Ex Parte Patel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 29, 2018

13651795 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/651,795 10/15/2012 Upendra J. Patel 28866 7590 04/02/2018 MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD ONE MARITIME PLAZA - FIFTH FLOOR 720 WATER STREET TOLEDO, OH 43604 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. 83248810 8602 EXAMINER DECKER, PHILLIP ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3749 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/02/2018 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@mstfirm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte UPEND RA J. PATEL and RANGANATHAN MADHAVAN Appeal2017-006058 Application 13/651, 795 Technology Center 3700 Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2017-006058 Application 13/651, 795 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 5, 7-15, and 17-19. Claims 6 and 16 have been withdrawn. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to a thermostatically-controlled multi-mode coolant loop for automobiles. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A heat transfer system for a road vehicle having a passenger cabin, wherein a coolant circulates within the system, compnsmg: a primary branch including a primary coolant pump and a primary power plant that heats the coolant to a primary temperature, and wherein coolant is pumped through the primary power plant by the primary coolant pump; an auxiliary branch including an auxiliary coolant pump, an auxiliary heat source, and a cabin heat exchanger, wherein the auxiliary heat source selectably transfers heat to the coolant flowing within the auxiliary branch, wherein coolant flowing within the auxiliary branch has an auxiliary temperature; and a mechanically-actuated thermostatic multi-way valve having a valve inlet and first and second valve outlets, wherein the thermostatic multi-way valve directs coolant from the valve inlet to substantially only the first valve outlet when receiving coolant at below a first temperature, wherein the valve directs coolant from the valve inlet to substantially only the second valve outlet when receiving coolant at above a second temperature, wherein the second temperature is higher than the first temperature, wherein the valve inlet is coupled to receive coolant from one of the primary branch or the auxiliary branch, wherein the first valve outlet is configured to return coolant to the same branch as is connected to the valve inlet, and wherein 2 Appeal2017-006058 Application 13/651, 795 the second valve outlet is configured to direct coolant to the other branch to which the valve inlet is not connected. Humburg Richter Heldberg Martinchick REFERENCES us 5, 123,594 US 6,5 84,941 B2 US 7,392,769 B2 US 2009/0283604 Al REJECTIONS June 23, 1992 July 1, 2003 July 1, 2008 Nov. 19, 2009 Claims 1-3, 7-13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Martinchick and Heldberg. Final Act. 3--4. Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Martinchick, Heldberg, and Richter. Id. at 9. Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Martinchick, Heldberg, Richter, and Humburg. Id. at 11. ANALYSIS Claims 1-3, 7-13, and 17-19 Unpatentable over Martinchick and Heldberg Independent claim 1 is drawn to an automotive heat transfer system having a primary branch and an auxiliary branch connected together by a "mechanically-actuated thermostatic multi-way valve" that directs substantially all of the coolant to either the primary branch or auxiliary branch depending on the temperature of the coolant "receiv[ ed]" by the valve, i.e., based on the temperature of the coolant that enters the valve inlet. App. Br. 10 (Claims App.). Independent claim 10 is drawn to a method that uses a heat transfer system similar to that recited in claim 1. Id. at 12. The Examiner relies on Martinchick to teach the claimed system, including a multi-way valve that directs coolant to either a primary or 3 Appeal2017-006058 Application 13/651, 795 auxiliary loop based on the temperature of the coolant received by the valve. Final Act. 4--5 (citing Martinchick i-fi-127-28, 30, 32, Figs. 4--6). The Examiner acknowledges, however, that Martinchick does not expressly teach that its multi-way valve is mechanically actuated. Id. at 5; see Ans. 15. For that limitation, the Examiner relies on Heldberg. Final Act. 5 (citing Heldberg, 3 :4--8). According to the Examiner, Heldberg teaches a mechanically actuated thermostatic multi-way valve that uses an expansion- wax element. Id. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art "to modify the apparatus of Martinchick by adding the mechanically-actuated thermostatic multi-way valve as taught by Hel[ d]berg in order to utilize a more reliable valve that does not require an electric power source." Id. Appellants respond, inter alia, that Martinchick's multi-way valve "respon[ ds] to temperatures measured at locations other than the temperature at the three-way valve itself." App. Br. 4. Specifically, Appellants contend that Martinchick's system selects one of three heating modes depending on the temperature of coolant in "power plant loop 31," but Martinchick's three-way valve 58 "does not carry the coolant in loop 31." Id. at 5; see also Ans. 3. 1 Appellants further contend that if Heldberg' s mechanically 1 Power plant coolant loop 31 and three-way valve 58 are found in the embodiment depicted in Figures 1-3 of Martinchick. Martinchick i-fi-f 15-23, Figs. 1-3. The Examiner relies on a slightly different embodiment-that depicted in Figures 4--6 and described in paragraphs 27-32 of Martinchick- in which the power plant coolant loop is designated with the reference number 131 and the three-way valve is designated 158. The embodiments are identical in all relevant respects, however, and Appellants' arguments apply with equal force to both embodiments. We will use the reference 4 Appeal2017-006058 Application 13/651, 795 actuated multi-way valve, which reacts to the temperature of coolant flowing through the valve, replaces Martinchick' s valve in Martinchick' s system, such substitution "would destroy the functionality of [Martinchick' s] heating system." App. Br. 5. The Examiner counters that the system resulting from such substitution "would function, even though it may not correspond to one of the stated preferred embodiments ofMartinchick." Ans. 15-16.2 As noted above, the claims require the multi-way valve to direct coolant to either the primary loop or auxiliary loop based on the temperature of the coolant that the valve "receiv[es]," i.e., coolant that enters the valve's inlet, and the Examiner relies on Martinchick to teach a multi-way valve that operates in this manner. But Martinchick's multi-way valve 158 operates in accordance with the temperature of the coolant in power plant coolant loop 131, and coolant that flows through loop 131 is not received by valve 158. Martinchick i-fi-128-32, Figs. 4---6. Instead, valve 158 receives coolant that flows through heater coil coolant loop 154. Id. Because the coolant flowing through loop 154 flows through coolant heater 172 and heater core 152 before entering valve 158, it may be at a different temperature than the coolant flowing through loop 131. Id. Therefore, the Examiner has not persuaded us that Martinchick teaches the claimed multi-way valve that directs coolant to either the primary loop or auxiliary loop based on the numbers of this latter embodiment, since that is the one on which the Examiner relies. 2 The Examiner justifies this substitution by asserting that one of ordinary skill in the art may be led to use a "valve that does not require an electric power source" (Final Act. 5), but does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would find acceptable the change in functionality of Martinchick' s system that would result from the substitution. 5 Appeal2017-006058 Application 13/651, 795 temperature of the coolant that the valve receives. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 or its dependent claims. Claim 10, the only other independent claim at issue, contains similar language, so the rejection of claim 10 and the claims dependent therefrom fails for the same reason. The Remaining Rejections The Examiner's remaining rejections rely on the erroneous finding that Martinchick teaches the claimed multi-way valve that directs coolant to either the primary loop or auxiliary loop based on the temperature of the coolant that the valve receives. The Examiner has not relied on either Richter or Humburg to cure the deficiency. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain these rejections. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-19 is reversed. REVERSED 6