Ex Parte Gaboury et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 24, 2016

11755309 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111755,309 0513012007
28395 7590 06/28/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Scott Howard Gaboury
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.
81156386 8905
EXAMINER
THOMPSON, JASON N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2016 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 SCOTT HOWARD GABOURY, LIXIN SITU,
WILLIAM PAUL PERKINS, and STEVEN A. DALEIDEN
Appeal2014-001564
Application 11/755,309
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMESON LEE, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and JUSTIN T. ARBES,
Administrative Patent Judges.
ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claim 21, the only claim pending in the application on appeal. Claims 1-20
were cancelled previously, and claims 22 and 23 were withdrawn
previously. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). 1 We affirm.
1 Our decision will make reference to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.,"
filed June 10, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed November 12,
2013), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed September 10, 2013) and
Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed January 9, 2013).
Appeal2014-001564
Application 11/755,309
The application is directed generally to "systems and methods to
detect, in vehicles, blockages of airflow passages to power storage units."
Spec. 1, 11. 8-10. Claim 21 recites:
1. A vehicle comprising:
a battery;
a fan arranged to move air through an air passage way to
cool the battery; and
at least one controller configured to (i) detect a blockage
of the air passage way in response to a temperature of the
battery and a power to the fan increasing together and (ii) cause
an alert to be generated for a driver of the vehicle in response to
the detected blockage.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Bolfik
Okuda
Hendrix
us 4,858,676
US 7,923,141 B2
US 7,974,094 B2
REJECTIONS
Aug.22, 1989
Apr. 12, 2011
(filed Jan. 26, 2006)
July 5, 2011
(provisional
application filed
Mar. 27, 2007)
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Okuda and Hendrix. Final Act. 6-8.
2
Appeal2014-001564
Application 11/755,309
Claim 21 also stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Okuda, Hendrix, and Official Notice or Bolfik. Final
Act. 13. 2
ISSUES
Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejections of claim 21 are in
error. App. Br. 2-7; Reply Br. 2-3. These arguments present us with the
following issues:
(1) Did the Examiner err in finding that Okuda and Hendrix
teach "detect[ing] a blockage of the air passage way in
response to a temperature of the battery and a power to
the fan increasing together," as recited in claim 21?
(2) Did the Examiner err in relying on Hendrix as analogous
art?
(3) Did the Examiner err in finding that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have had reason to modify the
detection process in Okuda based on the teachings of
Hendrix?
ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection Based on Okuda and Hendrix
Appellants make three arguments regarding Okuda and Hendrix.
First, Appellants argue that Okuda does not teach "detect[ing] a blockage of
the air passage way in response to a temperature of the battery and a power
2 The Examiner withdrew the rejections of claim 21 as (1) anticipated by
Okuda, (2) unpatentable over Okuda and U.S. Patent No. 6,532,151 B2
("Osecky") or U.S. Patent No. 5,831,525 ("Harvey"), and (3) unpatentable
over Okuda alone or over Okuda, Osecky or Harvey, and Official Notice or
Bolfik. See Final Act. 2-13; Ans. 4.
3
Appeal2014-001564
Application 11/755,309
to the fan increasing together," as recited in claim 21. App. Br. 2-3; Reply
Br. 2-3. According to Appellants, when the filter member in Okuda
becomes clogged, battery temperature increases but the current value Im
(and thus also power, because Okuda uses a constant battery voltage for a
particular fan speed) actually decreases. App. Br. 2-3 (citing Okuda,
col. 11, 11. 6-16).
Appellants' argument is not persuasive. In addition to relying on
Okuda individually, the Examiner relies on the combination of Okuda and
Hendrix as teaching the disputed limitation. Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 8, 10-13.
In particular, the Examiner finds that Hendrix teaches monitoring battery
temperature and determining whether current increased above a particular
threshold, which indicates a blockage in the air passage way. Ans. 8.
According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to modify the
detection step in Okuda, based on the teachings of Hendrix, to detect an
increase in power (current) rather than a decrease. Id. at 8, 10-13. We
agree. Hendrix teaches detecting a "potential membrane clogged condition"
by determining whether the measured current "exceeds the predetermined
threshold value for a present fan speed" and, if so, initiating a fan testing
sequence. Hendrix, col. 7, 11. 16-34, claim 10. Okuda similarly teaches
detecting a "clogged" condition in the filter member by determining whether
the measured current decreased below a threshold value. Okuda, col. 11,
11. 10-21. Appellants do not address the combination of Okuda and Hendrix
or explain how the Examiner allegedly erred in relying on the combined
teachings of the references. See App. Br. 2-3; Reply Br. 2-3.
Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
4
Appeal2014-001564
Application 11/755,309
when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures.
See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, Appellants argue that Hendrix is not analogous art because
(1) Hendrix's field of endeavor is "cooling systems for outside plant
telecommunications cabinets," whereas the instant application pertains to
"automotive vehicles," and (2) Hendrix is concerned with the problem of
"cooling outside plant telecommunications cabinets without using separate
air conditioning systems," whereas the instant application is directed to the
problem of "detecting blockages within vehicle climate control systems."
App. Br. 3; Reply Br. 2.
"A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination
under § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed invention." In re
Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011). "Two separate tests define the
scope of analogous prior art: (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 Bigio, 381F.3d1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "A reference
is reasonably pertinent if ... it is one which, because of the matter with
which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's
attention in considering his problem." Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA
Entm 't, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted).
We are not persuaded of error by the Examiner. Even assuming
(without deciding) that Hendrix is not from the same field of endeavor as the
instant application, we agree with the Examiner that Hendrix is reasonably
5
Appeal2014-001564
Application 11/755,309
pertinent to the problem with which Appellants were involved-namely,
"detecting blockages of airflow passages" for cooling a battery. See Ans.
9--10. Hendrix discloses a system that cools electrical equipment, such as a
battery, by using a fan to pull air through an air intake vent with an outer
membrane that allows air to pass through. Hendrix, col. 1, 11. 23-25, col. 2,
11. 43-50, col. 5, 11. 19--21. The system monitors temperature and current to
detect when the membrane is "clogged" (i.e., when there is a blockage
preventing air from entering), and reports the detected blockage to a service
technician. Id. at Abstract, col. 7, 11. 16-46. Similarly, the instant
application describes a system that cools a battery by using a fan to pull air
through an opening, detects when the opening is blocked, and generates an
alarm for the driver when there is a blockage. Spec. 7, 11. 5-32, 9, 11. 3-11,
Figs. 3, 6A. Thus, both Hendrix and the instant application are directed to
the problem of detecting blockages of airflow passages in a battery cooling
system.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the relevant
problem with which the instant application is concerned is confined to
detecting blockages in vehicle climate control systems. See Reply Br. 2.
Blockages may occur in any system that uses a fan to cool a battery, and we
see no reason why Appellants' disclosure of the problem and purported
solution (detecting when the battery temperature and fan power increase
together) would only pertain to vehicle systems. See, e.g., Spec. 1, 15-17
("Thermal management of battery systems may improve battery
performance and extend battery life."). At minimum, a reference like
Hendrix logically would have commended itself to Appellants' attention in
considering how best to detect blockages in battery cooling systems.
6
Appeal2014-001564
Application 11/755,309
Third, Appellants argue that the Examiner's explanation as to why a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the detection process
in Okuda based on the teachings of Hendrix is conclusory. App. Br. 4. We
are not persuaded. The Examiner explains the similarities in Okuda and
Hendrix, and finds that detecting a current decrease as in Okuda and
detecting a current increase in Hendrix are merely "alternative way[ s] of
determining blockage," where there are "two identified predictable
solutions" from which a person of ordinary skill in the art could select.
Ans. 8, 10-13. The Examiner further finds that Okuda detects a blockage
and alerts the driver when the current suddenly drops, causing the fan to
stall, whereas Hendrix detects a blockage by looking for an increase in
current. Id. at 10-11. Thus, "Okuda teaches alarming after the fan stalls
(i.e. when fan current drops) and Hendrix teaches alarming before the fan
stalls (i.e. when fan current exceeds some maximum value)." Id. at 11, 13.
We agree with the Examiner that the detection processes taught by Okuda
and Hendrix would have been easily substitutable alternatives to a person of
ordinary skill in the art, and that it would have been advantageous to modify
Okuda, based on the teachings of Hendrix, to detect an increase in current
and alert the driver before (rather than after) the fan stalls.
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 21 as unpatentable over Okuda and Hendrix.
Obviousness Rejection Based on Okuda, Hendrix, and
Official Notice or Bolfik
With respect to the rejection based on Okuda, Hendrix, and Official
Notice or Bolfik, Appellants rely solely on their arguments regarding Okuda
7
Appeal2014-001564
Application 11/755,309
and Hendrix, which we addressed above. See App. Br. 6. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection for the same reasons indicated above.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's decision
to reject claim 21 as unpatentable over Okuda and Hendrix under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's decision
to reject claim 21 as unpatentable over Okuda, Hendrix, and Official Notice
or Bolfik under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision to reject claim 21 is
affirmed.
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
8