015-003520
Application 13/235,779
II. Claims 1—3 and 12—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) an
unpatentable over Major, McCarthy (US 2010/0216384 Al,
pub. Aug. 26, 2010), and Kim (US 2008/0113600 Al, pub.
May 15,2008).
III. Claims 3 and 14 as under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) an unpatentable
over Major, McCarthy, Kim, and Girard (US 5,391,111, iss.
Feb. 21, 1995).
IV. Claim 10 on the ground of provisional non-statutory double
patenting over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent Application No.
13/803,592 and Kim.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I— Unpatentability over Major
Claims 4—11, 15, and 16
With respect to independent claim 4, the Examiner finds that Major
teaches a passenger vehicle substantially as claimed, including passenger
cabin 12, HVAC module 34, air extractor valve 84, and supplemental blower
76. Final Act. 4—5 (mailed May 22, 2014). The Examiner finds that “Major
does not explicitly show a configuration with exhaust flow from the interior
space to the outside being directed through the air extractor valve.” Id. at
5. However, according to the Examiner,
Major teaches the vehicle “can be operated in various modes to
provide multiple different functions relating to cooling or heating
the passenger cabin 12 and cooling the battery pack 80”
including differing “possible direction for air flow in the various
modes of operation”. Further, Major teaches various
embodiments including an embodiment having both a
body/cabin pressure relief vent (82, 182) and “a passive duct
pressure relief vent 188 mounted to the air flow duct 178” that
“provides an air path for air to exit the vehicle 110 through the
3
Appeal 2015-003520
Application 13/235,779
body pressure relief vent 182 due to door closures a passive duct
pressure relief vent (184)”.
Id. at 6 (citations omitted). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to have “modified the system of Major to include an air extractor
valve through which exhaust flow from the interior space to the outside is
directed according to the teachings of Major for various configurations and
modes of operation according to the teachings of Major.” Id.
Appellants contend that, inter alia, “the battery blower in Major does
not even direct an air flow through the cabin pressure relief vent 84 which is
relied on by the final rejection.” Appeal Br. 5.
Major discloses a vehicle including passenger cabin 12. Major 117,
Fig. 1. Major’s Figure 2 is reproduced below.
Figure 2 details a portion of the vehicle. Id. 112. As shown in Figure 2, the
vehicle includes battery module 18, which includes battery pack 80, wherein
4
Appeal 2015-003520
Application 13/235,779
operation of the battery pack may raise the temperature of the cabin. Id.
2, 15, 17. Accordingly, Major discloses battery pack blower 76 to, e.g.,
direct cool air toward the battery pack. Id. H 17, 20. Extending from outlet
74 of battery pack 80 is air flow duct 78, which extends to body pressure
relief vent 82 and exits the vehicle. Id. 118, Fig. 2. Air flow duct 78 also
includes cabin pressure relief vent 84, which is “a one-way valve that
provides an air path for air to exit the vehicle due to door closures or the
HVAC module 34 being in outside air mode (bringing in fresh air from
outside the vehicle).” Id.
Major discloses several modes of operation. In a first mode, battery
pack blower 76 pulls cool air from passenger cabin 12 and passes it through
battery pack 80, before the air exhausts to outside the vehicle through duct
78 and vent 82. Id. 120. In a second mode, battery pack heater 77 warms
air before it passes to the battery pack. Id. 121. In a third mode, excess
cabin air pressure, created when a vehicle door closes, passes through cabin
pressure relief vent 84, into duct 78, and exhausts to outside the vehicle via
vent 82. Id. 122. Major also discloses additional embodiments of the
vehicle, depicted in Figures 3—4, in which duct pressure relief vent 188/290
is mounted in air flow duct 178/278, which allows air exiting the battery
pack to enter the cabin, rather than exiting to outside of the vehicle via vent
182/282. Id. 1123-25, Figs. 3^1.
In view of these disclosures, we are persuaded by Appellants’
argument. Appeal Br. 5—6. Independent claim 4 recites “a supplemental
blower integrated with the air extractor valve for directing an exhaust flow
from the interior space through the air extractor valve to the outside.”
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). The Examiner identifies Major’s battery pack
5
Appeal 2015-003520
Application 13/235,779
blower 76 as the supplemental blower, and Major’s cabin pressure relief
vent 84 as the air extractor valve. Final Act. 5. However, as Appellants
note, blower 76 does not direct exhaust flow from the interior space through
relief vent 84. Appeal Br. 5. Blower 76 is located upstream of battery pack
80, and vent 84 is located downstream. Major, Fig. 2. Vent 84 is a one-way
valve that permits cabin air to escape to the outside, regardless of the
operation of blower 76. Id. 118. Thus, although vent 84 “direct[s] an
exhaust flow from the interior space through the air extractor to the outside,”
this flow is not directed by supplemental blower 76. Id.
To remedy this deficiency, the Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to modify Major to operate as claimed. Final Act. 6.
However, the Examiner’s conclusion in this regard lacks articulated
reasoning with rational underpinning. The Examiner explains that Major
discloses several operating modes, including modes in which a duct pressure
relief vent 188 exists. Id. None of these modes, however, disclose that
blower 76 directs exhaust air from the cabin interior through cabin relief
vent 84 to the outside. See Major || 18—25. As discussed above, the
embodiments that include a duct pressure relief vent 188/290 merely allow
air to enter the cabin after exiting the battery pack. Id. Tflf 23—25. Thus,
Major’s different operating modes do not provide a sufficient basis for the
Examiner’s conclusion that this limitation would have been obvious. The
bare conclusion that Major teaches “various configurations and modes of
operation” is insufficient without an explanation of how or why it would
have been obvious to modify Major’s disclosed structure to arrive at the
claimed invention. See Final Act. 6; Ans. 4—5. Accordingly, we do not
6
Appeal 2015-003520
Application 13/235,779
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4, or claims 5—9, which depend
therefrom.
The Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 10 and 15 suffers
from the same deficiency. See Final Act. 8—11. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 or 15, or claims 11 and 16,
which depend therefrom.
Rejections II and III
Claims 1—3 and 12—14
The Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 12 suffers from
the same deficiency discussed above. See Final Act. 13, 17. The
Examiner’s reliance on McCarthy, Kim, and Girard does not cure this
deficiency. See id. at 12—19. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 or 12, or claims 2, 3, 13, or 14, which depend
therefrom.
Rejection IV Double Patenting
Claim 10
The Examiner provisionally rejected claim 10 on the grounds of non-
statutory double patenting over claim 1 of U.S. Patent Application
No. 13/803,592 and Kim. Final Act. 20.
In the time that has passed since the issuance of the Examiner’s final
rejection, claim 1 of the ’592 application was twice amended and the
application issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,656,534. See App. 13/803,592, Nov.
2, 2015 Amendment, Dec. 29, 2016 Amendment, May 3, 2017 Issue
Notification. Therefore, we leave it to the Examiner to determine whether
an obviousness-type double patenting rejection remains appropriate. We do
not reach the merits of the Examiner’s provisional double patenting rejection
7
Appeal 2015-003520
Application 13/235,779
because it would be premature to do so at this time. See Ex Parte Moncla,
95 USPQ2d 1884, 1885 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—16 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
8