Ex Parte NakajimaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 27, 201611730330 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 111730,330 03/30/2007 Hiroshi Nakajima 22428 7590 06/29/2016 Foley & Lardner LLP 3000 K STREET N.W. SUITE 600 WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109 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. 040302-0647 7051 EXAMINER COMINGS, DANIEL C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/29/2016 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): ipdocketing@foley.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HIROSHI NAKAJIMA Appeal2014-001812 1 Application 11/730,3302 Technology Center 3700 Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 5-7, and 9-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed June 13, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Nov. 25, 2013), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Oct. 3, 2013) and Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Dec. 28, 2012). 2 Appellant identifies Nissan Motor Co. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-001812 Application 11/730,330 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant's claimed invention "relates to a glass temperature detecting system that detects the temperature of the windshield of a vehicle, a window fog detecting system, an air-conditioning system for vehicles, and a window fog detecting method." Spec. 1: 7-10. Claims 1, 7, 9, and 12 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A glass temperature detecting system for detecting a temperature of an inner surface of a windshield of a vehicle, the glass temperature detecting system comprising: a contact temperature sensor attached to a printed portion on an upper-side periphery of the windshield on a driver's seat side of a center in a width direction of the windshield, wherein ceramic print is applied to the printed portion where the contact temperature sensor is attached; a solar radiation sensor arranged to detect an amount of solar radiation; and a first correction section that corrects a detected value of the contact temperature sensor for a difference in temperature between the printed portion where the ceramic print is applied and a non-printed portion where the ceramic print is not applied, to obtain a corrected detected value representing a temperature of an inner surface of the non-printed portion, wherein the first correction section comprises: a first correction value calculator that determines a correction value as a function of the amount of solar radiation detected by the solar radiation sensor; and a first adder that adds the correction value determined by the first correction value calculator to the detected value of the contact temperature sensor to obtain the corrected detected value. 2 Appeal2014-001812 Application 11/730,330 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 5, 6, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over King (US 6,422,062 Bl, iss. July 23, 2002), Ichihara (JP 2001-219739, pub. Aug. 14, 2001)3, and Kagohata (US 4,829,884, iss. May 16, 1989).4'5 II. Claims 7, 9-11, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over King, Ichihara, Kagohata, and Stauss6 (US 2005/0178200 Al, Aug. 18, 2005). III. Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over King, De Prete (US 6,407,365 Bl, iss. June 18, 2002), Ichihara, and Kagohata. 7 IV. Claims 7, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over King, Kagohata, De Prete, Ichihara, and Stauss. 3 The Examiner relies on a partial English-language translation of the Japanese publication. We refer to the partial English-language translation as "Ichihara." 4 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Ans. 20-21. 5 The Final Rejection erroneously indicates that these claims are rejected "under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by ... King ... in view of ... Ichihara ... and Kagohata." Final Act. 2. The Examiner repeats the error in the Answer by again identifying "102(b)" and "anticipat[ion]" instead of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and obviousness. Ans. 2. Appellant correctly recognizes that Rejection I is based on obviousness under§ 103(a) rather than anticipation under § 102(b ). App. Br. 9, n. l. 6 The Examiner erroneously refers to this reference as "Strauss." See, e.g., Final Act. 9. 7 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Ans. 20-21. We treat, as inadvertent error, the Examiner's identification of canceled claim 8 among the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Final Act. 14 3 Appeal2014-001812 Application 11/730,330 ANALYSIS Rejection I Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 5 and 6 We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the combination of King, Ichihara, and Kagohata does not teach or suggest "a first correction section that corrects a detected value of contact temperature sensor for a difference in temperature between the printed portion where the ceramic print is applied and a non-printed portion where the ceramic print is not applied, to obtain a corrected detected value representing a temperature of an inner surface of the non-printed portion," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11-14; see also Reply Br. 3-6. Kagohata relates to a blowout temperature control system to automatically control a temperature of blowout air for an air conditioner for use in automobiles. Kagohata 1 :5-8. The blowout system includes, among other sensors, a solar radiation amount sensor to detect an amount of solar radiation in the vehicle room. Id. at 3:50-52. A control system provides control signals to the motor and actuators based on the various kinds of sensors. Id. at 3:52-55. The control system controls upper and lower blow temperature control units of a vehicle body separately. See id. at 4:52-5:66. In particular, it reduces blowout temperature for the upper half body to account for solar radiation amount, but does not reduce temperature for the lower half body because there is no influence by solar radiation. Id. at 5 :46- 53. In rejecting claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner relies on King for substantially all of the claim limitations, including disclosing a 4 Appeal2014-001812 Application 11/730,330 temperature sensor. Final Act. 2 (citing King 2:40-44). However, the Examiner acknowledges that King does not teach a sensor being mounted in a ceramic print portion of the windshield, and relies on Ichihara to cure the deficiency. Id. at 2-3 (citing Ichihara Fig. la, Abstract). The Examiner acknowledges that King does not teach "the sensed value of the temperature sensor being corrected on the basis of sensed solar radiation." Id. at 4. But the Examiner finds that Kagohata teaches "a solar radiation sensor 27 detecting the amount of solar radiation present in the cabin of the vehicle in order to adjust control of the HV AC/defrosting system." Id. (citing Kagohata 3:50-55). And the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious "to modify King with the control construction of Kagohata in order to adjust the operation of a defrost mode in an automotive HV AC system thus allowing the defrosting to be performed in such a way as to maximize occupant comfort." Id. The Examiner reasons that as the temperature sensor of King (as modified [by Ichihara]) is located in the ceramic printed area and the solar radiation detected by Kagohata is that which is "in the vehicle room" (i.e.[,] has come through the transparent portion of the windshield[),] the temperature corrected is inherently based on the difference across these areas[.] Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 23. The difficulty with the Examiner's analysis is that Kagohata relates to adjusting a blowout temperature, not correcting a detected value of a contact temperature sensor. As such, Kagohata does not teach or suggest correcting a detected value of a contact temperature sensor, let alone in the manner recited in claim 1. For example, Kagohata does not describe correcting the temperature detected by a contact temperature at one location to represent a 5 Appeal2014-001812 Application 11/730,330 temperature at another location, nor does Kagohata describe determining such a correction based on solar radiation. Moreover, the Examiner has provided no objective evidence or technical reasoning establishing that the combination of King, Ichihara, and Kagohata, inherently discloses this feature. See In re Robertson, 169 F .3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (An inherency-based rejection requires objective evidence or technical reasoning that makes clear that the allegedly inherent feature necessarily flows from the teaching of the cited prior art, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill in the art). In this case, even assuming arguendo that the combination of King, Ichihara, and Kagohata discloses the claimed two sensors - ( 1) a contact temperature sensor attached to a printed portion on an upper-side periphery of the windshield on a driver's seat side of a center in a width direction of the windshield (i.e., King as modified by Ichihara) and (2) a solar radiation sensor arranged to detect an amount of solar radiation (i.e., Kagohata)- it does not necessarily flow that a value of temperature detected by King's modified temperature sensor on a printed portion would be corrected to obtain a corrected detected value representing a temperature at another location, i.e., a non-printed portion, based on solar radiation if King were modified with Kagohata's "control construction" (Final Act. 4), as proposed by the Examiner. On the present record, the Examiner has not demonstrated that the combination of King, Ichihara, and Kagohata, discloses or suggests "correct[ing] a detected value of the contact temperature sensor for a difference in temperature between the printed portion where the ceramic print is applied and a non-printed portion where the ceramic print is applied, 6 Appeal2014-001812 Application 11/730,330 to obtain a corrected detected value representing a temperature of an inner surface of the non-printed portion, wherein ... a correction value [is determined] as a function of the amount of solar radiation detected," as recited in claim 1. In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over King, Ichihara, and Kagohata. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 5 and 6. Independent Claim 12 and Dependent Claims 13 and 14 Independent claim 12 includes language substantially similar to the language of claim 1 and stands rejected based on the same rationale applied with respect to claim 1. Final Act. 8-9. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 12 and dependent claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over King, Ichihara, and Kagohata for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Rejection II Independent Claim 7 and Dependent Claims 10, 11, 15, and 16 Independent claim 7 recites language substantially similar to the language of claim 1, and is rejected based on substantially the same rationale applied with respect to claim 1. See Final Act. 9, 11-12. The Examiner's rejection of claim 7 based on Stauss in combination with King, Ichihara, and Kagohata does not cure the deficiencies in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 7 and dependent claims 10, 11, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. 7 Appeal2014-001812 Application 11/730,330 Independent Claim 9 Independent claim 9 recites language substantially similar to the language of independent claim 4, and is rejected based on substantially the same rationale applied with respect to claim 4. See Final Act. 13. Appellant argues claim 9 is allowable for the same reasons as claim 4. App. Br. 18 (incorporating by reference the arguments made with respect to claim 4). In the Answer, the Examiner finds Appellant's arguments regarding claim 4 persuasive, and withdraws the rejection of claim 4. Ans. 21-22. Specifically, the Examiner determines that Kagohata does not anticipate or render obvious the claimed flow rate sensor, as recited in claim 4. Id. at 24. Even though the Examiner's rejection of claim 9 relies on the same erroneous finding regarding a flow rate sensor made with respect to claim 4, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 9 on the mistaken basis that Appellant argues claim 9 is allowable for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. See id. In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over King, Ichihara, Kagohata, and Stauss. Rejection III Independent Claims 1, 9, and 12 and Dependent Claims 5, 6, 13, and 15 The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 15 based on De Prete in combination with King, Ichihara, and Kagohata, does not cure the deficiencies in the Examiner's rejection of the same claims over King, Ichihara, and Kagohata (Rejection I) or King, Ichihara, Kagohata, and Stauss (Rejection II). Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 8 Appeal2014-001812 Application 11/730,330 12, 13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons set forth above with respect to these claims. Rejection IV Independent Claim 7 and Dependent Claims 10 and 11 Claims 10 and 11 depend from claim 7. The Examiner's rejection of claim 7 does not cure the deficiencies in the Examiner's rejection of claim 7 under King, Ichihara, Kagohata, and Stauss, discussed above. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 7, 10, and 11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons set forth above with respect to these claims. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 5-7, and 9-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed. REVERSED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation