Ex Parte Grider et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 4, 2016

12329707 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/329,707 12/08/2008
28395 7590 04/06/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Duane M. Grider
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.
81175960 9412
EXAMINER
PAIK, SANG YEOP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/06/2016 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 DUANE M. GRIDER and BALA S. CHANDER
Appeal2014-004198
Application 12/329,707
Technology Center 3700
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1, 3-9, and 11-21. We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as "FORD GLOBAL
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC." (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal2014-004198
Application 12/329,707
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants' invention "relates to a system and method for
controlling heating of at least one of an engine and a battery in a hybrid
vehicle using a source of power external to the hybrid vehicle." (Spec. 1,
11. 16-19.)
Illustrative Claim2
1. A system for controlling heating of at least one of
an engine and a rechargeable battery in a hybrid vehicle using
a power source external to the vehicle, the system comprising:
an engine heater and a battery heater, both being in the
vehicle and electrically coupled to an electrical port accessible
externally to the hybrid vehicle for selectively establishing an
electrical connection between the power source and hybrid
vehicle, wherein the electrical port is integrated with a side
view mirror assembly of the hybrid vehicle;
a system controller in the vehicle configured to generate
at least one heater control signal and to control distribution of
electric po\'l/er from the po\'l/er source bet\'l/een charging the
rechargeable battery and at least one of the heaters; and
an indicator disposed on the side view mirror assembly
and configured to display at least one of an amount of energy
required to heat the engine, an amount of energy required to
heat the rechargeable battery, a time required to heat the
engine, and a time required to heat the rechargeable battery.
Reed
Matava
Ozawa
Vasell
References
us 5,012,070
us 5,280,158
us 5,757,595
US 6,496,575 Bl
Apr. 30, 1991
Jan. 18, 1994
May 26, 1998
Dec. 17, 2002
2 This illustrative claim is quoted from the Claims Appendix ("Claims
App.") of the Appeal Brief.
2
Appeal2014-004198
Application 12/329,707
Hutzel
Obradovich
Zhu
US 2003/0031023 Al
US 2004/0036601 Al
US 2006/0016793 Al
Rejections
Feb. 13,2003
Feb.26,2004
Jan. 26, 2006
I. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11-18 and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Reed, Ozawa, Hutzel, and Matava.
(Final Action 2.)
II. The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Reed, Ozawa, Hutzel, Matava, and Vasell or Obradovich.
(Id. at 4.)
III. The Examiner rejects claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Reed, Ozawa, Zhu, and Matava. (Id. at 5.)
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1
Independent claim 1 is directed to a system comprising "an indicator"
that is "configured to display at least one of an amount of energy required to
heat [an] engine, an amount of energy required to heat [a] rechargeable
battery, a time required to heat the engine, and a time required to heat the
rechargeable battery." (Claims App.) The Examiner determines that such
an indicator would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Reed,
Ozawa, Hutzel, and Matava. (See Final Action 3--4.)
The Appellants advance arguments premised on Matava itself not
disclosing an indicator configured to display the parameters recited in
independent claim 1. (See Appeal Br. 6-7.) According to the Appellants,
"[t ]he Examiner relies on Matava to meet the claim limitation of an
3
Appeal2014-004198
Application 12/329,707
indicator" that is configured as recited in independent claim 1. (Id. at 6.)
The Appellants point out, for example, that "[t]he indicator of claim 1 is
configured to display distinctly different quantities as those displayed by
Matava." (Appeal Br. 7.)
We are not persuaded by these arguments because, contrary to the
Appellants' implications, the Examiner's rejection does not rely upon
Matava alone for disclosing the indicator configuration required by
independent claim 1. 3 Instead, the Examiner finds that, in view of the
combined teachings of Reed, Ozawa, and Hutzel, it would have been
obvious to provide a display to see operating conditions when power is
being distributed to an engine heater and a battery heater. (See Final
Action 3--4.) In other words, even without Matava, the prior art references
teach an indicator configured to display parameters relating to the heating of
an engine and/or a battery. The Appellants' arguments do not address why
one of ordinary skill in the art would not infer from the teachings of Reed,
Ozawa, and Hutzel that these displayed parameters could include the time or
energy required to heat the engine or the battery.4 To the extent that none of
3 See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based on the teachings of a combination of
references"). For this same reason, we are not persuaded by the Appellants'
argument that "[n]or does Ozawa teach or suggest an indicator configured in
as in claim 1." (Appeal Br. 8.)
4 See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007) (An
obviousness analysis "need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim" as "the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ" can be
taken into account).
4
Appeal2014-004198
Application 12/329,707
these three prior art references specifically discusses parameters relating to
the time required to heat a component, "Matava shows it is known in the art
to provide a controller for heating an engine component wherein the
controller calculates the amount of time required for heating the engine
component." (Final Action 3.)
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Reed, Ozawa, Hutzel, and
Matava (Rejection I).
Dependent Claims 3-7, 9, 11-16, and 21
These claims depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 1
(see Claims App.), are rejected on the same ground (see Final Action 2--4),
and are not argued separately (see Appeal Br. 9). Thus, they fall with
independent claim 1, and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent
claims 3-7, 9, 11-16, and 21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Reed; Ozawa; Hutzel; and Matava (Rejection I).
Dependent Claim 8
Claim 8 depends from independent claim 1 (see Claims App.), and the
Examiner introduces Vasell or Obradovich to the prior art combination to
reject this claim (see Final Action 4--5). The Appellants argue only that
neither V asell nor Obradovich teaches or suggests the indicator recited in
independent claim 1, and therefore claim 8 is not obvious over the
combination for the same reasons as discussed for claim 1. (See Appeal
Br. 9-10.) Thus, for the same reasons discussed above in our analysis of
independent claim 1, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent
claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Reed, Ozawa, Hutzel,
Matava, and Vasell or Obradovich (Rejection II).
5
Appeal2014-004198
Application 12/329,707
Independent Claim 17
Independent Claim 17 is directed to a system comprising "an indicator
configured to display at least one of an amount of energy required to heat the
engine, an amount of energy required to heat the rechargeable battery, a time
required to heat the engine, and a time required to heat the rechargeable
battery." (Claims App.) The Appellants argue "[t]his limitation is the same
as the limitation discussed above for claim 1," and "[t]herefore, claim 17 is
non-obvious over the combination for at least the reasons discussed above
for claim 1." (Appeal Br. 9.) Thus, for the same reasons discussed above in
our analysis of independent claim 1, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Reed,
Ozawa, Hutzel, and Matava (Rejection I).
Dependent Claim 18
Claim 18 depends from independent claim 17 (see Claims App.), is
rejected on the same ground (see Final Action 2--4); and is not argued
separately (see Appeal Br. 9). Thus, it falls with independent claim 17, and
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Reed, Ozawa, Hutzel, and Matava
(Rejection I).
Independent Claim 19
Independent claim 19 is directed to a method comprising "displaying
at least one of an amount of energy required to heat the engine, an amount of
energy required to heat the rechargeable battery, a time required to heat the
engine, and a time required to heat the rechargeable battery." (Claims App.)
The Examiner determines that such a displaying step would have been
obvious over the combined teachings of Reed, Ozawa, and Matava. (See
6
Appeal2014-004198
Application 12/329,707
Final Action 5---6.) The Appellants assert that "[t]his limitation is the same as
the limitation discussed above for claim 1," and "[t]herefore, claim 19 is
non-obvious over the combination for at least the reasons discussed above
for claim 1." (Appeal Br. 10.) Thus, for the same reasons discussed above
in our analysis of independent claim 1, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of independent claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Reed, Ozawa, Zhu, and Matava (Rejection III).
Dependent Claim 20
Claim 20 depends from independent claim 19 (see Claims App.), is
rejected on the same ground (see Final Action 5---6), and is not argued
separately (see Appeal Br. 9). Thus, it falls with independent claim 19, and
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Reed, Ozawa, Zhu, and Matava (Rejection III).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3-9, and 11-21.
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
7