Ex Parte HAVEL et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 29, 2018

14093205 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
14/093,205
65363 7590
Todd A. VAUGHN
Jordan IP Law, LLC
FILING DATE
11129/2013
05/31/2018
12501 Prosperity Drive, Suite 401
Silver Spring, MD 20904
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brian HAVEL
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.
0537-1033 7558
EXAMINER
AMICK, JACOB M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2018 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):
tvaughn@jordaniplaw.com
admin2@jordaniplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN HAVEL and PAUL MCLENNAN
Appeal2017-008277
Application 14/093,205
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection2 of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Temmesfeld (US 4,756,279; issued July 12, 1988) and Quinn (US
2004/0253566 Al; published Dec. 16, 2004). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as MAGNA ELECTRONICS
EUROPE GMBH & CO. KG. Br. 3.
2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated Sept. 24, 2015.
Appeal2017-008277
Application 14/093,205
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1, 6, and 11 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal, with
disputed limitations italicized for emphasis.
1. An air guide for a fan cowling of a motor vehicle, the fan
cowling being arranged downstream of a heat exchanger in a
direction of airflow, the air guide comprising:
an air guide body having a plurality of surfaces and an air
passage opening arranged between adjacent surfaces of the air
guide body;
a guide surface which corresponds to the opening and is
configured to act on airflow through the air passage opening; and
an end region which extends from the guide surface and
which is spaced from, and extends in, a plane which is
substantially parallel to a plane of the surface of the air guide
body,
wherein:
the guide surface begins at a first edge of the air
passage opening and the end region ends at an opposite
edge of the opening; and
- the end region does not overlap with an adjacent
surface that continues at the opposite edge of the air
passage opemng.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue claims 1-18 as a group. We select claim 1 as
representative, with claims 2-18 standing or falling with claim 1. See 3 7
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that
Temmesfeld discloses an air guide, except that "Temmesfeld does not
positively disclose the detailed structure of the vents." Final Act. 4. The
Examiner relies on Quinn for disclosing an air guide body having a plurality
2
Appeal2017-008277
Application 14/093,205
of surfaces (i.e., lower end 156 of each slat 148) and an air passage opening
(i.e, louver 158) arranged between adjacent surfaces (i.e., between each slat
148), as claimed. Id. (citing Quinn, Fig. 7). The Examiner also finds that
Quinn discloses a guide surface (i.e., lower surface 152) which corresponds
to the opening and is configured to act on airflow through the air passage
opening, and an end region (i.e., upper end 154) which extends from the
guide surface and which is spaced from, and extends in, a plane which is
substantially parallel to a plane of the surface of the air guide body, as
claimed. Id. at 5 (citing the Examiner's annotated Figure 7 of Quinn). The
Examiner further finds that Quinn discloses that the guide surface (i.e.,
lower surface 152) begins at a first edge (i.e., an edge of lower ends 156) of
the air passage opening (i.e., louver 158), and the end region (i.e., upper end
154) ends at an opposite edge of the opening; and the end region (i.e., upper
end 154) does not overlap with an adjacent surface that continues at the
opposite edge of the air passage opening, as claimed. Id. (citing Quinn, Fig.
7).
Figure 7 of Quinn, as annotated by the Examiner to identify the plane
on which the Examiner relies for disclosing the claimed "plane of the
surface of the air guide body," is reproduced below.
3
Appeal2017-008277
Application 14/093,205
The Examiner's annotated Figure 7 of Quinn is "an enlarged view" of an
apparatus "for reducing noise entering a passenger compartment of a vehicle
through a vehicle pressure relief valve," wherein the Examiner has indicated
a "Plane Through the End Regions" and also a "Plane of the Surface of the
Air Guide Body." Quinn i-fi-f l, 10, 14, 16.
The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious "to configure
the vents of Temmesfeld to have the structure of the vents of Quinn as such
a configuration is a simple combination of prior art elements according to
known methods to yield predictable results." Final Act. 5-6 (citing MPEP
§ 214 (III). The Examiner further reasons that "adding the specific air guide
structure of Quinn to the undetailed vent openings 16 of Temmesfeld ...
allow[s] for control of flow direction as shown by Quinn." Id. at 6 (citing
Quinn, Fig. 7, referencing "flow arrow 'B "').
Appellants argue that Quinn fails to disclose the limitation of claim 1,
as set forth supra, requiring "an end region which extends from the guide
surface and which is spaced from, and extends in, a plane which is
substantially parallel to a plane of the surface of the air guide body." Br. 7-
9. In support, Appellants submit that the Examiner finds that Quinn's lower
ends 156 of slats 148 correspond to the claimed plurality of surfaces of the
air guide body, and that lower ends 156 are in planes that are not
substantially parallel to Quinn's upper ends 154 (i.e., end regions extending
from the guide surfaces), but rather, appear to be perpendicular thereto. Id.
at 7-8.
The Examiner responds that "a plane which passes through a surface
of each of the air guide bodies at the same point (i.e. passing through the
roots 156 of each slat 148) ... is 'a plane of the surface of each air guide
4
Appeal2017-008277
Application 14/093,205
body' as generally claimed and said plane is substantially parallel to another
plane along which, the end regions (154) of each slat extend." Ans. 5.
As an initial matter, Appellants' argument does not address the plane
identified by the Examiner (i.e., the plane defined by a line drawn through
the bottom edge of each slat 148), but rather Appellants identify a different
plane-"the plane of the surface of the lower end of element 156" (relative
to the plane defined by upper ends 154). Br. 8. Therefore, Appellants'
argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner's finding.
Notwithstanding, the language of claim 1 is very broad, in that claim 1
refers to any plane of the swface of the air guide body. 3 We determine that
the Examiner correctly identified a plane of the surface of the air guide
body, as depicted in the Examiner's annotated Figure 7 of Quinn. Claim 1
does not limit "the surface" to any particular surface (for example, of the
plurality of surfaces of the air guide body), or require the surface to be
planar. In fact, the claim term "the surface" lacks antecedent basis, and may
generally refer to the entire exterior of the air guide body. Cf Br. 12-14
(Claims Appendix) (claims 6, 11: "an end region which extends from the
guide surface in a plane which is substantially parallel to a plane of the air
guide surfaces."). Moreover, incorporating Quinn's slats 148 into
Temmesfeld's ram-air openings, according to the flow direction B depicted
3 Notably, an ordinary meaning of the claim term "plane" consistent with
the Specification means "a surface such that the straight line that joins any
two of its points lies wholly in that surface." (WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INT'L
DICTIONARY 1730 (1993)), and an ordinary meaning of the claim term
"surface" consistent with the Specification means "the exterior or outside of
an object or body: the outermost or uppermost boundary: one or more faces
of a three-dimensional thing" (id. at 2300).
5
Appeal2017-008277
Application 14/093,205
in Quinn's Figure 7 as determined by the Examiner supra, would result in
the claimed subject matter, because Quinn's upper ends 154 (i.e., end
regions) would be substantially parallel to a plane of the surface of the air
guide body (i.e., the surface(s) adjacent to Temmesfeld's ram-air openings
16), according to the Examiner's proposed modification. Cf Spec., Figs. 1,
2.
Appellants also argue that, with respect to Quinn, "upper end 154 is
located at the opening between the slats 148" and that "[t]his is in direct
contrast to the claimed invention where the end region (EB) ends at an
opposite edge of the opening (O)." Br. 10.
The Examiner responds that, with respect to Quinn, "each guide
surface' [(i.e., lower surface 152)] begins at a 'first edge' (at [lower end]
156) and then ends with an 'end region' ([upper end] 154)" and that "[t]he
'air passage opening is considered to be the triangular space defined by the
plane at 158 (and generally the space 'underneath' each air guide surface)."
Ans. 6-7. The Examiner determines that "[upper ends] 154 and 156 are
located on opposite comers (i.e., 'edges') of the space," as claimed. Id. at 7
(citing Quinn, Fig. 7).
Appellants' argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner's
finding that Quinn's lower surface 152 (i.e., guide surface) begins at a first
edge of the air passage-adjacent sound-absorbing insert 16, as depicted in
Figure 7 of Quinn, or that Quinn's upper end (i.e., end region) ends at an
opposite edge of the opening-an edge opposite the adjacent sound-
absorbing insert 16.
Finally, Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection lacks a
motivation to combine, however, Appellants do not address the motivation
6
Appeal2017-008277
Application 14/093,205
articulated by the Examiner or provide any evidence in support of their
argument. Br. 9, 10. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1404 (CCPA 1974)
("Attorney's argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence") (citation
omitted).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1, and claims 2-18 fall therewith.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7