Halla Visteon Climate Control Corp.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 29, 2021

2020006658 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2021)

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.
14/721,289 05/26/2015 Christoph Capellmann H-IP14030035US1
(205322)
9758
58637 7590 06/29/2021
Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP
1000 Jackson Street
Toledo, OH 43604-5573
EXAMINER
MAY, ELIZABETH M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3762
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2021 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):
cgolupski@shumaker.com
dmiller@shumaker.com
tlopez@shumaker.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPH CAPELLMANN,
GERD VONDAHLEN, DETLEF HANDWERK, and
JOHANNES STAUSBERG
Appeal 2020-006658
Application 14/721,289
Technology Center 3700
Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DANIEL S. SONG, and
MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SONG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hanon
Systems. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-006658
Application 14/721,289

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a drainage system. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A drainage system for draining water from an air intake
housing and from an air distribution housing of an air
conditioning system into an environment, the drainage system
comprising:
a fan causing air to flow through the air conditioning
system, wherein the air intake housing is disposed upstream of
the fan with respect to a direction of flow of the air through the
air conditioning system and wherein the air distribution housing
is disposed downstream of the fan with respect to the direction
of flow of the air through the air conditioning system; and
a drainage opening draining water into the environment,
the drainage opening formed on a lower shell of the air
distribution housing and divided into a first drainage area for
water from the air intake housing and a second drainage area for
water from the air distribution housing, the first drainage area for
water from the air intake housing formed by a terminal area of a
duct routing water from the air intake housing, wherein the duct
extends through an internal space defined by the lower shell of
the air distribution housing and fluidly separates the water
passing through the duct upstream of the first drainage area from
the water passing through the internal space of the lower shell
upstream of the second drainage area, and wherein the first
drainage area outlets directly to the environment and the second
drainage area outlets directly to the environment.
Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Appeal 2020-006658
Application 14/721,289

3
Name Reference Date
Kang US 2006/0242984 A1 Nov. 2, 2006
Kim US 2007/0023162 A1 Feb. 1, 2007
Yoshida US 7,284,388 B2 Oct. 23, 2007
Richter US 2012/0138697 A1 June 7, 2012
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 2, 6–11, 15–17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Yoshida. Final
Act. 3.
2. Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kang in view of Yoshida and Richter. Final Act. 13.
3. Claims 4, 5, 13, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Yoshida and Kim. Final Act.
16.
OPINION
Rejection 1: Kang in view of Yoshida
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 6–11, 15–17, 19, and 20 as being
unpatentable over Kang in view of Yoshida. Final Act. 3. As to
independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Kang discloses a drainage
system substantially as claimed, including a first drainage area for water
from the air intake housing and a second drainage area for water from the air
distribution housing, but fails to disclose that the first and second drainage
areas drain directly to the environment. Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner finds
that Yoshida discloses a drainage system having a drain hole 113 that is
divided into first and second drainage areas that drain directly to the
environment. Final Act. 4 (citing Yoshida Figs. 1, 8–9). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have:
Appeal 2020-006658
Application 14/721,289

4
modif[ied] the drainage opening shown by Kang to include
separate drainage areas for the water from the air intake and air
distribution housings by combining prior art elements according
to known methods to yield predictable results or by simple
substitution of one known element for another to obtain
predictable results as taught by Yoshida into the teachings of
Kang because it does no more than yield predictable results of
providing an alternate arrangement of the water outlet, since it
has been held that the combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it
does no more than yield predictable results.
Final Act. 5.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion with respect to
independent claim 1, and address the Appellant’s arguments infra.
The Appellant generally asserts that there is no motivation to combine
the references in the manner suggested when claim 1 is considered as a
whole, and that “the Examiner has failed to consider the unique advantages
of the drainage system” of claim 1 (Appeal Br. 9), which is “drawn towards
the prevention of the backflow of air and any accompanying water from a
downstream arranged high pressure area to an upstream arranged low
pressure area.” (Reply Br. 2). The Appellant argues that Yoshida does not
disclose “two different drainage areas associated with two sources of water
disposed at opposing sides of a fan generating each of a suction pressure and
a discharge pressure for creating a substantial pressure differential at each of
the drainage areas.” Appeal Br. 14. According to the Appellant, Yoshida
merely discloses a partition wall 140 that “allows for fluid communication
between the two different spaces formed to either side of the evaporator 131
and the partition wall 140,” and argues that it is unreasonable to consider
part of the air conditioning case 111 of Yoshida to be a duct. Appeal Br.
14–15.
Appeal 2020-006658
Application 14/721,289

5
The Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because, although the
Appellant may be correct that Yoshida does not disclose the two drainage
areas associated with two sources of water disposed at opposing sides of a
fan, the rejection relies on the primary reference Kang for disclosing this
feature. Indeed, as the Examiner responds, “those elements to which the
Appellant points are elements which are said to be taught by Kang,” and we
agree that “the Appellant appears to attack the Yoshida reference
individually for elements which are previously shown to be disclosed by
Kang.” Ans. 19. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.” In re Merck, 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner has
relied upon Yoshida for establishing that providing separate drain openings
that drain/outlet directly to the environment was a known method, and
alternatively, substitutes such drain openings for the opening disclosed in
Kang. Final Act. 5.
The Appellant argues that it is:
difficult to conceive of a situation wherein one skilled in the art
would look to the Yoshida reference for modifying the drainage
system of Kang regarding solving the problem of draining
water from each of an air intake housing at a suction pressure
and an air distribution housing at a discharge pressure with
respect to a common drainage opening.
Appeal Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 3 (arguing that the rejection does not
consider “how the remainder of the Yoshida disclosure is unrelated to
solving the problem addressed by the present invention.”).
However, this line of argument is unpersuasive because the reason for
modifying the art need not be the same as that of the Appellant to establish
Appeal 2020-006658
Application 14/721,289

6
obviousness. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007); In re
Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Indeed, what is required is
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
conclusion of obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). As the Examiner sets forth in the rejection,
Yoshida establishes that providing separate drain openings that drain/outlet
directly to the environment is a known method of draining water, and that
providing such drain openings in Kang would have been an obvious
substitution. Final Act. 5. In that regard, “when a patent claims a structure
already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one
element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than
yield a predictable result.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
The Appellant also argues that “structural difference renders the
Yoshida reference as insufficient in providing guidance in order to resolve
the problem relating to the backflow of water from a high pressure to a low
pressure area as is present on opposing sides of a fan.” Reply Br. 4; see also
Reply Br. 5 (arguing that Yoshida is “insufficient in identifying or
subsequently solving this problem.”). The Appellant further asserts that
Kang “has clearly failed to identify the problem related to the potential
backflow of the water towards the upstream arranged fan.” Reply Br. 5.
However, the Appellant’s reliance on lack of disclosure as to the
specific problem addressed by its invention is not dispositive for the reasons
already explained above. In addition, as the Examiner points out, the
Appellant does not persuasively establish the existence of any structural
difference that would patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the
combination of Kang and Yoshida as applied by the Examiner. Ans. 20; see
Appeal 2020-006658
Application 14/721,289

7
also Reply Br. 4. Moreover, contrary to the Appellant’s assertion, the
primary reference, Kang, appears to recognize the problem being addressed
by the Appellant. See Kang ¶¶ 3, 12–13, 44, 47.
The Appellant also argues that because Yoshida solves an entirely
different problem than the claimed invention, and does not address
“preventing any type of backflow of the water towards an upstream arranged
structure subjected to a suction pressure” as is recited in claim 1, it is “non-
analogous art for modifying the Kang reference.” Appeal Br. 15. However,
the Appellant appears to only focus on the reasonably pertinent prong of the
analogous test. The test for determining whether a prior art reference is
analogous art is: “(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor,
regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the
field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In
re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992). As the Examiner finds, “the
field of Appellant’s endeavor is drainage systems for air conditioning
systems. Both Kang and Yoshida are clearly in said field of Appellant’s
endeavor.” Ans. 20–21.
We are not persuaded by the Appellant’s arguments, which do not
adequately address the rejection actually made, i.e., that providing separate
drain openings that drain/outlet directly to the environment would have been
obvious as it practices a known method, and alternatively, substitutes one
type of drain for another known drain.
Hence, the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 is affirmed.
The Appellant relies on the same arguments in support of patentability of
independent claims 10 and 17, which include substantively similar
Appeal 2020-006658
Application 14/721,289

8
limitations as claim 1. Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 8. Accordingly, the
rejection of independent claims 10 and 17 is also affirmed. Moreover, with
the exception of the dependent claims discussed below, the Appellant merely
relies on dependency for patentability of the remaining claims of this
rejection. Appeal Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 8. Accordingly, this rejection is
also affirmed as to dependent claims 7–10, 16, 17, and 20.

Claim 2 (and claim 11)
Dependent claim 2 recites that “the duct is integrally formed with the
lower shell.” Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.). In rejecting claim 2, the
Examiner finds that Kang discloses a duct that is integrally formed with the
lower shell. Final Act. 5 (citing Kang Fig. 2). The Appellant disagrees with
the Examiner’s claim construction of “integrally formed,” arguing that this
limitation requires the duct to be formed as “a unitary or monolithic
structure when considered in light of the specification and the drawings.”
Appeal Br. 17. In support, the Appellant points out that Figures 3 and 4
illustrate a unitary or monolithic structure, and the Specification discloses
that “‘the duct is integrally formed with the lower shell, made preferably of a
plastic part. This means that the duct is part of the lower shell and, thus, no
extra (two-component) cover is required.’” Appeal Br. 17 (quoting Spec.
¶ 9; see also Spec. ¶ 23 (“the duct 11 is part of the plastic portion of the
lower shell 8.”); Figs. 3, 4); see also Reply Br. 6. The Appellant points out
that Figure 2 of Kang relied upon by the Examiner illustrates that “the drain
passage 194 is formed by the cooperation of a wall of the air conditioning
case 160 and an insulator 170 provided as a separate component,” and thus,
Appeal 2020-006658
Application 14/721,289

9
fails to disclose the limitation of claim 2. Appeal Br. 19 (citing Kang ¶ 31;
Fig. 2).
The Examiner disagrees, and finds that the Specification does not
clearly define “integrally formed,” but even if it did, a person having
ordinary skill in the art would understand the limitation to mean that “‘the
duct is integrally formed . . . this means that the duct is part of the lower
shell.’” Ans. 22.2 According to the Examiner, “the broadest reasonable
interpretation of ‘integrally formed’ is generally that the parts in question are
‘of, relating to, or belonging as a part of the whole’,” and responds that the
Appellant reads limitations from the Specification into the claim. Ans. 22.3
Thus, the Examiner maintains that “Fig. 2 of Kang does clearly show that
the drain passage 194 is integrally formed with the lower shell of the air
conditioning case 160.” Ans. 22–23.
The Appellant has the better position as to claim construction. The
Examiner is correct that the term “integral” generally covers more than
unitary construction. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. v. Scimed Life Sys., 887
F.2d 1070, 1074 (Fed.Cir.1989) (nothing of record limited “integral” to
mean “of one-piece” construction). However, claim 2 does not merely recite
that the duct is integral with the lower shell, but instead, recites that “the
duct is integrally formed with the lower shell,” thereby indicating that the
lower shell and the duct are formed together as a unitary, one-piece
component. Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.). The portions of the Specification
cited by the Appellant support this interpretation.

2 It is not clear from the record what the Examiner is quoting.
3 Again, it is not clear from the record what the Examiner is quoting.
Appeal 2020-006658
Application 14/721,289

10
The Examiner further responds that Kang also discloses that the
“‘drain pipe 192 may be formed integrally with the intake duct 110 and
connected to the air conditioning case 160’, wherein the drain passage 194 is
a part of the drain pipe 192.” Ans. 23 (quoting Kang ¶ 33). However, this
disclosure in Kang is merely describing the embodiment illustrated in Figure
2, and does not address the drain passage 194. As evident from Figure 2 of
Kang, the drain pipe 192 is formed integrally with the intake duct 110,
whereas the drain passage 194 is partially formed by the air conditioning
case 160 and the separate insulator 170. See Kang Fig. 2.
Therefore, because the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 is premised on
an erroneous claim construction, we reverse. Claim 11 depends from claim
10, and recites the same limitation as claim 2. Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.).
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 11 as well.

Claim 6 (and claims 15 and 19)
Dependent claim 6 recites that “the duct is angled vertically in the
terminal area of the duct within the air distribution housing.” Appeal Br. 23
(Claims App.). The Examiner finds that both Kang and Yoshida discloses a
duct that is “angled vertically in the terminal area of the duct within the air
distribution housing (Kang: Fig. 2, drain passage 194 is angled vertically;
Yoshida: see Fig. 8).” Final Act. 5. The Examiner clarifies that “the
broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘angled vertically’ . . . mean[s] ‘with at
least some vertical directional component,’” and as such, “the drain passage
194 is angled vertically, as it progresses downwardly (in a vertical direction)
from its beginning to its end.” Ans. 24 (citing Kang Fig. 2).
Appeal 2020-006658
Application 14/721,289

11
The Appellant again disagrees with the Examiner’s claim construction
and argues that claim 6 recites “a flow structure with vertically arranged
walls, rather than inclined walls,” as disclosed in Kang and Yoshida, “when
the limitation is considered in light of the [S]pecification and the drawings
of the present patent application.” Appeal Br. 19–20 (citing Spec. ¶ 24;
Figs. 3, 4). The Appellant also argues that “the plain meaning of the phrase
‘angled vertically’ refers quite simply to the act of directing the terminal
area of the duct in the vertical direction, which in the context of a drainage
system refers to the direction of gravity.” Reply Br. 7. According to the
Appellant, “the drain passage 194 [of Kang] and the upstream side opening
113a [of Yoshida] are each defined by walls that are inclined at least
partially horizontally at the terminal areas thereof,” and thus, do not disclose
the limitation of claim 6. Appeal Br. 20.
We again agree with the Appellant. The Examiner’s position that
something is “angled vertically” simply because its orientation has “at least
some vertical directional component” is not consistent with the plain and
ordinary meaning, and is unreasonably broad in view of the Specification as
argued by the Appellant. Accordingly, we agree with the Appellant that
neither the drain passage 194 as shown in Figure 2 of Kang, nor the drain
shown in Figure 8 of Yoshida, is angled vertically.
Therefore, we reverse this rejection as to dependent claim 6. Claims
15 and 19 recite the same limitation as claim 6, but depend from
independent claims 10 and 17, respectively. Appeal Br. 25–26 (Claims
App.). Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 15 and 19 as well.

Appeal 2020-006658
Application 14/721,289

12
Rejection 2: Kang in view of Yoshida and Richter
The Examiner rejects dependent claims 3 and 12 as being
unpatentable over Kang in view of Yoshida and Richter. Final Act. 13. The
Appellant does not submit separate arguments directed to the dependent
claims subject to this rejection, and instead, relies on their dependency for
patentability. Appeal Br. 16; Reply Br. 8. Claim 3 depends from claim 2
addressed above, while claim 12 depends from claim 11, which also recites
that the duct is integrally formed with the lower shell. Appeal Br. 22, 24
(Claims App). The Examiner’s application of Richter does not address the
deficiency discussed above relative to claim 2. Thus, we reverse this
rejection of claims 3 and 12.

Rejection 3: Kang in view of Yoshida and Kim
The Examiner rejects dependent claims 4, 5, 13, 14, and 18 as being
unpatentable over Kang in view of Yoshida and Kim. Final Act. 16. The
Appellant does not submit separate arguments directed to these claims, but
relies on their dependency for patentability. Appeal Br. 16; Reply Br. 8.
Thus, having found no deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 10, and 17 from which these claims depend, we affirm this
rejection of claims 4, 5, 13, 14, and 18.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed in part. More specifically,
1. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 6–11, 15–17, 19, and 20 as being
unpatentable over Kang in view of Yoshida is affirmed as to claims 7–10,
16, 17, and 20, but reversed as to claims 2, 6, 11, 15, and 19.
Appeal 2020-006658
Application 14/721,289

13
2. The rejection of claims 3 and 12 as being unpatentable over
Kang in view of Yoshida and Richter is reversed.
3. The rejection of claims 4, 5, 13, 14, and 18 as being
unpatentable over Kang in view of Yoshida and Kim is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6–11,
15–17, 19,
20
103 Kang, Yoshida 1, 7–10, 16,
17, 20
2, 6, 11, 15,
19
3, 12 103 Kang, Yoshida,
Richter
3, 12
4, 5, 13, 14,
18
103 Kang, Yoshida,
Kim
4, 5, 13, 14,
18

Overall
Outcome
1, 4, 5, 7–
10, 13, 14,
16–18, 20
2, 3, 6, 11,
12, 15, 19

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART