Ex Parte Ryan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 10, 201612613999 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/613,999 11/06/2009 Aidan Ryan 136306 7590 06/14/2016 IR HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. 45 South Seventh Street Suite 2700 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1683 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. 20420.0198US01 7522 EXAMINER GORMAN, ERIC DAVID ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3749 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/14/2016 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): ptomail@hsml.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AIDAN RY AN, GRACE DENG, and HAILIN GONG Appeal2014-005290 Application 12/613,999 Technology Center 3700 Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Aidan Ryan, Grace Deng, and Hailin Gong (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-19. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Claims 12 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration. Appeal2014-005290 Application 12/613,999 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A rooftop temperature control unit for a vehicle having a conditioned space, the rooftop temperature control unit compnsmg: a housing defining a plenum and including an air inlet, the plenum configured to receive an inflow of outdoor air from outside of the vehicle through the air inlet, the outdoor air defining an outdoor air temperature; a heat exchanger assembly coupled to the housing and in fluid communication with the plenum, the heat exchanger assembly configured to receive a first portion of the outdoor air from the plenum, to cool the first portion to a temperature below the outdoor air temperature, and to discharge the cooled first portion into the conditioned space; and a blower coupled to the housing and in fluid communication with the plenum, the blower configured to receive a second portion of the outdoor air from the plenum and to discharge the second portion into the conditioned space at a temperature equal to or greater than the outdoor air temperature without passing the second portion through a heat exchanger. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Fernandes Houser Inoue Grupa Lee Bushnell us 3,862,549 us 4,272,015 us 4,391,320 us 4,622,831 US 6,295,826 B 1 US 6,763,670 Bl 2 Jan.28, 1975 June 9, 1981 July 5, 1983 Nov. 18, 1986 Oct. 2, 2001 July 20, 2004 Appeal2014-005290 Application 12/613,999 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 13-16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bushnell, Fernandes, and Grupa. II. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bushnell, Fernandes, Houser, and Grupa. III. Claims 3-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bushnell, Fernandes, Inoue, and Grupa. IV. Claims 8-11, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bushnell, Fernandes, Lee, and Grupa. DISCUSSION Rejection I Appellants argue claims 1, 13-16, and 19 together. See Appeal Br. 9. We select independent claim 1 as the illustrative claim, and claims 13-16 and 19, stand or fall with claim 1. The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Bushnell, Fernandes, and Grupa disclose or suggest every limitation of claim 1. In particular the Examiner finds that "Grupa discloses discharging air without passing the second portion through a heat exchanger (fresh air channels 41, 42, fresh air intake 43, fresh air outlet arrangements 44, arrows 47, 48." Final Act. 4 (citing Grupa 8:68-9:43; Figs. 1, 3) (noting that fresh air does not pass through heat exchangers such as condenser and/or evaporator). Contending that "any portion of fresh air diverted into the passages 46 of Grupa and thereafter discharged into the conditioned space by the fans 3 3 passes through the evaporator blocks 21, 22, i.e., a heat exchanger," 3 Appeal2014-005290 Application 12/613,999 Appellants argue that "[n]o portion that is discharged into the conditioned space is so discharged without passing through a heat exchanger. Further, any air exiting the plant as indicated by arrows 4 7 is air that does not go into the conditioned space. Rather, this air is discharged to the environment outside of the vehicle." Appeal Br. 8; See also Reply Br. 2. Responding to this argument, the Examiner explains that: [in] Grupa, as seen in Figures 1-3, the flaps 45 regulate how much of the portion of outside fresh air in the fresh air part 3 will pass through evaporator blocks 21 /22, thus some air passes through a heat exchanger (evaporator blocks 21/22) via outside- air intake areas 26/27 and some air passes to a conditioned space without passing through a heat exchanger (evaporator blocks 21/22). Therefore, outside air from air inlet 43 is directed by flaps 45 to either pass through evaporators 21 /22 via outside-air intake areas 26/27 or pass through air channels 41 /42 and fresh air part 3 of the conditioned space, avoiding evaporators 21 /22. Ans. 9 (citing Grupa Figs. 1, 3; 8:61-9:22). Grupa states: the air-conditioning plant according to the invention also comprises, additionally, the fresh air part 3 having a height Hn above the roof. On both sides of the condenser part 1, that is to say[,] on both sides of the condenser trough 7, a fresh air part 3 is disposed in an integrated constructional form that extends parallel to the large-surface condenser block 4 up to the housing 13 receiving the condenser fans 11. The fresh air part 3, on both sides of the condenser trough 7, forms fresh air channels 41and42 which permit a fresh air feed-in free of pressure head while protecting against rainwater entry. To achieve this fresh air feed-in, the fresh air part 3 has a fresh air inlet 43 (FIG. 3) which points in the direction of travel (i.e., toward the front of the vehicle) and fresh air outlet arrangements 44 which are provided in the area of the opposite end of the fresh air channels 41, 42. The amount of fresh air admitted from the fresh air part 3 is regulatable by means of schematically indicated flaps 45 so 4 Appeal2014-005290 Application 12/613,999 that a portion of the air may be fed to the outside-air intake areas 26, 27 for the evaporator 2. For this purpose, as shown, the fresh air channels 41, 42 are connected with intake areas 26, 27 by way of passages 46 formed by the clearance between the bottom of the condenser trough 7 of the condenser 1 and the partitioned-off upper side of the evaporator blocks 21, 22 of the evaporator 2. Of course, proper arrangements are provided for adjusting the position of the flaps 45, which arrangements are not shown. It would also be possible to provide other arrangements regulating the feeding in of fresh air instead of the flaps 45. Grupa 8:61-9:22. In addition, the Examiner directs our attention to the Abstract of Grupa which explicitly states, "[a]s a top roof part, a fresh air part is provided that contains fresh air channels which make possible a fresh air feedin free of pressure head into the interior space of the vehicle by a connection with the fresh air intake areas of the evaporator." See Ans. 10. Thus, the Examiner correctly finds that Grupa discloses discharging air without passing the second portion through a heat exchanger. Final Act. 4. To the extent that Appellants raise new arguments in the Reply Brief~ in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.41 (b)(2), lacking a showing of good cause, we do not consider the arguments raised in the Reply Brief, which are not responsive to an argument raised in the Answer. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 1, and claims 13-16, and 19, which fall therewith. Rejection II-IV Regarding the remaining rejections, Appellants argue that "[f]or the same reasons previously identified in subsection a and equally applicable in their entirety, and for other reasons" the claims subject to these rejections are 5 Appeal2014-005290 Application 12/613,999 patentable.2 See Appeal Br. 9, 10. Appellants do not explain what the alleged "other reasons" are. As discussed supra, Appellants argument pertaining to Rejection I is unconvincing. Thus, Appellants do not apprise us of error in Rejections II-IV. We sustain the Examiner's decisions rejecting claim 2 (subject to Rejection II), claims 3-7 (subject to Rejection III), and claims 8-11, 17, and 18 (subject to Rejection IV). DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-11 and 13-19 are 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 2 Subsection (a) refers to the arguments pertaining to Rejection I. 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation