Ex Parte Mandernach et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2013

11163918 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2013)

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.
11/163,918 11/03/2005 Mike Mandernach 81110991 4917
28395 7590 09/17/2013
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
MILLER, SAMANTHA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3749
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/17/2013 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 MIKE MANDERNACH, RANGANATHAN MADHAVAN,
RACHID EL AILE, MARIA HEIRTZLER, ARTHUR HENKE, and
LIM WIJAYA
____________

Appeal 2011-011411
Application 11/163,918
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
ADAM V. FLOYD, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 7-12 and 20-25. Claims 1-6 and 13-19 are
cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2011-011411
Application 11/163,918

2
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed subject matter “relates to a vehicle having a vehicle fresh
air intake that inhibits entry of water and debris.” Spec. [para 3]. Claims 7
and 20 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 7, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
7. A vehicle, comprising:
a window including an aperture disposed therein;
a vehicle space; and
an air intake including:
an inlet for receiving ambient air through the
window aperture,
a first chamber adjacent the inlet and partially
defined by an upper boundary configured to prevent upward
fluid flow out of the first chamber,
a second chamber adjacent the first chamber and
having a common wall therebetween, the second chamber
including an upper portion and a lower portion, the lower
portion being open to the first chamber, and
an outlet in communication with the inlet, and
disposed adjacent the second chamber upper portion, thereby
facilitating air transfer from the second chamber to the vehicle
space.
Rejections1
Claims 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite.
Claims 7-12 and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Thomas (US 5,897,435, issued Apr. 27, 1999).

1 The rejections listed in this sub-section are set forth as New Grounds of
Rejection. Ans. 3-4. The rejection of claims 7-12 and 20-25 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) in the Final Office Action mailed August 4, 2010 was
withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2011-011411
Application 11/163,918

3
OPINION
Indefiniteness of claims 20 and 23
The Examiner rejects claims 20 and 23 as indefinite. Ans. 3-4. The
Appellants do not present any argument with regard to this rejection. Thus,
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 20 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite is summarily sustained. See In re Berger, 279 F.3d
975 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that Board did not err in sustaining a rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, when the appellant failed to
contest the rejection on appeal).

Anticipation of claims 7-12 and 20-25 by Thomas
Claims 7-12
Thomas discloses a vehicle 14 having an air vent device 10 for a
horizontally sliding window 30. Fig. 2, col. 1, ll. 7-9, col. 5, l. 66, col. 6,
ll. 8, 9. The air vent device 10 includes a first end section 50, a second end
section 60, and a central section 70. Fig. 3, col. 6, ll. 24-26. Central section
70 includes a plurality of louvered openings 80. Col. 7, ll. 3, 4. Adjacent
openings 80 are a plurality of louver fins 82. Col. 7, ll. 5, 6. As depicted in
Figure 3 the end 72 of section 70 has a central connector/flange 73 with
flange holes 74 for connecting with second connector/ flange 62 of second
end section 60. Figs. 3-6, col. 7, ll. 9-13, 23-36. Additionally, Figure 13 is a
particularly enlightening depiction of air vent device 10.
Claim 7 calls for a first chamber and a second chamber with a
common wall between the chambers. See App. Br., Clms. App’x. The
Examiner finds that the first end section 50 and central section 70
correspond to the claimed first chamber, the second end section 60
Appeal 2011-011411
Application 11/163,918

4
corresponds to the claimed second chamber, and second connector flange 62
corresponds to the claimed common wall between the chambers. The
Appellants contend that the second connector flange 62 does not constitute
“a common wall” as called for by claim 7. Reply Br. 4.
The Appellants’ contention is persuasive. At the outset, we note that
sections 50, 60 and 70 are as solid structures and cannot be chambers
themselves. If sections 50 and 70 evidence a first chamber and section 60
evidences a second chamber, then the chambers could only exist in the area
behind the sections. See figs. 3, 4, 13. For example, Figure 13 depicts that
the area behind section 70 is open and this open area can be considered a
chamber. Accordingly, for flange 62 to correspond to the claimed “common
wall” its position must be between the open areas behind sections 70 and 60.
However, “[r]ather than forming a wall between the two proposed chambers,
the flange 62 is disposed outside of both of the chambers.” Reply Br. 4. As
such, flange 62 does correspond to the “common wall” as called for in claim
7.
Thus, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7-12 as anticipated by
Thomas is not sustained.
Claims 20-25
Claim 20 recites “[a] window arrangement for a vehicle” including:
an air intake including an inlet for receiving air from the
ambient environment through the aperture, and an outlet in
communication with the inlet, the outlet facilitating air transfer
from the inlet to the vehicle space, the air intake further
including a first dam disposed adjacent the inlet for preventing
upward fluid flow from the inlet directly to the outlet, thereby
inhibiting liquid flow through the outlet.
App. Br., Clms. App’x. (emphasis added).
Appeal 2011-011411
Application 11/163,918

5
The Examiner finds that the louvered opening(s) 80 corresponds to the
claimed inlet, the back of the air vent device 10 corresponds the claimed
outlet, the cabin space of the vehicle corresponds to the claimed vehicle
space, and the top of section 50 corresponds to the claimed first dam.
Ans. 5-6. The Appellants contend that the top of section 50 does not
correspond to the claimed first dam. Reply Br. 6.
The Appellants’ contention is persuasive. Thomas describes that “the
plurality of louvered openings 80 provide ventilation for the structure 12
whereas the plurality of louver fins 82 provide protection from precipitation
entering the structure 12 through the plurality of louvered openings 80.”
Thomas, col. 7, ll. 9-13 (emphasis added), figs. 2-4, 13. Put simply, Thomas
teaches that precipitation is blocked by louver fins 82. The Examiner finds
that the top of section 50 blocks rain and air “from going into the vehicle
through the back side of (10), thereby inhibiting liquid flow through the
outlet.” Ans. 8. However, since Thomas explicitly discloses that louver fins
82 provide protection from precipitation, the Examiner’s finding appears to
be speculative.
Additionally, the Examiner finds that “[t]he top wall of 50 caps the
first chamber made of (50 and 70) and clearly prevents air from traveling
upwards by directing air to the outlet (back side of 10) in the rear section of
inlet (Fig. 10).” Ans. 7 (emphasis added). As discussed above, the
Examiner finds that the top of section 50 blocks rain and air “from going
into the vehicle through the back side of (10), thereby inhibiting liquid flow
through the outlet.” Ans. 8. These two findings appear contradictory in that
the top of section 50 both directs air, and presumptively rain, and blocks air
and rain to the back side of air vent device 10.
Appeal 2011-011411
Application 11/163,918

6
Thus, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 20-25 as anticipated by
Thomas is not sustained.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 20 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as indefinite.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 7-12 and 20-25 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Thomas.
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Klh