Ex Parte Gruenberg et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 30, 201913768303 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/768,303 02/15/2013 28395 7590 06/03/2019 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L 1000 TOWN CENTER 22NDFLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Mark Gruenberg 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. 83258762 4425 EXAMINER OSWALD, KIRSTIN U ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3763 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/03/2019 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 MARK GRUENBERG, JIANQING XU, and SHAHID BASHIR Appeal2018-006829 1 Application 13/768,303 Technology Center 3700 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal from the final rejection2 of claims 1 and 3-8. The invention relates generally to a heating ventilation and air conditioning system having a thermal expansion valve. Spec. ,r 1. 1 The Appellants identify Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Although there is no subheading for Withdrawn Rejections, and in spite of the Examiner's statement that all rejections should be sustained, we treat the Examiner has having withdrawn the "35 U.S.C. § l 12(b) rejection." Answer Appeal2018-006829 Application 13/768,303 Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A heating ventilation and air conditioning system compnsmg: a casing defining an outlet port; a fan that creates a pressure zone at the outlet port; and an air channeling device disposed over the outlet port and attached to the casing to channel air across a thermal expansion valve such that air contacts the thermal expansion valve disposed outside and at a distance from the air channeling device, wherein a thermal expansion valve temperature is increased. Appeal Br., Claims App. 1 ( emphasis added). The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3---6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Peo (US 2,099,227, issued Nov. 16, 1937). The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Peo and Spatt (US 3,218,821, issued Nov. 23, 1965). We REVERSE. ANALYSIS Anticipation Reiection Similar to the "air channeling device" limitation in claim 1, independent claim 5 recites: a nozzle in fluid flow communication with the pressure zone that directs air from the pressure zone across the thermal expansion valve such that the air contacts the thermal expansion valve to increase a thermal expansion valve temperature, wherein the thermal expansion valve is disposed outside and at a distance from the nozzle. Appeal Br., Claims App. 1 ( emphasis added). 9. Further, because this application is examined under pre-AIA laws, we interpret this to mean the rejection applied under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is withdrawn. See Final Act. 2. 2 Appeal2018-006829 Application 13/768,303 We are persuaded by the Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 5, because Peo fails to disclose a thermal expansion valve outside of and at a distance from the air channeling device, and because Peo fails to disclose an air channeling device that channels air across a thermal expansion valve such that air contacts the thermal expansion valve. Appeal Br. 6-7. The Examiner argues that in Peo an air channeling device (15) ... [is] attached to the casing (11 and P.W. via 14) to channel air across a thermal expansion valve (37) such that the air contacts the thermal expansion valve disposed outside and at a distance from the air channeling device (37 is outside of 11 with a gap between the structures of 37 and 15). Answer 4; see also id. 9 ("expansion valve 37 is outside of the air channeling device 15"). Peo's Figure 1 shows that expansion valve 37 is beneath, and thus outside of, air channeling device 15, but both of these elements appear to be entirely enclosed within the casing defined by casing 11, casing 14, DB ("dashboard"), and casing PW ("partition wall"). Because air channeling device 15 directs cooled air out of the casing and into the passenger compartment (Peo, col. 2 lines 16-26), the air crosses thermal expansion valve 37 before arriving at air channeling device 15. Thus, in normal operation, air channeling device 15 does not direct air across thermal expansion valve 3 7, because air encounters device 15 after encountering valve 37. The Examiner asserts that the claim does not specify the direction of air flow, and that Peo is capable of directing air across valve 37. Answer 9. However, this presupposes that if air was propelled backwards, then 3 Appeal2018-006829 Application 13/768,303 device 15 would direct air across valve 3 7. The Examiner's shortcoming is that it has not been not established adequately that Peo is capable of operating its fan in reverse to propel air in the opposite direction intended by Peo. Thus, the Examiner has not established adequately that Peo has a structure sufficient to meet the claim language. For this reason, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of independent claims 1 and 5, nor of dependent claims 3 and 4, which depend from claim 1, and claim 6, which depends from claim 5. Obviousness Reiection Independent claim 7 recites "a nozzle disposed on the casing, that directs a portion of air from the second pressure zone across to contact the thermal expansion valve to increase a temperature of the thermal expansion valve, wherein the thermal expansion valve is disposed outside and at a distance from a nozzle body." Appeal Br., Claims App. 1-2 (emphasis added). Claim 7 thus recites a limitation substantially identical to that of claims 1 and 5 as to the thermal expansion valve, and the nozzle that directs air across the valve. The Examiner relies on the same portions of Peo as disclosing this limitation. Answer 7. We are thus persuaded by the Appellants' argument that the rejection of claim 7 should be reversed for the same reasons as for claims 1 and 5. Appeal Br. 8. Because the Examiner has not sufficiently established that Peo discloses the nozzle that directs air across to contract the thermal expansion valve, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 7, nor of claim 8, which depends from claim 7. 4 Appeal2018-006829 Application 13/768,303 DECISION We reverse the rejection of claims 1 and 3---6 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b). We reverse the rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a). REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation