Ex Parte Patti et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 21, 2018

13307349 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/307,349 11130/2011
28866 7590 05/23/2018
MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD
ONE MARITIME PLAZA - FIFTH FLOOR
720 WATER STREET
TOLEDO, OH 43604
Angelo Patti
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.
83209550 6878
EXAMINER
HAMILTON, FRANCES F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/23/2018 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):
docketing@mstfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte ANGELO PATTI, PAUL B. HOKE, and JAMES R. HURD
Appeal2017-007575
Application 13/307,349
Technology Center 3700
Before CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1-3 and 7-18. We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 "The real party in interest in the present appeal is Ford Global Technologies."
(Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal2017-007575
Application 13/307,349
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants' invention relates to "measuring interior temperature,
humidity, or air quality for the purpose of controlling the operation of the
climate control system." (Spec. 1, 11. 16-19.)
Illustrative Claim
1. An HV AC unit for treating air in a passenger cabin of
a vehicle, comprising:
an HV AC housing with a recirculation entry section, a
fresh entry section, a blower section, and an output section;
a blower mounted to the blower section for driving an
airflow from the HV AC housing out through the output section
into the passenger cabin;
a recirculation opening proximate the recirculation entry
section for providing at least a base recirculation flow from the
passenger cabin into the HV AC housing whenever the blower
drives the airflow;
a climate sensor mounted at the recirculation entry
section and fluidically and continuously coupled within the
base recirculation flow for sensing a climate characteristic
representative of the air in the passenger cabin; and
a recirculation door, adjacent to the climate sensor,
having a selectable position for providing a variable flow
capacity through the recirculation entry section between a
minimum flow capacity and a maximum flow capacity.
Dauvergne
Dage
Azar
Inoue
Yenneti
References2
us 5,377,528
US 2010/0190429 Al
US 2010/0224253 Al
US 7,803,039 B2
US 2012/0015594 Al
Jan.3, 1995
July 29, 2010
Sept. 9, 2010
Sept. 28, 2010
Jan. 19,2012
2 Our quotations from these references will omit, where applicable, bolding
and/ or italicization of reference numerals.
2
Appeal2017-007575
Application 13/307,349
Rejections
I. The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 7-10, 17, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as non-enabled. (Final Action 2.) 3
II. The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 7-10, 17, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. (Final Action 3.)4
III. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 7, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Yenneti and Dauvergne. (Final Action 4.)
IV. The Examiner rejects claims 2, 3, 8, 10, 13-15, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yenneti, Dauvergne, and Dage.
(Final Action 7.)
V. The Examiner rejects claims 9 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Y enneti, Dauvergne, and Inoue. (Final Action 11.)
VI. The Examiner rejects claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Y enneti, Dauvergne, and Azar. (Final Action 11.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 10, 11, and 13 are the independent claims on appeal, with
the rest of the claims on appeal (i.e., claims 2, 3, 7-9, 12, and 14--18)
depending therefrom. (See Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Independent claims 1, 11, and 13 recite an "HV AC unit" having a
"blower" for "driving an airflow" into a "passenger cabin," and a "climate
3 We consider the Examiner's non-mention of claim 10 in the heading of
Rejection I to be an inadvertent omission, as the Examiner discusses claim 10
in the body of the rejection. (See Final Action 2-3.)
4 We consider the Examiner's non-mention of claim 10 in the heading of
Rejection II to be an inadvertent omission, as the Examiner discusses
claim 10 in the body of the rejection. (See Final Action 3.)
3
Appeal2017-007575
Application 13/307,349
sensor" for "sensing a climate characteristic" of the vehicle's passenger
cabin. (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Independent claim 10 recites a "method"
involving an "HV AC unit" that likewise has an airflow-driving "blower"
and a climate-sensing "sensor." (Id.)
Independent claims 1, 10, 11, and 13 recite limitations specifying the
climate sensor's fluidic association with a "base recirculation flow," and also
specifying the climate sensor's physical location relative to a "recirculation
door." (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Particularly, independent claim 1
requires the climate sensor to be "fluidically and continuously coupled
within the base recirculation flow," and also requires the climate sensor to be
"adjacent" the recirculation door. (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Independent
claim 10 requires the climate sensor to be "continuously immersed in the
base recirculation flow," and also requires the climate sensor to be "mounted
proximate" the recirculation door. (Id.) Independent claim 11 requires the
climate sensor to be "immersed in the base recirculation flow," and also
requires the climate sensor to be "on" the recirculation door. (Id.) And
independent claim 13 requires the climate sensor to be "fluidically coupled
within the base recirculation flow," and also requires the climate sensor to be
"mounted to" the recirculation door. (Id.)
Rejections I and II
As indicated above, independent claim 1 recites that the climate
sensor is "fluidically and continuously coupled within the base recirculation
flow," and independent claim 10 recites that the climate sensor is
"continuously immersed in the base recirculation flow." (Appeal Br.,
Claims App.) The Examiner's § 112 rejections appear to be premised
mostly on these fluidic-association recitals not being supported sufficiently
4
Appeal2017-007575
Application 13/307,349
by the originally-filed Specification. (See Final Action 2-3.) According to
the Examiner, such allegedly insufficient support renders the claims unclear
and non-enabled. (See id.) We are persuaded by the Appellants' position
that the Examiner does not establish adequately that the claims on appeal do
not satisfy requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. (See Appeal Br. 4--7.)
The originally-filed Specification set forth that, in order for a sensor
"to provide an accurate characterization of a climate characteristic," there
must be "significant flow of cabin air over the sensor." (Spec. 1, 11. 25-27.)
And the originally-filed Specification used the exact words "fluidically
coupled within" and "immersed in" to describe this fluidic association of the
climate sensor with recirculation airflow, which is airflow coming from the
passenger cabin. 5 (See Spec. 2, 1. 24; 5, 11. 18-19; 6, 1. 9; 8, 1. 3; 11, 1. 9.)
Thus, the originally-filed Specification conveys that a sensor is "fluidically
coupled within," and/or is "immersed in," recirculation airflow when the
sensor affords an accurate sensor reading of the desired climate
characteristic of cabin air. 6
5 As for the term "coupled" being used to define a fluidic relationship, (see
Answer 15), we note that the Examiner provides a dictionary citation
defining "coupled" as "associated together" in pairs (see Final Action 3).
Thus, the claims require the climate sensor to be fluidically associated with
the base recirculation flow. As pointed out by the Appellants (see Reply
Br. 3--4), the Examiner incorrectly posits that one of ordinary skill would
understand that Appellants are "locating a climate sensor that maintains
constant fluid communication with the recirculation door." (Answer 15.)
6 As for Examiner's apparent concern as to whether or not the terms
"fluidically coupled" and "immersed" are "synonymous" (see Answer 14),
as pointed out by the Appellants (see Appeal Br. 6), these limitations are not
both recited in any of the claims on appeal; and, therefore, we need not
address whether they constitute redundant limitations.
5
Appeal2017-007575
Application 13/307,349
The originally-filed Specification additionally sets forth that the
Appellants' invention ensures a "substantially continuous" flow of
passenger-cabin air over the climate sensor, even when "the system is
drawing primarily fresh air." (Spec. 5, 11. 10, 13, emphasis added.) The
originally-filed Specification clarifies that this is accomplished by "a partial
recirculation condition" being "in effect at all times to pull a minimum
amount of cabin air over the sensor." (Id. at 3, 1. 28 -4, 1. 1, emphasis
added.) And the originally-filed Specification conveys that this "minimum
amount" of air flow can be called a "base recirculation flow." (Id. at 5,
11. 15-21.)
Furthermore, the originally-filed Specification describes and depicts
embodiments in which the special structure of the recirculation door, in
conjunction with the strategic location of the climate sensor relative to this
special door structure, allow the climate sensor to remain in fluidic
association with the base recirculation flow, even when the system is
drawing a maximum amount of fresh air. (See Spec. 6, 1. 2 to 8, 1. 8.)7
7 For example, in one embodiment, the recirculation door has "ribs" to
prevent it from moving to a completely closed position. (Spec. 6, 11. 5-6,
Fig. 3.) This ensures that "at least a base recirculation flow exists" even
when the recirculation door is at its most-closed position corresponding to a
maximum amount of fresh air. (Id. at 6, 11. 7-8.) The climate sensor is
mounted at a location, on or near the recirculation door, that is "fluidically
coupled" with the base recirculation flow even when the door is in its most-
closed position. (Id. at 6, 11. 8-14, Fig. 3.) As such, the climate sensor is
able to afford an accurate sensor reading of the desired climate characteristic
of cabin air, even when the system is drawing primarily fresh air.
In another embodiment, the recirculation door has a "dedicated recirculation
opening." (Spec. 6, 11. 17-20, Fig. 4.) This allows a base recirculation flow
to pass through the dedicated opening, even when the recirculation door is in
6
Appeal2017-007575
Application 13/307,349
The Examiner does not explain adequately why, even in light of the
above-discussed disclosure in the originally-filed Specification, one of
ordinary skill in the art would consider the fluidic-association limitations
recited in independent claims 1 and 10 to be unsupported, unclear, and/or
indefinite. The Examiner also does not explain adequately why, despite the
embodiments described and depicted in the originally-filed Specification,
one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to make and use an HV AC
unit having the fluidic-association limitations recited in independent
claims 1 and 10.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of independent
claim 1 (and the claims depending therefrom) and independent claim 10,
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs.
Rejections III-VI
As indicated above, independent claims 1, 10, 11, and 13 recite
limitations regarding both the climate sensor's fluidic association with a
"base recirculation flow," and the climate sensor's physical location relative
to a "recirculation door." (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner's§ 103
rejections are premised upon the primary reference, Yenneti, disclosing a
climate sensor that is fluidically associated with a base recirculation flow;
and a secondary reference, Dauvergne, teaching that a climate sensor can be
a closed position corresponding to maximum fresh air flow. (See Spec. 6,
11. 17-20, Fig. 4.) The climate sensor "is suspended within the profile" of
the dedicated recirculation opening so as to be in fluidic association with the
base recirculation flow when the door is closed. (Id. at 6, 11. 23-25.) As
such, the climate sensor is able to afford an accurate sensor reading of the
desired climate characteristic of cabin air, even when the system is drawing
primarily fresh air.
7
Appeal2017-007575
Application 13/307,349
mounted on a door. (See Final Action 4---6.) We are persuaded by the
Appellants' position that the Examiner does not establish adequately that the
proposed combination of the prior art would yield the climate sensor
required by the independent claims on appeal. (See Appeal Br. 8-12.)
Y enneti discloses an HV AC unit having a fresh air duct 20, a
damper 22, a return air duct 28, a fan 30, and a sensor 34. (See Yenneti
i-f 11.) As shown Yenneti's Figure 2, reproduced below, the sensor 34 is
located near the entry end of the return air duct 28.
Y enneti' s Figure 2 shows that, whenever there is recirculation airflow being
drawn through the return air duct 28 by the fan 30, this airflow will be pass
over the sensor 34. As the role of Y enneti' s sensor 34 is to monitor a
climate characteristic (i.e., carbon dioxide) in the passenger cabin (see
Y enneti i-f 11 ), it follows that Y enneti' s sensor 34 would be fluidically
associated with recirculation flow passing thereover so as to afford an
accurate sensor reading of this desired climate characteristic of cabin air.
As also shown in the drawing above, and as expressly disclosed by
Yenneti, the damper 22 "is disposed in the fresh air duct 20 and is operable
to vary the amount of fresh air that passes through the fresh air duct 20."
(Yenneti, i-f 11.) And, as pointed out by the Examiner (see Final Action 6),
8
Appeal2017-007575
Application 13/307,349
Dauvergne discloses that it has "been proposed to mount [a] temperature
sensor on [a] flap valve which controls admission of fresh air, so as to make
its position variable and to improve its ventilation." (Dauvergne, col. 1,
11. 52-56.) In the Examiner's proposed combination of the prior art,
Y enneti' s sensor 34 is relocated to Y enneti' s damper 22 in view of this
teaching by Dauvergne. (See Final Action 6.)
The Examiner provides us with an annotated drawing, reproduced
below, showing Yenneti's damper 22 in a position corresponding to a
minimum amount of recirculation air. (Answer 16.) In other words, this
annotated drawing shows Yenneti's system when it is drawing primarily
fresh air through the system.
Door (22) fully open
The Examiner's annotated drawing shows that, when Yenneti's system is
drawing primary fresh air, a non-zero amount of recirculation air (i.e., a base
recirculation flow) flows through the return air duct 28. However,
significantly, the Examiner's annotated drawing also shows that a sensor
located on the damper 22 would not be fluidically associated with this base
recirculation flow. Rather, "[i]n the proposed placement" ofYenneti's
sensor 34 on Y enneti' s damper 22, the sensor 34 "would not measure the
9
Appeal2017-007575
Application 13/307,349
characteristics of the recirculated air, but of mixed air or fresh air." (Reply
Br. 3.)
Insofar as there may be a place on Y enneti' s damper 22 where the
relocated sensor 34 would be in fluidic association with recirculation air, the
Examiner gives us no details regarding this placement. The Examiner does
imply that the relocated sensor 34 is placed on the downstream side, not the
upstream side, of the damper 22. (See Answer 20.) Yet, in the Examiner's
annotated drawing reproduced above, neither the upstream side nor the
downstream side of the Y enneti' s damper 22 is shown fluidically associated
with recirculation flow.
The Examiner also explains that "[ n ]owhere" was "it proposed that
the recirculation air sensor be relocated out of the recirculation stream."
(Answer 20.) But again, the Examiner offers us no insight as to how this can
be accomplished when Y enneti' s sensor 34 is relocated on Y enneti' s
damper 22. As discussed above, the Appellants' disclosed embodiments do
not entail simply placing a climate sensor on a recirculation door; they entail
special structuring on or in the door, in conjunction with a strategic locating
of the climate sensor relative to this door structure.
The Examiner does point out that Y enneti "alone" discloses that the
sensor 34 is fluidically associated with a base recirculation flow as required
by the independent claims on appeal. (Answer 20.) Nevertheless, Yenneti's
purported teachings on this subject only pertain to the sensor 34 in its
damper-remote location, at the entry end of the air return duct 28.
The Examiner's further findings and determinations with respect to
the additional prior art references likewise provide no explanation as to how
or why Yenneti's relocated sensor 34 would be in fluidic association with
10
Appeal2017-007575
Application 13/307,349
the recirculation flow. For example, the Examiner spells out that Dauvergne
is relied upon "solely" to teach that "it is known" to mount a sensor on flap
"in order to 'ventilate the sensor.'" (Answer 18; see also Final Action 5, 9.)
As for the rest of the prior art references applied by the Examiner in the
§ 103 rejections, Dage is relied upon for its teachings on "minimum
recirculation" and "humidity" (Final Action 7, 8); Inoue is relied upon for its
teaching on "nitrous oxide" sensing (id. at 11 ); and Azar is relied upon for
its teachings on door "gap[s]" (id. at 12).
The Examiner appears to propose an alternate modification in which
Y enneti' s sensor 34 is relocated near the downstream end of the air return
duct 28. (See Answer 23.) However, the Examiner does not address
adequately why this modification would result in the sensor 34 being
physically located and fluidically associated as required by the independent
claims on appeal. Specifically, for example, the Examiner does not explain
how or why this so-relocated sensor 34 would be "mounted at the
recirculation entry section" as required by independent claim 1, 8 "disposed
to receive the base recirculation flow prior to blending" as required by
independent claim 10, "on" a recirculation door as required by independent
claim 11, and/or "mounted to" a recirculation door as required by
independent claim 13. (Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of independent
claims 1, 10, 11, and 13, and the claims depending therefrom, under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
8 We note that the Examiner expressly identifies the upstream end of
Yenneti's air return duct 28 as the "recirculation entry section." (See Final
Action 5, especially the Examiner's annotated drawing.)
11
Appeal2017-007575
Application 13/307,349
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3 and 7-18.
REVERSED
12