Ex Parte Kurumagawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 8, 2014

11035810 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 8, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HIROSHI KURUMAGAWA, HIDEYUKI MORIWAKI,
RYUICHI OKAI, and YASUO OISHI
____________

Appeal 2012-007547
Application 11/035,8101
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 21–35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claimed invention is directed to a grip heater controller for a
vehicle steering handle. Spec. 2, l. 24 – 3, l. 4. Independent claim 21,
reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal:

1 The real party in interest is Mitsubishi Cable Industries., Ltd., and Honda
Motor Co., Ltd. (Appeal Br. 3).

Appeal 2012-007547
Application 11/035,810

2
21. A grip heater controlling apparatus, comprising:
a grip heater mounted on a steering handle of a vehicle;
a single momentary switch directly operable by a driver
of the vehicle;
an amount-of-current controller for changing an amount-
of-current level to the grip heater cyclically to at least three
levels depending on a number of times that said single
momentary switch is operated, said at least three levels include
at least a maximum current level, a minimum current
level and intermediate current levels;
an interface circuit connected between said single
momentary switch and said amount-of current controller, said
interface circuit consisting of a pull-up resistor and a filter for
stabilizing a signal from said single momentary switch, wherein
said filter consisting of a capacitor and a resistor
and said interface circuit is connected to an input port of said
amount-of-current controller to provide said signal from said
single momentary switch after said signal has passed through
said filter;
an indicator for indicating the amount-of-current level,
said indicator comprises fewer light emitting elements than said
at least three levels; and
a plurality of emitter-grounded transistors each of which
communicates to a light-emitting element of the light-emitting
elements,
wherein said amount-of-current controller supplies
current to each of the plurality of emitter grounded transistors
for energizing the corresponding light-emitting elements of the
indicator,
wherein the maximum current level is indicated by
having all of said light-emitting elements fully turned on, the
minimum current level is indicated by having all of said light-
emitting elements turned off, the intermediate current levels are
indicated by a combination of the light-emitting elements that
are fully turned on, the light-emitting elements that are turned
off and the light-emitting elements that are at an intermediate
luminance level,
wherein the intermediate current levels having at least
one combination of the light-emitting elements that is indicated
Appeal 2012-007547
Application 11/035,810

3
by having one light-emitting element that is at the intermediate
luminance level and the remaining light-emitting elements that
are fully turned on,
wherein in an initial state when a power supply switch of
the vehicle is turned on, said amount-of-current controller
minimizes the amount-of-current level, and when said single
momentary switch is operated once in said initial state, said
amount-of-current controller maximizes the amount-of-current
level,
wherein when the amount-of-current level is at a
maximum, the amount-of-current level is reduced in stages each
time said single momentary switch is operated.
Appeal Br. 22–23.
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Miura (US
2003/0226836 A1; pub. Dec. 11, 2003) in view of Weiss (US 5,861,610; iss.
Jan. 19, 1999), Tsuge (US 4,511,097; iss. Apr. 16, 1985), as evidenced by
Fowler (US 5,128,661; iss. July 7, 1992), Lister (US 2004/0263094 A1; pub.
Dec. 30, 2004) and Sato (US 2003/0019734 A1; pub. Jan. 30, 2003).
Claims 21–23, 25, 26, 32, 33, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) over Miura in view of Weiss, Tsuge, Fowler, Lister, and Sato, and
further in view of Matthews (US 5,072,098; iss. Dec. 10, 1991) and Aoto (JP
03254798 A; pub. Nov. 13, 1991).
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Miura in view
of Weiss, Tsuge, Fowler, Lister, Sato, Matthews, and Aoto, and further in
view of Nishimoto (US 6,400,564 B1; iss. June 4, 2002).
Appeal 2012-007547
Application 11/035,810

4
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Miura in view
of Weiss, Tsuge, Fowler, Lister, Sato, Matthews, and Aoto, and further in
view of Lewis (US 2002/0005861 A1; pub. Jan. 17, 2002).
Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Miura in view
of Weiss, Tsuge, Fowler, Lister, Sato, Matthews, and Aoto, and further in
view of Bruwer (US 2004/0021427 A1; pub. Feb. 5, 2004).
Claims 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Miura
in view of Weiss, Tsgue, Fowler, Lister, Sato, Matthews, and Aoto, and
further in view of Ogata (US 6,114,668; iss. Sept. 5, 2000).
Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Miura in view
of Weiss, Tsuge, Fowler, Lister, Sato, Matthews, Aoto and Ogata, and
further in view of Bruwer.

ANALYSIS
The Appellants do not dispute whether the claim limitations of claim
21 are found in the cited references, rather the Appellants argue that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not make the combination suggested by the
Examiner (Appeal Br., 13–18, Reply Br. 2–6).
The Examiner found that Miura discloses an Up/Down dual
momentary switch and a current controller for a grip heater (see paragraph
20), momentary switches SW1 and SW2 in Figure 6, and current controller
318 in Figure 11 (Ans. 5, 23–24); Weiss discloses a single momentary
switch and a controller for a heater. See momentary switch 40 and controller
ECU 30, column 6, line 38 to column 7, line 15, and Figures 8, 9 (id. at 24);
Tsuge discloses an interface circuit at Figures 9A, 11 (id. at 7, 24–25); Lister
teaches a plurality of emitter-grounded transistors communicating through a
Appeal 2012-007547
Application 11/035,810

5
microcontroller and teaches incremental blending. See Abstract and Figure
1 (id. at 8); and that Sato teaches an inexpensive switch device that has more
levels than light emitting elements and the capability to display the levels
from dimly lit to full level. See paragraphs 59, 62, and Figures 1E–1I. Id. at
8–9.
The Examiner’s rationale for combining Miura, Weiss, Tsuge, Fowler,
Lister and Sato is that, with respect to the dual momentary switch of Miura,
Weiss teaches the simplicity and operational advantage of a single
momentary switch at column 6, lines 55–57; that Tsuge teaches the
advantage of the interface circuit to filter out switch bounce as is known in
the art, and as also taught by Fowler (Ans. 6–7, 24–25); that the use of Lister
emitter-grounded transistors with the light emitting elements would provide
conduction control and achieve incremental blending; and that the Sato
switch provides ease of recognition and an inexpensive structure. Id. at 12.
Appellants argue that the combination suggested by the Examiner is
improper as the suggested combination renders Miura unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose because the Miura control circuit 318 (designed for a dual
momentary switch) wouldn’t work for the single momentary switch of
Weiss and would require substantial reconstruction (Appeal Br. 13–15); the
Examiner has not found an equivalent structure for changing the current
level cyclically (id. at 17); and Tsuge is non-analogous because it relates to a
seat belt winder and is not reasonably pertinent because Appellant defined
the endeavor as a grip heater in its Field of Invention. Id. at 19–20. The
Appellants have also argued that there is no suggestion or motivation to
make the proposed combination (id. at 17–18).
Appeal 2012-007547
Application 11/035,810

6
We agree with the Appellants. In KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398 (2007) the Supreme Court at 418 noted that in an obviousness
analysis that “rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by
mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” Here, the cited combination of the six cited references lacks
articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness. We find the rationale and factual basis for the
suggested combination to be inadequate and to include impermissible
hindsight. More particularly, there is no clear comprehensive rationale as to
why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the references together
and make the modification to the Miura controller, to result in the claimed
invention. Here, there is no articulated reasoning with rational
underpinnings for modifying Miura’s current controller circuit to change the
current levels cyclically, include an interface circuit, and emitter-grounded
transistors with the further modifications recited in the manner recited in
order to meet the claimed limitations. Accordingly, we find that the
Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness.
In view of the foregoing, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in
the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 21 and do not sustain
the rejection of this claim and its dependent claims. As independent claim
34 includes similar limitations, we are also persuaded that the Examiner
erred in the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 34 and its dependent
claims for the same reasons discussed above. Accordingly, in view of the
foregoing, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in the 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) rejections of claims 21–35.
Appeal 2012-007547
Application 11/035,810

7
CONCLUSION
We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 21–35
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the references of record.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21–35
is REVERSED.

REVERSED

hh