Ex Parte Lucas

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2017

13745953 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2017)

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.
13/745,953 01/21/2013 Marc Lucas 83342707; 67186-017PUS1 5351
46442 7590 07/27/2017
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford
400 W. MAPLE RD.
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
JOHNS, HILARY LYNN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2017 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):
cgolaw@yahoo.com
ptodocket @ cgolaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARC LUCAS
Appeal 2017-003016
Application 13/745,953
Technology Center 3600
Before THU A. DANG, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—5, 7—14, and 16—23, which are all of the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2017-003016
Application 13/745,953
A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates to “a drive battery
arrangement for a motor vehicle and cooling methods for the same” (Spec.
12).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A vehicle having a hybrid drive, comprising:
at least two drive batteries;
a fan device configured to cool the drive batteries, the fan
device arranged between the at least two drive batteries, and
further configured to draw in air by the at least two drive
batteries; and
at least one switching flap configured to move back and
forth between a first position that discharges drawn-in air from
at least one of the drive batteries through a first outlet duct to a
location inside a vehicle passenger cabin, and a second position
that discharges drawn-in air from at least one of the drive
batteries through a second outlet duct to a location outside the
vehicle passenger cabin.
C. REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 4, 7, 13, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kramer (US 2010/0236846 Al; pub
Sept. 23, 2010) and Major (US 2009/0071178 Al; pub. Mar. 19, 2009).
2. Claims 2, 3, 5, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kramer, Major, and Shinmura (US
2009/0260905 Al; pub. Oct. 22, 2009).
2
Appeal 2017-003016
Application 13/745,953
3. Claims 8 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kramer, Major, and Fujiwara (US 8,251,169 B2;
iss. Aug. 28, 2012).
4. Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kramer, Major, Fujiwara, and He (US
2008/0182499 Al; pub. July 31, 2008).
5. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kramer, Major, Shinmura, and Tsuchiya (US 7,810,596
B2; iss. Oct. 12, 2010).
6. Claims 16 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kramer and Fujiwara.
7. Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kramer, Fujiwara, Major and Shinmura.
8. Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kramer, Fujiwara, Major, Shinmura and Tsuchiya.
II. ISSUES
The main issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in finding
the combination of Kramer and Major teaches or would have suggested a
hybrid drive comprising a “fan device” arranged between “at least two drive
batteries” to draw in air by the drive batteries; and at least one “switching
flap” designed to move back and forth between a “first position” that
discharges drawn-in air “through a first outlet duct to a location inside a
vehicle passenger cabin” and a “second position” that discharges drawn-in
air “through a second outlet duct to a location outside the vehicle passenger
cabin,” as recited in claim 1.
3
Appeal 2017-003016
Application 13/745,953
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Appellant’s Invention
1. Appellant’s invention is directed to a drive battery arrangement,
wherein Figure 1 is reproduced below:
\ T A ^
\ \. .h
V'^V :
14
f Q
I i'
5 'r / fee A-A
19
22
20
t’F
I Q'H.
\
""-T,
18
\j
V-
10
'■f\
1 V
15
Vv.,.,
21 11
aK
16<7
•*-. - 32
A 31
30
Figure 1 shows a drive battery arrangement 1 that includes two drive
batteries 2, 3 arranged at mutually-spaced dispositions with respect to each
other, with an intermediate space between the drive batteries 2, 3 for
receiving a fan device 5 (Spec. 115).
4
Appeal 2017-003016
Application 13/745,953
Figure 2 is reproduced below:
4
Fig. 2
Figure 2 shows air flow through the fan device, wherein air duct flaps
23, 24 are arranged in the exhaust air ducts 10, 11, respectively, such that
when the air duct flaps 23, 24 are in position as shown, air flow is directed to
a first outlet duct 18 formed by a first end of the exhaust air ducts 10, 11 and
through which the air flow passes into a vehicle passenger compartment 25,
26. When air duct flaps 23, 24 are in another position, the air flow is
directed to the outlet duct 19 that is formed by an end of the exhaust air
ducts 10, 11 and through which the air flow can pass outside of the vehicle
27,28 0^.118).
Kramer
2. Kramer discloses a battery pack with a fan structure for circulating
cooling air over the battery pack (Kramer 14), wherein Figure 1 is
reproduced below:
5
Appeal 2017-003016
Application 13/745,953
Figure 1 shows a battery pack 20 having a plurality of multi-cell
battery modules 22, 24 positioned on opposed sides of central fans 34, 36
{id. 111). Should cooling of the battery modules 22, 24 be desired, then the
valve control moves to connect the electric drive cooling loop 104 to the
heat exchanger 100 to cool air moving over the heat exchanger 100 {id. |
20). If a vehicle receiving the battery pack 20 is in a cold environment, then
the valve control 106 moves to connect the engine cooling loop 102 to the
heat exchanger 100 to heat air passing over the heat exchanger 100 and the
battery modules 22, 24 {id. 121).
Major
3. Major discloses a vehicle HVAC and battery thermal management
system to heat and cool the passenger cabin of a vehicle (Major || 3—4),
wherein Figures 4 and 5 are reproduced below:
6
Appeal 2017-003016
Application 13/745,953
Figures 4 and 5 show examples of an air flow path for a battery heat
mode (id. || 15—16). As shown in the figures, a battery-to-cabin
recirculation duct 178 is added that connects the pressure relief duct 170 and
the cabin 121 while the battery recirculation duct 180 connects the battery-
to-cabin recirculation duct 178 to the battery duct 144 (id. 128). A battery
recirculation valve 186 located at the intersection of the battery-to-cabin
recirculation duct 178 and the battery recirculation duct 180 selectively
directs air flow into the battery recirculation duct 180 (id. at Fig. 5) or into
the cabin 121 (id. at Fig. 4). In Figure 4, battery recirculation valve 186 is
positioned to direct the air through the batter-to-cabin recirculation duct 178
back into the passenger cabin 121 (id. 129). In Figure 5, to warm the
battery while charging, the battery recirculation valve 186 blocks flow from
the battery pack 166 back to the passenger cabin 121 and the battery heating
valve 160 and battery cooling valve are closed (id. 130).
7
Appeal 2017-003016
Application 13/745,953
Fujiwara
4. Fujiwara discloses a temperature adjustment structure, wherein Figure
2 is reproduced below:
FJG.2
Figure 2 shows a battery pack 10 placed at the rear of a rear seat 100
placed in the vehicle’s interior, wherein space formed above the battery pack
10 can be used as a luggage room (Fujiwara, col. 3,11. 35—37).
IV. ANALYSIS
Switching Flap
As for claim 1, although Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s
reliance on Major for teaching a “switching flap,” Appellant contends
“modifying Kramer to include a switching flap would offer no more control
over the direction of airflow than Kramer’s current design” (App. Br. 3—4).
According to Appellant, the Examiner’s reasoning to modify Kramer to
8
Appeal 2017-003016
Application 13/745,953
include a switching flap “lacks a rational underpinning” and thus “the
Examiner has not shown a reason that the switching flap would be
configured in the manner of the claimed switching flap” (id. at 4). That is
“controlling a direction of airflow does not explain why the skilled person
would discharge drawn-in air inside or outside the vehicle passenger cabin”
(id.) wherein the proposed modification is instead improper as it “renders
Kramer unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of cooling both modules 22
and 24 using flow from the heat exchanger 100” (id. at 5).
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellant’s contentions regarding the
Examiner’s rejections of the claims. We agree the Examiner’s conclusion
that claim 1 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of
Kramer and Major.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, we find no error with the Examiner’s reliance on Kramer (to
which Appellant does not contest) for disclosing and suggesting a “fan
device” arranged between “at least two drive batteries” to draw in air by the
drive batteries (Final Act. 2 (citing claim 1)). That is, like Appellant’s
invention (FF 1), Kramer discloses fans 34, 36 arranged between battery
modules 22, 24 to draw air by the battery modules (FF 2). In Kramer, a
valve/flap 106 is provided to move back and forth between a first position
that provides cooling to the drawn air from the electric drive cooling loop
104 and a second position that provides heat to the drawn air from the
engine cooling loop 102 (FF 2). We find that the only clear teachings
9
Appeal 2017-003016
Application 13/745,953
missing from Kramer of the contested limitation are a “first position” that
draws the air “through a first outlet duct to a location inside a vehicle
passenger cabin” and a “second position” that draws the air “through a
second outlet duct to a location outside the vehicle passenger cabin” (claim
1).
However, we agree with the Examiner’s reliance on Major for the
disclosure of “switching flap” designed to move back and forth between a
“first position” that discharges drawn-in air “through a first outlet duct to a
location inside a vehicle passenger cabin” and a “second position” that
discharges drawn-in air “through a second outlet duct to a location outside
the vehicle passenger cabin” (Final Rej. 2—3 (citing claim 1)). In particular,
Major discloses battery recirculation valve 186 that selectively directs air
flow into the battery recirculation duct 180 or into the cabin 121 such that, to
warm the battery while charging, the battery recirculation valve 186 blocks
flow from the battery pack 166 back to the passenger cabin 121 (FF 3).
We also find no error with the Examiner’s conclusion that it would
have been obvious to include the switching flap of Major with the invention
of Kramer (Final Rej. 3). We agree with the Examiner that “Kramer teaches
a structure which does not preclude modification, particularly the addition of
flaps” (Ans. 10), wherein the ordinary skilled artisan would have recognized
that such modification “constitutes a change of no more than routine level,”
which is “well within the ordinary practitioner’s skill level and
understanding,” and “would deliver a predictable associated result which
may be determined by a simple calculation” {id. at 12).
Although Appellant contends “modifying Kramer to include a
switching flap would offer no more control over the direction of airflow than
10
Appeal 2017-003016
Application 13/745,953
Kramer’s current design” (App. Br. 3—4), and instead “renders Kramer
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of cooling both modules 22 and 24
using flow from the heat exchanger 100” (App. Br. 5), Appellant appears to
view the combination in a different perspective than that of the Examiner.
Here, the issue is whether the skilled artisan, upon reading Major’s
switching flap, would have found it obvious to modify Kramer’s valve/flap
to control the direction of airflow to switch between a direction “through a
first outlet duct to a location inside a vehicle passenger cabin” and a
direction “through a second outlet duct to a location outside the vehicle
passenger cabin” (claim 1).
We agree with the Examiner that combining Kramer and Major
“would deliver a predictable associated result which may be determined by a
simple calculation” (Ans. 12). In particular, since Kramer discloses a valve
for controlling the cooling of air in a drive battery arrangement (FF 2), we
conclude that the combination of Major’s controlling of the air flow in a
battery arrangement (FF 3) with another known teaching (Kramer’s drive
battery arrangement) would have yielded predictable results to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. That is, we find that
combining the control of air flow to inside or outside of a passenger cabin as
taught by Major (FF 3) in addition to Kramer’s control of air flow for the
drive battery arrangement (FF 2) is no more than a simple arrangement of
old elements, with each performing the same function it had been known to
perform, yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
See KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
The skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple
patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a person
11
Appeal 2017-003016
Application 13/745,953
of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 420-21. Appellant has
presented no evidence that combining Major’s control of air flow with the
Kramer’s control of air flow was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one
of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior
art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 419—21). Nor has Appellant
presented evidence that the claimed combination of known elements would
have yielded more than expected results.
On this record, we find no error with the Examiner’s ultimate legal
conclusion that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time
the invention was made to combine the teachings of Kramer and Major
(Ans. 12). Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1. Appellant does not provide substantive arguments for
independent claim 7, and claims 2—5, 11—14, and 23 depending respectively
from claims 1 and 7 (App. Br. 5—6, 8). Thus, claims 4, 7, 13, and 23 fall
with claim 1 over Kramer and Majors; claims 2, 3, 5, 11, and 12 fall with
claims 1 and 7 over Kramer and Major, in further view of Shinmura; and
claim 14 falls with claim 7 over Kramer, Major, and Shinmura, in further
view of Tsuchiya.
Positioned Behind a Rear Row of Seats
As for claim 8, Appellant merely contends that the skilled person
would not modify Kramer and Major “to eliminate large ductwork” but
rather “would seemingly want the battery to be closer to the axles and
brakes, not moved behind a rear vehicle seat” (App. Br. 6—7). Similarly,
with respect to independent claim 16, Appellant contends “the rejection does
not explain how placing the Kramer device behind a vehicle seat would
12
Appeal 2017-003016
Application 13/745,953
eliminate this ductwork” {id. at 7), while with respect to dependent claims 9
and 10, Appellant contends the Examiner has not shown that positioning the
drive battery arrangement as claimed “would actually increase passenger
cabin space as . . . alleged” {id. at 8).
We note independent claim 16 merely recites:
A vehicle having a hybrid drive, comprising:
at least two drive batteries with a fan device configured
therebetween, positioned behind a vehicle seat.
Here, we find no error with the Examiner’s reliance on Kramer for
disclosing a drive battery arrangement comprising “two drive batteries with
a fan device configured therebetween” (FF 2), and reliance on Fujiwara for
the disclosure of a battery arrangement “positioned behind a vehicle seat”
(FF 4).
We find no error with the Examiner’s combination of the references to
include “wherein the drive battery arrangement is positioned behind a rear
row of seats as taught by Fujiwara to the invention of Kramer” for the
purpose of “eliminating large duct work form the interior passenger cabin,
thereby increasing passenger space in the interior cabin” (Final Rej. 5). That
is, the Examiner has provided an “articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” See In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). We are unpersuaded that the
Examiner erred in finding that having the battery “not located inside the
cabin” would result in the cabin passenger space being “maximized” (Ans.
12). Further, we agree with the Examiner that the modification “would
deliver a predictable associated result” {id.). Such positioning of the battery
is no more than a simple arrangement of old elements, with each performing
13
Appeal 2017-003016
Application 13/745,953
the same function it had been known to perform, yielding no more than one
would expect from such an arrangement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejections of
independent claim 16 and claim 22 depending therefrom over Kramer in
view of Fujiwara; and similar dependent claims 8 and 21 over Kramer,
Major, and Fujiwara; and claims 9 and 10 over Kramer, Major, Fujiwara,
and He. Appellant does not provide substantive arguments for dependent
claims 17—20 depending from claim 16 (App. Br. 7—8). Thus, we also affirm
the rejection of claims 17 and 18 over Kramer, Fujiwara, Major, and
Shinmura; and of claims 19 and 20 over Kramer, Fujiwara, Major,
Shinmura, and Tsuchiya.
V. CONCFUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—5, 7—14, and 16—23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
14