Ex Parte Johnston et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 29, 201813150553 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2018) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/150,553 06/01/2011 Vincent George Johnston 2011US0005/P0545-2NUS 3251 113241 7590 01/31/2018 Garlick & Markison (TSLA) 106 E. 6th Street, Suite 900 Austin, TX 78701 EXAMINER LING, FOR K. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/31/2018 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): mmurdock@texaspatents.com bpierotti @ texaspatents .com patentdocket @ tesla.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VINCENT GEORGE JOHNSTON, SUNGYONG BANG, and PAUL DANIEL YEOMANS Appeal 2017-000510 Application 13/150,553 Technology Center 3700 Before BRETT C. MARTIN, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 25-38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Tesla Motors, Incorporated. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2017-000510 Application 13/150,553 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a multi-function automotive radiator and condenser airflow system. Claim 25, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim and is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 25. A thermal management system in a vehicle, the thermal management system comprising: a central heat exchanger that is centrally mounted with respect to sides of the vehicle, wherein the central heat exchanger receives ambient air and outputs air in a rearward direction; a first heat exchanger that is offset from the central heat exchanger toward one of the sides of the vehicle, the first heat exchanger having a first ambient louver and a first internal louver, wherein the first heat exchanger receives ambient air when the first ambient louver is open, and wherein the first heat exchanger receives air output from the central heat exchanger via a first duct when the first internal louver is open; and a second heat exchanger that is offset from the central heat exchanger toward the other of the sides of the vehicle, the second heat exchanger having a second ambient louver and a second internal louver, wherein the second heat exchanger receives ambient air when the second ambient louver is open, and wherein the second heat exchanger receives air output from the central heat exchanger via a second duct when the second internal louver is open. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Matsuo Sugiyama US 6,748,757 B2 June 15, 2004 US 2010/0282533 A1 Nov. 11, 2010 DE 10 2008 022 554 A1 Nov. 5, 2009Wolf 2 Appeal 2017-000510 Application 13/150,553 REJECTIONS Claims 25-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wolf and Matsuo. Claims 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wolf, Matsuo, and Sugiyama. OPINION Appellants do not offer arguments in favor of dependent claims 26-36 in view of Wolf and Matsuo or claims 37 and 38 in view of Wolf, Matsuo, and Sugiyama separate from those presented for independent claim 25. See Br. 2-6. We select claim 25 as the representative claim, and claims 26-38 stand or fall with claim 25. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that Wolf teaches a vehicular thermal management system including a central heat exchanger (radiator 6) and two laterally arranged additional heat exchangers (coolers 7a, 7b) with louvers (locking devices 3). Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner finds that Matsuo teaches “a heat exchanger arrangement in an electric automobile” including a central heat exchanger (radiator 7) positioned forward of a second heat exchanger (5) with an ambient louver (damper 16) ahead of the heat exchanger (5) to control ambient airflow into the heat exchanger and an interior louver (damper 18) in a duct connecting the air output of the central heat exchanger with the air input of the second heat exchanger. Id. at 3—4. The Examiner determines that Matsuo’s teachings would suggest to one of skill in the art to move Wolfs “central radiator 6 to inlet 1 (see modified figure of Wolf below)” which in turn “changes the structure and 3 Appeal 2017-000510 Application 13/150,553 the internal flow within the air ducts (8a and 8b).” The Examiner determines that this is because, in electric automobiles, as taught by Matsuo the radiator 7 is preferably configured for cooling the driving motor and heat exchanger 5 is preferably for the a/c system .... Therefore, it is beneficial for recovering waste heat from upstream heat exchanger 7 for downstream a/c heat exchangers operating in heating mode .... It would have been obvious to try and predictable to locate such a device in view of Matsuo to allow waste heat from the upstream heat exchanger to be used by further heat exchangers. Final Act. 4. As shown below, the Examiner annotates Wolf Figure 1 based on the determination that the teachings of Matsuo would suggest modification of Wolf. 4 fig. 1 Examiner’s modified Fig. 1 of Wolf with teachings of Matsuo. Id. at 5. 4 Appeal 2017-000510 Application 13/150,553 The Examiner also determines that the teachings of Matsuo would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wolf to have first and second ambient louvers so that the two laterally arranged additional heat exchangers are “configured to receive ambient air when the . . . ambient louver is open” “in order to allow adjustments of airflow entered from ambient ram air and therefore aerodynamic properties and heat exchanging performance can be switched flexibly.” Id. at 6. The Examiner further determines that it would have been obvious to “have provided . . . first [and second] duct[s] . . . configured to allow the first [and second] heat exchangers] to receive air output from the central heat exchanger when the first [and second] internal louver[s are] open” “in order to efficiently recover the heat from driving motor for heat pumps in electric vehicles.” Id. Appellants argue that “the current rejection is based on the unsupported assumption that the ordinary artisan would have seen a reason to reject both [heat exchanger] arrangements taught by Matsuo (i.e., the first and second embodiments) and instead arrange the components side by side” as taught by Wolf. Appeal Br. 3; see also id. at 5-6 (addressing the amount of overlap of the heat exchangers). Appellants similarly argue that “the current rejection rests entirely on the assumption that the ordinary artisan would have seen a reason to disregard Matsuo’s consistent teaching to use two components [i.e., two heat exchangers] and instead implement [Wolfs] three-component system.” Id. at 4. Further, Appellants argue “that Matsuo’s approach is so different from that of Wolf that the ordinary artisan would have seen no reason to combine them.” Id. As outlined above, the Examiner’s rejection starts with Wolfs vehicular thermal management system and provides reasoning why one of 5 Appeal 2017-000510 Application 13/150,553 skill in the art would have been motivated to modify that system for use in electric automobiles as taught by Matsuo. Appellants’ arguments are focused on a different basis, starting with Matsuo’s system, why would one of skill in the art have used Wolfs heat exchanger arrangement? This is not the Examiner’s starting point in the rejection before us. Nor is the Examiner relying on Matsuo for the heat exchanger arrangement. As outlined above, the Examiner finds that Wolf teaches a three heat exchanger arrangement. Therefore, these arguments do not identify errors in the Examiner’s rejection or reasoning based on Wolfs teaching of a three heat exchanger arrangement. We further note that whenever the teachings of two different references are combined, certain teachings will be “rejected” in favor of others, just as anytime one chooses to fasten two objects together with screws, they are “rejecting” the notion of using nails for the same purpose. On the record before us, this does not discredit the Examiner’s reasoning or explain why the heat exchanger arrangements are “so different” that the skilled artisan would have seen no reason to combine the teachings of Wolf and Matsuo. See Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine”). Appellants argue that “Matsuo consistently shows only a single fan,” but that “it is unclear whether a single fan could be implemented with the components as shown in Wolfs Fig. 1.” Appeal Br. 4-5. This argument is not relevant to the claims. Independent claim 25 does not claim a fan. Only dependent claim 28 is directed to “a fan on at least one of the first or second heat exchangers.” However, none of the claims are limited to a single fan. 6 Appeal 2017-000510 Application 13/150,553 Further, there is no requirement in an obviousness rejection that all features of one reference be bodily incorporated into the other. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference .... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). Thus, we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Appellants further argue that Wolf does not suggest modifying the central radiator 6 to a forward position as proposed by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 5-6. Though this is a significant change to the Wolf system, the Examiner has provided a reasonable basis for the change based on the teachings of Matsuo. See Final Act. 4-6. Appellants challenge this reasoning, in particular the portion where the Examiner determined “it is beneficial for recovering waste heat from upstream heat exchanger 7 for downstream a/c heat exchangers operating in heating mode.” Appeal Br. 5 (quoting Final Act. 4). Appellants argue that Matsuo’s first embodiment of the heat exchanger configuration (Figure 3), with full overlap between the heat exchangers, allows for almost all of the waste heat’” to be recovered, while the second embodiment of Matsuo (Figure 6), relied on by the Examiner, only allows some waste heat to be recovered, and thus, would not be preferred. Id. As noted previously, there are almost always tradeoffs to different designs. See Medichem, 437 F.3d at 1165. The fact that an embodiment of Matsuo (Figure 3) not relied on by the Examiner may provide better waste heat recovery than that relied on by the Examiner (Figure 6), does not by 7 Appeal 2017-000510 Application 13/150,553 itself obviate the motivation to combine. Thus, we are not informed of errors in the Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25 as unpatentable over Wolf and Matsuo. We further sustain the rejections of claims 26-38, which fall with claim 25. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 25-38 are 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation