Ex Parte LINDNER et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 24, 201813454438 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/454,438 04/24/2012 60601 7590 05/24/2018 Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C. 4000 Legato Road Suite 310 Fairfax, VA 22033 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Bjoern Gerd LINDNER 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. 1006/0233PUS1 3682 EXAMINER MA,KUNKAI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/24/2018 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BJOERN GERD LINDNER, NICHOLAS JOSEPH ANTONUCCI, and STEVEN JOSEPH SCHURIG Appeal2017-008213 Application 13/454,438 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Bjoem Gerd Lindner et al. ("Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4--8, and 10-13. 2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Behr America, Inc. Br. 2. 2 Claims 2, 3, and 9 are canceled. See Claims Amendment (Sept 2, 2016). Appeal2017-008213 Application 13/454,438 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 8, and 13 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below and is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A non-idle air condition system for a vehicle, the system compnsmg: a blower; a main evaporator; an auxiliary evaporator for a non-idle mode; and a heater core, wherein the main evaporator and the auxiliary evaporator are assembled face to face with a direct touching between the main evaporator and the auxiliary evaporator, and a top edge and side edges of the main evaporator and the auxiliary evaporator are aligned, and wherein the main evaporator is mounted in an upstream airflow direction while the auxiliary evaporator is mounted in a downstream airflow direction. EVIDENCE The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Mellum us 5,333,678 Aug. 2, 1994 Tung US 6,371,058 Bl Apr. I 6, 2002 Pannell US 2007/0295017 Al Dec. 27, 2007 Wolfe US 2010/0313587 Al Dec. 16, 2010 Watanabe JP 2002-079824 Mar. 19, 2002 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 4, 5, and 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as anticipated by Pannell. Final Act. 2--4. 2 Appeal2017-008213 Application 13/454,438 II. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pannell and Tung. Id. at 4--5. III. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pannell and Wolfe. Id. at 5. IV. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pannell, Watanabe, and Mellum. Id. at 6-7. V. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pannell, Watanabe, Mellum, and Tung. Id. at 8. OPINION Rejection I Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 13 together as a group, and do not separately argue dependent claims 4, 5, 11, and 12. Br. 6-7. \Ve select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 4, 5, and 11-13 stand or fall therewith. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that Pannell discloses all of the limitations of independent claim 1, including, inter alia, that "the main evaporator (58) is mounted in an upstream airflow direction while the auxiliary evaporator ( 64 and 66) is mounted in a downstream airflow direction (see figures 2-3)." Final Act. 3. The Examiner takes the position that "[t]he upstream airflow direction and the downstream airflow direction are merely just a perspective position of the main evaporator and auxiliary evaporator with respect to the airflow direction ... generated by the blower." Ans. 2. According to the Examiner, "Pannell clearly shows th[at] fan (70) draws air to pass through both the main evaporator (58) and the auxiliary evaporator (64 and 66)," and 3 Appeal2017-008213 Application 13/454,438 "[t]he main evaporator (58) is structurally arranged upstream of the auxiliary evaporator (64 and 66)." Id. at 3. Appellants argue that Pannell fails to disclose a main evaporator mounted in an upstream airflow direction and an auxiliary evaporator mounted in a downstream airflow direction. Br. 6-7. More particularly, Appellants argue that "the disclosure of Pannell contradicts the Examiner's position" because "the secondary evaporator coil 58 and the heat exchanger evaporator coils 64/66 of Pannell are positioned in the same airflow direction." Id. at 7 (citing Pannell ,r 30). According to Appellants, "as is set forth in the [S]pecification, the main evaporator is mounted in a correct airflow direction while the auxiliary evaporator is mounted in an incorrect direction." Id. (citing Spec. ,r 10). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. To the extent that Appellants are arguing that Pannell fails to disclose a main evaporator that is mounted in a "correct airflow direction" and an auxiliary evaporator that is mounted in "an incorrect airflow direction" (Br. 7), such an argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. As stated by our reviewing court in In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998), "the name of the game is the claim." It is well established that limitations not appearing in the claim cannot be relied upon for patentability. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Here, claim 1 only recites, in relevant part, that "the main evaporator is mounted in an upstream airflow direction while the auxiliary evaporator is mounted in a downstream airflow direction." Br. 14 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). The claim does not recite that the evaporators are rnounted in correct and/or incorrect airflow directions. In other words, although the Specification 4 Appeal2017-008213 Application 13/454,438 describes that "the main evaporator can be mounted in a correct airflow direction while the auxiliary evaporator is mounted in an incorrect airflow direction" (Spec. ,r 10), such disclosure in the Specification does not impart any stnwtura1 limitations to the claimed system. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1191, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (Although the claims are interpreted in light of the Specification, limitations from the Specification are not read into the claims.). Moreover, Appellants do not identify error in the Examiner's position, particularly as explained in the Answer, with respect to the interpretation of the disputed limitation. Ans. 2-3. That is, Appellants do not persuade us that the Examiner's interpretation of the disputed limitation of claim 1-i.e., requiring only that the main evaporator be disposed upstream and the auxiliary evaporator be disposed downstream, relative to the direction of airflow in the system-------is unreasonable in light of the Specification. The Specification and claims do not adequately explain how an evaporator being mounted in an upstream or dovvnstream airflow direction c01Tesponds to the evaporator having any particular stn1cture, nor otherwise suggest that the disputed limitation has a meaning different from that posited by the Examiner. See id. at 2, 4. In light of the reasonableness of the Examiner's interpretation of the disputed limitation, Appellants do not show error in the Examiner's finding that Pannell discloses the subject matter of the disputed limitation. In particular, Appellants do not offer any evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to refute the Examiner's finding that "the main evaporator (58) [of Pannell] is mounted in the upstream airflow direction while the auxiliary evaporator ( 64 and 66) is mounted in the downstream airflow direction with 5 Appeal2017-008213 Application 13/454,438 respect to the air that draws [through] the evaporators and the mounted position of the evaporators." Id. at 3. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find that the Examiner erred in finding that Pannell discloses all of the limitations of independent claim l. We sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 4, 5, and 11-13 falling therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Pannell. Rejections II and III In contesting the rejections of claims 6 and 7, Appellants rely on the same arguments and reasoning we found unpersuasive in connection with independent claim 1, from which these claims depend. Br. 12. Accordingly, we also sustain the rejections, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), of claim 6 as unpatentable over Pannell and Tung, and of claim 7 as unpatentable over Pannell and Wolfe. Re} ections IV and V The Examiner finds that Pannell teaches most of the limitations of independent claim 8, except for "the main evaporator [being] disposed downstream from the blower and ... receiv[ing] air emitted from the blower and the heater core [being] disposed downstream from the auxiliary evaporator." Final Act. 7. However, the Examiner finds that Watanabe teaches "a main evaporator (7, left side) and an auxiliary evaporator (7, right side) and a blower (2) wherein the main evaporator (7, left side) [is] disposed downstream from the blower (2) and ... receive[s] air emitted from the blower (2, see figure 2)." Id. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify Pannell' s system "to incorporate the main evaporator and blower configuration as taught by Watanabe so that the blower is disposed upstream of the main evaporator for drawing outside air 6 Appeal2017-008213 Application 13/454,438 directly to the main evaporator and for easy repair and replacement of the blower." Id. The Examiner also finds that Mellum teaches "a blower (62), a main evaporator (70), an auxiliary evaporator ( 48), and a heater core ( 60) wherein the auxiliary evaporator (48) [is] disposed downstream from the main evaporator (70) and the heater core (60) [is] disposed downstream from the auxiliary evaporator (48; see figure 5A)." Id. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify Pannell' s system "to incorporate claimed heater core location as taught by Mellum in order to reduce heat lost from the heater core to the ambient air in the winter since the heater core is not in direct contact with the cold air upon the modification." Id. Appellants initially rely on the same argument and reasoning that we found unpersuasive in connection with independent claim 1, subject to Rejection I. See Br. 9--11 (asserting that Pannell fails to disclose that the main evaporator is mounted in an upstream airflow direction and the auxiliary evaporator is mounted in a downstream airflow direction). Appellants further argue that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is improper because "[t]he ... proposed modification (i.e., moving the position of the blower 70 with respect to the relative position of the evaporators to draw air from the outside and blow the air into the evaporators) would change the princip[le] of operation of Pannell." Id. at 11. This argument does not apprise us of error. Appellants' argument appears to be premised on an unduly narrow definition of the principle of operation of Pannell. The "principle of operation" referred to by Appellants relates to the "basic principles" under which the prior mi device was designed to operate. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959) ("This suggested combination of references would 7 Appeal2017-008213 Application 13/454,438 require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in [the primary reference] as well as a change in the basic principles under which the [primary reference] construction was designed to operate.") ( emphasis added). Under Ratti, "a change in the basic principles" refers to change that is fundamental in scope so as to relate to scientific or technical principles under which the invention is designed to operate. Here, the basic principles under which PanneH's air conditioning system is designed to operate relate to "a common air handler . .. circulating vehicle air to be conditioned, temperature adjusted or otherwise modified through a plurality of heat exchangers[,] each of which may be receiving either heating or cooling fluids from multiple sources." Pannell ,r 1; see also id. ,r 3 ( explaining that, "[i]n the case of air refrigeration, such a device typically comprises a compressor circulating a refrigerant serially through a condenser, a pressure reduction device such as an expansion valve or capillary tube and an evaporator coil where the serially connected devices operate as a closed system"). Appellants do not provide factual evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to explain how or why moving the position of Pannell's blower relative to the heat exchangers so that the blower draws air from the outside and blows it into the heat exchangers would result in a "change in basic principles" of Pannell' s air conditioner. See Ans. 5----6 ("\Vhether the blower 70 is disposed downstream of the evaporators and heater or is disposed upstream of the evaporators and heater, the blower 70 still functions the same as its intended purpose[] which [is] to draw ambient air from outside and discharge conditioned air into the interior of the vehicle."). 8 Appeal2017-008213 Application 13/454,438 For the foregoing reasons, Appellants do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's conclusion that the combination of Pannell, Watanabe, and Mell um renders obvious the subject matter of independent claim 8. We sustain the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pannell, Watanabe, and Mellum. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claim 10, for which Appellants rely on the same arguments and reasoning we found unpersuasive in connection with independent claim 8 (Br. 12), under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pannell, Watanabe, Mellum, and Tung. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 4, 5, and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Pannell is affirmed. The Examiner's decision to reject claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pannell and Tung is affirmed. The Examiner's decision to reject claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pannell and Wolfe is affirmed. The Examiner's decision to reject claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pannell, Watanabe, and Mellum is affirmed. The Examiner's decision to reject claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pannell, Watanabe, Mellum, and Tung is 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 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation