Ex Parte Smith

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2017

12822307 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/822,307 06/24/2010 Mark G. Smith 83145390 5605
28395 7590 07/28/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER TOMPKINS, ALISSA JILL
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3749
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2017 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 MARK G. SMITH
Appeal 2016-000860
Application 12/822,307
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Mark G. Smith (Appellant)1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10, 11, and 13—16.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Ford Global Technologies as the real party in
interest. Br. 1.
2 The Advisory Action dated March 25, 2015, indicates that the proposed
claim amendments presented in the Amendment After Final Rejection filed
on February 18, 2015, have been entered, leaving claims 10, 11, and 13—16
pending and subject to appeal. See also Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-000860
Application 12/822,307
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 10 is representative of the claimed subject matter and reads
10. An electric-powered automotive vehicle comprising:
a passenger cabin;
an HVAC system adjustable between a fresh air mode
wherein air from outside of the vehicle is drawn into the
passenger cabin and a recirculate mode wherein air is
recirculated within the passenger cabin, the HVAC system
receiving air through an air intake adjacent to and drawing air
from a footwell forward of a seating row;
a compartment containing a heat-producing electrical
component, the compartment supplied with a flow of cooling air;
a non-passenger compartment that is ventilated to outside
of the vehicle;
a duct having an inlet end adjacent the compartment and
an outlet end that opens into the footwell adjacent to the air intake
of the HVAC system;
a valve directing a majority of exhaust air exiting the
electric compartment into the duct when the HVAC system is in
the recirculate mode, and the valve directing a majority of
exhaust air to the non-passenger compartment when the HVAC
system is in the fresh air mode; and
an HVAC intake door adjacent to the duct outlet end
controlling relative amounts of cabin air and electric
compartment cooling air entering the HVAC intake.
Br. (Claims App. 1).
2
Appeal 2016-000860
Application 12/822,307
REJECTION
Claims 10, 11, and 13—16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Major (US 2008/0139102 Al, published June 12, 2008),
Smith (US 3,908,900, issued Sept. 30, 1975), and Pawlak (US 6,361,429 Bl,
issued Mar. 26, 2002).
ANALYSIS
Claim 10 recites “an HVAC intake door adjacent to the duct outlet
end controlling relative amounts of cabin air and electric compartment
cooling air entering the HVAC intake.'” Br. (Claims App. 1, emphasis
added) (hereafter “HVAC intake door limitation”).
The Examiner finds that Major discloses the HVAC intake door
limitation, stating “recirculation/fresh air door (58) controls] the amount of
return.” Final Act. 6 (citing Major 129, Fig. 1). The Examiner explains that
Appellants do not give a special definition to the “relative amount” of air,
and door 58 will control amounts of fresh, recirculated, and exhaust air from
electrical compartment 70. Ans. 8.
Appellants contend that Major does not disclose the HVAC intake
door limitation. Br. 3. Appellants explain that Figure 3 of Major shows that
recirculation/fresh air door 58 controls relative amounts of fresh air from
outside the vehicle entering the HVAC system through fresh air intake 42,
and recirculated cabin air entering the HVAC system through recirculation
air intake 40. Id. Appellants acknowledge that the recirculated cabin air
entering through recirculation air intake 40 may include some amount of
electrical compartment exhaust air from return air outlet 30. Id. at 3^4.
However, Appellants assert that recirculation/fresh air door 58 cannot
3
Appeal 2016-000860
Application 12/822,307
control the relative amounts of cabin air and electric compartment cooling
air entering the HVAC intake. Id. at 4.
Appellants’ contentions are persuasive. “During examination, ‘claims
... are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification, and . . . claim language should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’”
In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appellants’ Figure 1 shows recirculation duct 36 includes outlet opening 38
to direct exhaust air from electric compartment 24 towards HVAC intake 40.
See Spec. 6:11-13.
Appellants’ Specification describes:
An HVAC intake door 58 may be provided adjacent outlet
opening 38 and is movable by, for example, an electric motor, to
control the relative amounts of cabin air and electric
compartment cooling air entering HVAC duct 44. HVAC intake
door 58 may allow 100% cabin air, 100% electric compartment
air, or any mixture thereof to enter HVAC duct 44.
Id. at 6:33—7:4 (emphasis added), see also Fig. 1. Consistent with this
description, we construe “relative amounts of cabin air and electric
compartment cooling air” in claim 10 to mean the amount of cabin air
relative to the amount of electric compartment cooling air.
Major’s HVAC intake door 58 can be positioned to allow cabin air
and electric compartment air that exits from an electric compartment (i.e.,
from battery module 18 via return air outlet 30) to enter recirculation air
intake 40. See Major, Figs. 1, 3. However, the Examiner does not establish
with evidence that HVAC intake door 58 controls the amount of the cabin
air relative to the amount of the electric compartment cooling air entering
recirculation air intake 40. Rather, it is our understanding that the cabin air
4
Appeal 2016-000860
Application 12/822,307
and electric compartment cooling air would mix together in passenger cabin
12 once the electric compartment cooling air exits from air outlet 30. Major
does not disclose that door 58 can somehow be operated to control the
amount of the cabin air relative to the amount of the electric compartment
cooling air in this gas mixture entering recirculation air intake 40. Rather, it
appears that door 58 can only be operated to control the amount of this gas
mixture entering recirculation air intake 40 relative to the amount of fresh air
entering fresh air intake 42. See Major, Figs. 1,3.
Accordingly, because the Examiner’s finding that Major discloses the
HVAC intake door limitation in claim 10 is not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 10,
and its dependent claims 11 and 13—16, as unpatentable over Major, Smith,
and Pawlak.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 10, 11, and 13—16 is reversed.
REVERSED
5