Ex Parte HEIL et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 7, 2018

12512669 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/512,669 07/30/2009
23911 7590 08/09/2018
CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael HEIL
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.
080437.61724US 6157
EXAMINER
RUPPERT, ERIC S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/09/2018 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):
edocket@crowell.com
tche@crowell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL HEIL, MATTIAS BRUCE, and
ROBERTSALZBERGER
Appeal 2017-003411
Application 12/512,669
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFERD. BAHR, LEE L. STEPINA, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Michael Heil et al. ("Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated
March 21, 2016 ("Final Act."), rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Bayerische Motoren W erke Aktiengesellschaft
as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-003411
Application 12/512,669
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Appellants' disclosure is directed to "a method for controlling and/or
regulating the evaporator temperature of an air conditioning system in a
motor vehicle at high outside air temperatures, and to a control unit for
carrying out the method." Spec. ,r 2. Claims 1 and 12 are independent.
Claim 1, reproduced below from page 13 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for controlling and/or regulating an evaporator
temperature of an air conditioning system in a motor vehicle in
a cooling mode, the method comprising the acts of:
when an outside air temperature exceeds a predetermined
limit value, controlling and/or regulating the evaporator
temperature to a predetermined minimum evaporator
temperature until a predetermined desired temperature in an
interior of the vehicle is reached; and
in response to reaching the predetermined desired
temperature in the interior of the vehicle, incrementally
increasing the evaporator temperature from the predetermined
minimum evaporator temperature until the earlier of: (i) a
predetermined interior humidity in the vehicle is reached, and
(ii) the interior temperature is higher than the predetermined
desired temperature for the interior of the vehicle.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1--4, 9, and 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 6,330,909 Bl, issued Dec. 18,
2001), Park (US 2002/0166331 Al, published Nov. 14, 2002), Sughiura
(JP 62-178420 A, issued Aug. 5, 1987), Yamashita (JP2002-192933 A,
2
Appeal 2017-003411
Application 12/512,669
published July 10, 2002), and Schildknecht (US 3,989,097, issued Nov. 2,
1976).2
Claims 5-8, 10, 11, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takahashi, Park, Sughiura, Yamashita,
Schildknecht, and Sewell (US 5,531,801, issued July 2, 1996).
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Takahashi, Park, Sughiura, Yamashita, Schildknecht, and
Henkel (US 3,007,320, issued Nov. 7, 1961).
ANALYSIS
Rejection Based on Takahashi, Park, Sughiura, Yamashita, and Schildknecht
Appellants present arguments for independent claims 1 and 12
collectively. See Appeal Br. 6-10. We select claim 1 as representative,
treating claim 12 as standing or falling with representative claim 1. See 37
C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Takahashi discloses a method of controlling
and/ or regulating an evaporator temperature of an air conditioning system in
a motor vehicle in a cooling mode, including, when an outside air
temperature exceeds a predetermined value, allowing the evaporator
temperature to be reduced to a predetermined minimum temperature until a
predetermined desired temperature inside the vehicle is reached. Final Act.
2. The Examiner determines that "[t]he general concept of providing
cooling to an apparatus to a lower limit falls within the realm of common
knowledge as [an] obvious mechanical expedient," and, in support of this
2 The Examiner relies on English translations of the Japanese references, to
which we also cite.
3
Appeal 2017-003411
Application 12/512,669
determination, finds that Park teaches actively controlling and/or regulating
the evaporator temperature. Id. at 3.
The Examiner relies on Sughiura to teach, in response to the vehicle
interior reaching a predetermined desired temperature, increasing the
evaporator temperature until a predetermined interior humidity in the vehicle
is reached and the vehicle interior temperature exceeds the predetermined
desired temperature. Id. at 3--4. The Examiner determines that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art "to have modified
Takahashi to include the controls of Sughiura, in order to maintain a
comfortable humidity and temperature in the vehicle and provide power
savings and efficient operation." Id. at 4.
The Examiner relies on Schildknecht to teach activating an air
conditioner compressor based on either the temperature or the humidity
exceeding chosen respective values. Id. The Examiner determines that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art "to have
modified Takahashi to include wherein the evaporator temperature is
increased until the earlier of the temperature or humidity set-points are
reached, in order to provide a comfortable environment." Id.
The Examiner relies on Yamashita to teach "the well-known concept
of gradually increasing an evaporator temperature in response to a decrease
in power to the compressor." Id. at 5.
Appellants traverse, first arguing that Sughiura increases its
evaporator temperature "in response to the vehicle interior temperature being
lower than a desired temperature -rather than 'in response to reaching the
predetermined desired temperature in the interior of the vehicle,' as
claimed." Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 1-3.
4
Appeal 2017-003411
Application 12/512,669
Appellants' argument is directed to the following limitation
(hereinafter, the "incremental increase" limitation) of claim 1:
in response to reaching the predetermined desired
temperature in the interior of the vehicle, incrementally
increasing the evaporator temperature from the predetermined
minimum evaporator temperature until the earlier of: (i) a
predetermined interior humidity in the vehicle is reached, and
(ii) the interior temperature is higher than the predetermined
desired temperature for the interior of the vehicle.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App., emphasis added). Thus, Appellants' method
initiates the incremental increase of the evaporator temperature if the vehicle
interior reaches a predetermined temperature, and will stop the incremental
increase of the evaporator temperature if the vehicle interior exceeds the
same predetermined temperature.
Sughiura's system operates in the same manner: if the vehicle interior
temperature is below a predetermined temperature, the evaporator
temperature is increased, and if the vehicle interior temperature reaches the
same predetermined temperature, the increase of the evaporator temperature
is stopped. Sughiura 6-7. Appellants' efforts to distinguish "reaching" from
"lower than" fail to apprise us of any difference in how the recited method
and the method of Sughiura operate, and, thus, fail to apprise us of error.
We agree with the Examiner that "reaching" a temperature below Sughiura's
set point temperature meets the limitations of claim 1. See Final Act. 8;
Ans. 10.3
Appellants next argue that Sughiura fails to disclose the incremental
increase limitation because Sughiura increases evaporator temperature when
3 Our citations herein are to the second Examiner's Answer mailed on
December 9, 2016.
5
Appeal 2017-003411
Application 12/512,669
two criteria-temperature and humidity levels-are satisfied rather than
based solely on temperature. Appeal Br. 7-8; see also Reply Br. 3--4. We
are not persuaded by Appellants' argument.
Sughiura discloses increasing the temperature of the evaporator when
the cabin humidity is lower than the preset humidity and the cabin
temperature is lower than the preset temperature. Sughiura 6-7. Thus,
Sughiura discloses, at least in some circumstances (i.e., when the cabin
humidity is lower than the preset humidity), performing the claimed step of
increasing the temperature in response to reaching the predetermined desired
temperature in the interior of the vehicle. Furthermore, Appellants'
argument that a condition additional to (in combination with) the one related
to the interior temperature is precluded is not commensurate with the scope
of claim 1, which uses the open-ended "comprising" transitional phrase.
Appellants' argument, therefore, fails to apprise us of error.
Additionally, we note that claim 1 does not require increasing the
evaporator temperature if the predetermined desired temperature in the
interior of the vehicle is not reached. See Ex Parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-
007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential); see also Cybersettle, Inc. v.
Nat'! Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed. App'x 603, 607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("It
is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for
performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the
step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be
performed"). Therefore, because the incremental increase limitation step is
contingent on an event that may not occur, the claimed method can be
carried out without performing the incremental increase limitation step.
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments that Sughiura fails to disclose this step
6
Appeal 2017-003411
Application 12/512,669
is not commensurate in scope with claim 1 and, consequently, does not
persuade us of Examiner error.
Finally, Appellants argue that the Examiner's reliance on
Schildknecht "is improper because it changes the principle of operation of
the [Takahashi-Sughiura] combination." Appeal Br. 9. Specifically,
Appellants identify the principle of operation as "to control the evaporator
temperature to increase until both (i) [ a predetermined vehicle interior
humidity is reached] and (ii) [the internal vehicle temperature is higher than
the desired interior vehicle temperature] are met." Id.; see also id. at 8.
According to Appellants, "considering only temperature (or only humidity)
would result in a very different control approach than if both temperature
and humidity were to be taken into account." Reply Br. 5.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments, and agree with the
Examiner that "Sughiura's and Schildknecht's principle[s] of operation [are]
broader than Appellant[s] contend[]." Ans. 11. Both Sughiura and
Schildknecht measure temperature and humidity, and use these
measurements to control operation of the compressor of an air conditioning
system. Id.; Sughiura 3--4 ( explaining that such compressor control provides
power savings), 6-7; Schildknecht 4:60-67. Appellants have not provided
persuasive evidence that modifying Takahashi-Sughiura's system to control
the compressor based on temperature or humidity within the vehicle interior
would change the Takahashi-Sughiura combination's principle of operation
because it would only change how Takahashi-Sughiura accomplishes the
operation of the compressor to save power, but not the operations
themselves. See In re Afouttet, 686 F .3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(holding that a modification that only changes how a reference accornp1ishes
7
Appeal 2017-003411
Application 12/512,669
its operability, rather than the operations themselves, would not destroy its
principle of operation). Nor do Appellants present persuasive evidence that
the Examiner's modification of Sughiura's system would entail substantial
reconstruction and redesign. See In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA
1959). Thus, Appellants fail to apprise us of error.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 12, as well as of dependent claims 2--4, 9, and 13-
15, which are not argued separately, as being unpatentable over Takahashi,
Park, Sughiura, Yamashita, and Schildknecht.
Rejections Based on Takahashi, Park, Sughiura, Yamashita, Schildknecht,
and One of Sewell and Henkel
Appellants do not present separate arguments for the rejections of
dependent claims 5-8, 10, 11, and 16-20, instead relying on the arguments
presented for claim 1. Appeal Br. 10-11. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejections of:
claims 5-8, 10, 11, and 16-18 as being unpatentable over Takahashi,
Park, Sughiura, Yamashita, Schildknecht, and Sewell, and
claims 19 and 20 as being unpatentable over Takahashi, Park,
Sughiura, Yamashita, Schildknecht, and Henkel.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed.
8
Appeal 2017-003411
Application 12/512,669
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
9