Ex Parte Ramaswamy

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 17, 2016

11871383 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111871,383 10/12/2007
28395 7590 02/19/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Deepa Ramaswamy
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.
81156435 6684
EXAMINER
RUSSELL, DEVON L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/19/2016 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DEEP A RAMASWAMY
Appeal2014-001557
Application 11/871,383
Technology Center 3700
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges.
IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Deepa Ramaswamy (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's Final decision rejecting claims 2-7 and 12-25. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-001557
Application 11/871,3 83
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 20, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
20. A system for cooling a control system in a vehicle, the system
compnsmg:
a coo ling fan;
a plurality of cooling loops;
a plurality of vehicle subsystems configured to generate a
plurality of subsystem temperature signals that are indicative of a
measured temperature for each vehicle subsystem, the vehicle
subsystems being positioned about the plurality of cooling loops; and
a vehicle controller configured to:
control the plurality of cooling loops to cool the vehicle
subsystems in response to each subsystem temperature signal;
generate a desired fan speed for each vehicle subsystem
in response to each subsystem temperature signal;
compare each desired fan speed to one another;
generate a maximum desired fan speed for the plurality
of vehicle subsystems in response to comparing each desired
fan speed to one another;
compare the maximum desired fan speed to a first
predetermined fan speed value; and
set the fan speed to one of a plurality of first fan speeds
based on the comparison of the maximum desired fan speed to
the first predetermined fan speed value.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 2-5, 12-15, and 20-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ando (U.S. Patent No.
7,610,954 B2, iss. Nov. 3, 2009), Shen (U.S. Patent No.
7,708,056 B2, iss. May 4, 2010), and Thomas (U.S. Patent
No. 7,418,611 Bl, iss. Aug. 26, 2008).
II. Claims 6, 7, and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ando, Shen, Thomas, and
2
Appeal2014-001557
Application 11/871,3 83
Gabriel (U.S. Patent No. 6,450,275 Bl, iss. Sept. 17, 2002).
ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Ando, Shen, and Thomas
Appellant presents arguments for independent claim 20 and relies on
the same arguments for its appeal of the Examiner's decision rejecting
independent claims 21and22, and dependent claims 2-5, 12-15, and 23-
25. Appeal Br. 4--11. We select claim 20 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015). Claims 2-5, 12-15, and 21-25 stand or fall with
claim 20.
The Examiner finds that Ando discloses the invention substantially as
recited in claim 20, including
a cooling fan in a vehicle (abstract; Fig. 1), comprising: a
cooling fan (130), a plurality of cooling loops (100, 110), and a
plurality of vehicle subsystems (Fig. 1 ), configured around the
cooling loops (Fig. l ), each subsystem configured to generate a
subsystem temperature signal indicative of a measured
temperature thereof (temperature sensors 23f, 40; Col. 6: 15-16)
and a vehicle controller (disparate controlling elements 24, 40,
70, 80 taken together) configured to control the plurality of
cooling loops to cool the vehicle subsystems in response to
each subsystem temperature signal (e.g. Col. 4:4-23) and
receive each subsystem temperature signal to generate a desired
fan speed for each vehicle subsystem (Fe, Fm, Fa; Cols. 5:26,
5:55-56, and 6: 17), generate a maximum desired fan speed for
the plurality of vehicle subsystems in response to comparing the
desired fan speeds (Fig. 2; S 120) and setting the fan speed to
one of a plurality of first fan speeds (Fig. 2; S 140).
Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner acknowledges that "Ando does not
specifically disclose that each desired fan speed is compared to one
another." Id. at 3; see also Ans. 6 ("Ando's disclosure[] does not teach that
3
Appeal2014-001557
Application 11/871,3 83
step "S 120" includes[] 'compar[ing] each desired fan speed to one
another.'"). However, the Examiner clarifies in the Answer that "Ando
already teaches the comparison of desired fan speeds (step S 120) ... [and]
[t]he only teaching required of Shen (and the only one asserted in the
rejection) is the method step of how the comparison of a plurality of signals
may be carried out." Ans. 7. The Examiner relies on Shen as disclosing a
plurality of temperature sensors that generate signals and a method of
determining which signal has the highest value. Ans. 6 (citing Shen 3 :30-
31, 46-60). The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to a
skilled artisan to use the well-known method of Shen for determining the
highest value fan speed in Ando as it is "a simple and easy to program
solution." Final Act. 3.
The Examiner further acknowledges that Ando does not disclose
setting the fan speed to one of a plurality of first fan speeds based on a
comparison of the maximum desired fan speed to a first predetermined fan
speed value. Id. The Examiner asserts that Thomas discloses this feature
and it would have been obvious to modify Ando based on this teaching
because "it is an old and well-known method in the art and it would allow
the pairing of fans with disparate operating speeds with pre-existing vehicles
using only a software upgrade." Id. at 4.
To start, Appellant argues that the cited passages of Ando and Shen
are silent regarding comparing each desired fan speed to one another, and
only discloses comparing temperatures. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant takes the
position that the Examiner has ignored the requirement that fan speeds
instead of temperatures are compared, and both Ando and Shen disclose
comparing temperatures and not fan speeds. Id. at 8.
4
Appeal2014-001557
Application 11/871,3 83
Upon review of the record, we are not apprised of Examiner error on
this basis. Ando discloses that three drive demands Fe, Fm, and Fa are used
to determine the actual drive level F* of cooling fan 130. Ando, 6:34--44.
Further, Ando discloses that "the engine ECU 24 accordingly sets the
maximum among the drive demands Fe, Fm, and Fa of the cooling fan 130
to the actual drive level F* of the cooling fan (step S130)." Id. at 7:15-18.
As shown in Figure 2 of Ando, step S 120 shows the actual drive level F*
determined as equal to the max (Fe, Fm, Fa). Thus, the Examiner's reading
of Ando as disclosing a comparison of three fan speeds at step S 120 is
reasonable. Moreover, we understand the Examiner relies on Shen to
demonstrate that comparison of signals, such as signals from temperature
sensors, was known in the art. See Ans. 6 ("The rejection applies this
method step of Shen wherein among a 'plurality' of signals each signal is
compared to each other signal in order to determine which has the greatest
value."). Therefore, we are not apprised of any error in the Examiner's
reasoning that step S 12 0 of Ando in view of Shen' s comparison of
temperature signals teaches Appellant's recited comparison of fan speeds. 1
Next, Appellant argues that the references do not teach a vehicle
controller configured to set the fan speed to one of a plurality of first fan
speeds based on the comparison of the maximum desired fan speed to the
first predetermined fan speed value. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant asserts that
Thomas discloses a "temperature indication" is compared with a first and/or
second threshold to control fan speed, but does not disclose that a maximum
1 We note Appellant further argues that Thomas does not disclose
comparing fan speeds because Thomas teaches a comparison of temperature
signals. Appeal Br. 8-9. However, the Examiner relies on Ando and Shen
for this limitation; not Thomas. Final Act. 2-3.
5
Appeal2014-001557
Application 11/871,3 83
desired fan speed is compared to a predetermined fan speed. Id. In other
words, Appellant's position is that Thomas is limited to temperatures, not
fan speed. Id.
We are not persuaded of error on this basis. In the Answer, the
Examiner reiterates that the combination of Ando and Shen teach the
determination of a maximum desired fan speed and Thomas' s teachings are
applied after Ando step S120. Ans. 8. Thus, Ando, not Thomas, is relied
upon by the Examiner to teach fan speeds
Appellant also argues that the Examiner's reasoning for the
combination of Thomas and Ando is flawed because "[t]here is no reason
why one skilled in the art would seek to compare the maximum desired fan
speed (e.g., max (Fe, Fm, Fa)) for the purpose of achieving manufacturing
flexibility as Ando discloses that the fan speed is controlled once the
maximum desired fan speed is found." Reply 3--4. Appellant asserts "the
proposed modification adds useless code complexity without providing any
tangible result as Ando is set to control the fan motor to a desired speed
directly in response to determining the maximum of Fe, Fe, and Fa." Id. at
4. However, Appellant's assertion amounts to no more than attorney
argument unsupported by sufficient evidence or technical reasoning. We are
not apprised of any Examiner error on this basis.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 20 as unpatentable over Ando, Shen, and
Thomas. We also sustain the rejection of claims 2-5, 12-15, and 21-25,
which fall with claim 20.
6
Appeal2014-001557
Application 11/871,3 83
Obviousness over Ando, Shen, Thomas, and Gabriel
Appellants have not substantively addressed the rejection of claims 6,
7, and 16-19 as unpatentable over Ando, Shen, Thomas, and Gabriel in their
briefing or identified any reversible error in the Examiner's rejection in
question, even though this rejection was properly made of record (Final Act.
4--5; Ans. 4--5), and despite the explicit statement that "Claims 2 - 7 and 12-
25 ... are the subject of this appeal" (Appeal Br. 2). Thus, we summarily
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 6, 7, and 16-19 as unpatentable
over Ando, Shen, Thomas, and Gabriel on this basis. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015); see also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure§
1205.02 ("If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in
the appellant's brief, appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of
rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it."); Hyatt v. Dudas, 551
F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("When the appellant fails to contest a
ground of rejection to the Board, ... the Board may treat any argument with
respect to that ground of rejection as waived.").
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2-7 and 12-25 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
rvb
7