Ex Parte Rollinson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 29, 2018

13625199 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/625, 199 09/24/2012 James C. Rollinson
28866 7590 05/31/2018
MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD
ONE MARITIME PLAZA - FIFTH FLOOR
720 WATER STREET
TOLEDO, OH 43604
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.
83250151 3578
EXAMINER
RUBY, TRAVIS C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2018 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
Ex parte JAMES C. ROLLINSON and
ALAND. WALLINGTON1
Appeal 2017-001143
Application 13/625, 199
Technology Center 3700
Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, JILL D. HILL, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
James C. Rollinson and Alan D. Wallington ("Appellants") appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting
claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as Ford Global Technologies,
LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-001143
Application 13/625,199
BACKGROUND
Independent claims 1 and 7 are pending. Claim 1, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed invention, with certain disputed limitations italicized.
1. A method of controlling recirculation of a vehicular
HV AC system, comprising the steps of:
detecting an automatic recirculation condition in
response to first conditions including a window defrost setting;
determining a fogging probability in response to second
conditions including a humidity measurement;
detecting occupancy of a passenger seat adjacent a cabin
air return vent; and
setting a partial recirculation of the return vent in
response to the fogging probability and the detected occupancy.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 4--7, and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Aoki (US 2008/0066477 Al, pub. Mar. 20,
2008) and Kemle (US 2002/0115405 Al, pub. Aug. 22, 2002). Final Act. 3.
II. Claims 2, 3, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Aoki, Kemle, and Dage (US 2010/0190429 Al, pub. July
29, 2010). Final Act. 7.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that Aoki discloses the limitations of claim 1,
except for detecting occupancy of a passenger seat adjacent a cabin air
return vent and setting a partial recirculation of the return vent in response to
said occupancy. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner finds, however, that Kemle
2
Appeal 2017-001143
Application 13/625,199
discloses detecting occupancy of a passenger seat adjacent a cabin air return
vent and setting a partial recirculation of the return vent in response to the
detected occupancy. Id. at 4 (citing Kemle ,r 30 ("the proportion of
recirculated air can be reduced if there are a number of vehicle occupants in
the vehicle, which may, for example, be ascertained automatically by seat
occupation sensors that are operatively connected to the control unit")). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art
to "detect occupancy of a passenger seat to adjust the partial recirculation of
Aoki" to "provide increased vehicle comfort." Id.
Appellants argue claims 1, 4--7, and 10-12 as a group. Appeal Br. 5.
We select claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 4--
7 and 1 0-12 stand or fall with claim 1.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Kemle' s
disclosure of "'adjusting a recirculation based on the occupancy of the
vehicle"' teaches the claimed "detecting occupancy of a passenger seat
adjacent a cabin air return vent." Appeal Br. 3. Appellants contend that the
term "adjacent" is a comparative term meaning "'next to' without another
intervening object that is closer to the reference object," noting that the
Specification supports this meaning in stating that
the cabin air return vent is typically located near the floor in
front of the front seat passenger location. When a passenger is
seated in this location, the air being recirculated flows around
their legs as it returns to the air return vent.
Appeal Br. 4 ( citing Spec. 3, 11. 5-7). According to Appellants, this
disclosure informs us that only a seating location closest to the air return
vent will experience a recirculated airflow "problem." Id.
3
Appeal 2017-001143
Application 13/625,199
The Examiner responds that Merriam-Webster defines adjacent as
"nearby" and "not distant," which definitions would encompass any seat in
the vehicle. Ans. 9; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adjacent
(last visited May 4, 2018) ( defining "adjacent" as "not distant" and "nearby"
in addition to "having a common endpoint or border"). Further, according to
the Examiner, because Kemle discloses seat occupancy sensors measuring
each vehicle occupant, it discloses a seat occupancy sensor in the front
passenger seat, which is adjacent the air return vent. Ans. 9. In such a case,
when the front passenger seat is occupied, Kemle' s system detects
occupancy of a passenger seat adjacent a cabin air return vent and sets
recirculation of the return vent in response to a fogging probability and
detected occupancy.
The Examiner has the better of the argument. Because Kemle
discloses seat occupancy sensors measuring each vehicle occupant, one
skilled in the art would understand that Kemle discloses a seat occupancy
sensor in the front passenger seat, which is adjacent the air return vent, even
accepting Appellants' proposed construction of the term "adjacent." Ans. 9.
In such a case, when the front passenger seat is occupied, Kemle' s system
detects occupancy of a passenger seat adjacent a cabin air return vent and
sets recirculation of the return vent in response to a fogging probability and
the detected occupancy.
Appellants also argue that Kemle senses the number of occupants only
to infer a humidity level, seeking to reduce fogging resulting from
recirculation of humid air resulting from multiple occupants, such that
Kemle's goal is related to fogging, not passenger comfort. Appeal Br. 4.
Appellants continue that Kemle "reduce[ s] recirculation based on the
4
Appeal 2017-001143
Application 13/625,199
number of occupants," whereas Appellants' invention increases recirculation
when "no occupant is detected in the location where passenger discomfort
could arise." Id. Appellants conclude that detection of a total number of
occupants is not equivalent to detecting occupation of a particular seating
location. Id.
While we agree with Appellants that detecting a total number of
occupants is not the same as detecting occupation of a particular seating
location, as explained above, when Kemle' s front passenger seat is occupied,
Kemle' s system detects occupancy of that particular seat. Claim 1 does not
preclude adjusting recirculation based on occupancy of other seats. Further,
Appellants have not provided a persuasive argument regarding why
decreasing recirculation when an additional occupant is sensed can be
distinguished from increasing recirculation when additional occupant is not
present.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner erred in concluding that it
would have been obvious to detect occupancy of a passenger seat, as
disclosed by Kemle, to adjust the partial recirculation of Aoki "to provide
increased vehicle comfort inside the vehicle." Appeal Br. 3. According to
Appellants, neither Aoki nor Kemle mentions passenger discomfort, and the
only motivation to combine Aoki and Kemle "might be the elimination of a
sensor for measuring humidity by using Kemle' s approximation of humidity
by counting the number of occupants. But such a combination based on this
motivation would not produce the claimed limitations in which occupancy of
a certain adjacent seat is detected." Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. Kemle is directed to
regulating mixing of fresh and recirculated air in a motor vehicle air-
5
Appeal 2017-001143
Application 13/625,199
conditioning system. Kemle ,r 2. Humidity of the passenger compartment is
controlled by regulating mixing of fresh and recirculated air. Id. at ,r 3. One
skilled in the art would understand that the purpose of motor vehicle air
conditioners, and regulating humidity in a passenger compartment of a
motor vehicle, includes passenger comfort. While window fogging may be
an ancillary purpose of an air conditioning system, the main purpose is
passenger comfort, and we therefore agree with the Examiner that Kemle' s
air conditioning system is directed to passenger comfort.
For the reasons above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 4--
7 and 10-12 fall therewith.
Rejection II
Appellants argue claims 2, 3, 8, and 9 as a group. Appeal Br. 6. We
select claim 2 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 3, 8,
and 9 stand or fall with claim 2.
Claim 2 recites, inter alia, "a variable-speed blower," a base lookup
table, and incrementing a partial recirculation base setting - obtained from
the base lookup table - based on passenger seat occupation. Appeal Br. 7
(Claims App). The Examiner finds that (1) Aoki discloses a variable-speed
blower, (2) at least Kemle discloses a base lookup table configured
according to a calibration procedure based on occupancy, and adding an
increment to the base setting when the passenger seat is unoccupied, and
(3) Dage discloses "a base setting from a base lookup table according to a
vehicle speed and a blower speed." Ans. 7, 8 (citing Aoki ,r 37, Kemle ,r 30,
Dage ,r,r 34--41 ).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to configure
the base setting calibration procedure "based on a passenger seat being
6
Appeal 2017-001143
Application 13/625,199
occupied since it is one of a limited number of possibilities, wherein through
routine experimentation, one of ordinary skill in the art could arrive at the
solution of basing the calibration on the passenger seat being occupied." Id.
The Examiner further concludes that (1) Dage can be combined with Aoki
and Kemle such that the increment based on passenger seat occupancy of
Kemle uses the table of Dage for determining the recirculation setting, and
(2) it would have been obvious to add Dage's "lookup table according to a
vehicle speed and a blower speed" to Aoki and Kemle "to provide increased
accuracy of the potential for fogging, since the vehicle speed and blower
speed will directly affect the fogging potential." Id. at 8.
Appellants argue that the claimed invention increases recirculation
"from its normal value when [an] event occurs," but Kemle decreases
recirculation upon "finding a large number of occupants," and "Dage fails to
correct for the deficiencies in Kemle and Aoki." Appeal Br. 6.
The Examiner responds that Kemle also contemplates increasing
recirculation when passenger number decreases, which is the same as adding
an increment to a partial recirculation base setting when a passenger seat is
unoccupied. Ans. 11.
The Examiner has the better of the argument. One skilled in the art
would have understood that, although Kemle describes decreasing
recirculation when the number of occupants increases, Kemle would also
increase recirculation when the number of occupants decreases. According
to Appellants, the claimed invention increases recirculation "from its normal
value when [an] event occurs." Appeal Br. 6. The "event" is a lack of
occupancy in a front passenger seat. Id. at 7 (Claims App.). Kemle would
similarly increase recirculation based on a lack of occupancy in a front
7
Appeal 2017-001143
Application 13/625,199
passenger seat, because Kemle discloses a reverse correlation between
number of occupants and amount of recirculation. Kemle ,r 30. For this
reason, we sustain the rejection of claim 2. Claims 3, 8, and 9 fall with
claim 2.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 4--7, and 10-12 under 3 5
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Aoki and Kemle.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 2, 3, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Aoki, Kemle, and Dage.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
8