Ex Parte Wijaya et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 6, 2016

12695429 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/695,429 01/28/2010
28395 7590 04/08/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Halim Wijaya
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.
81200407 7901
EXAMINER
ROJAS, HAJIME S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/08/2016 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 HALIM WIJA YA, CHRISTOPHER STEPHEN VAN A UKEN,
and KENNETH GERARD BROWN
Appeal2013-009592 1
Application 12/695,4292
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, and 15-23. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed
February 26, 2013) and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed April 25,
2013) and Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed August 24, 2012).
2 Appellants identify Ford Global Technologies, LLC as the real party in
interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2013-009592
Application 12/695,429
CLAIMED fNVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates to a "[s]ystem and method for
controlling temperature in an automotive vehicle" (Spec. 1, 11. 7-8).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A system for controlling temperature in an
automotive vehicle having a driver-side area, a front passenger-
side area, and a climate control system with at least one interface
to allow a user to select a driver-side temperature setting and a
passenger-side temperature setting, the system comprising:
a seat occupancy sensor at the front passenger-side area of
the vehicle for generating a sensor signal indicative of passenger
seat occupancy in the passenger-side area; and
at least one computer-based controller configured to
respond to the sensor signal by executing software instructions
stored in computer memory to control the climate control system
of the vehicle;
wherein the climate control system distributes conditioned
air according to the driver-side temperature setting to both the
driver-side and passenger-side areas \~1hen the passenger-side
area is unoccupied and when the automotive vehicle has operated
above a predetermined speed for at least a predetermined amount
of time.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 21-23 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fusco (US 6,454,178 Bl,
iss. Sept. 24, 2002) and Kadi (US 6,718,260 Bl, iss. Apr. 6, 2004).
Claims 2, 8, 9, 13, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fusco, Kadi, and Official Notice.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Fusco, Kadi, and Pham (US 2005/0077037 Al, pub. Apr. 14, 2005).
2
Appeal2013-009592
Application 12/695,429
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1, 15, and 18
Appellants argue independent claims 1, 15, and 18 as a group (Br. 5).
We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 15 and 18 stand or fall with
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because neither Fusco
nor Kadi discloses or suggests that "the climate control system distributes
conditioned air according to the driver-side temperature setting to both the
driver-side and passenger-side areas when the passenger-side area is
unoccupied," as recited in claim 1 (Br. 5---6). Instead, we agree with the
Examiner that Fusco discloses the argued limitation (Final Act. 3 (citing
Fusco, col. 4, 1. 66- col. 5, 1. 15); see also Ans. 3--4).
Fusco is directed to a multi-zone climate control system and method
for a vehicle, and discloses that the system comprises a passenger seat
occupancy detector at each of a plurality of passenger seats for generating a
signal indicative of the occupancy condition of the seat; a control unit also is
associated with each passenger seat location and is used to select a desired
climate setting for the passenger location (Fusco, Abstract). Fusco discloses
a method (at column 4, line 66 through column 5, line 15, cited by the
Examiner) for controlling the climate control system of Figure 1. In
accordance with this method (as shown in the logic flow diagram of
Figure 2), upon HVAC controller 60 receiving an ignition signal, the
occupancy status of each of seats (i.e., zones) 12, 14, 16, and 18 is
determined by monitoring the status of seatbelt sensors 20, 22, 24, and 26
(id., col. 4, 11. 49---65). Fusco discloses that HV AC controller 60
3
Appeal2013-009592
Application 12/695,429
automatically controls the zone settings (as selected by one or more zone
climate controllers 44, 46, 48, and 50) for the occupied zones and also
controls the unoccupied zones to optimize the comfort level of occupants in
the occupied zones (id., col. 4, 1. 66- col. 5, 1. 4). Fusco, thus, discloses that
if, for example, passenger seat 16 (which the Examiner compares to the
claimed passenger-side area) is unoccupied and passenger seat 18 (which the
Examiner compares to the claimed driver-side area) is occupied, zone
controller 48 for passenger seat 16 is controlled by HV AC controller 60 as
determined by the climate settings of controller 50 for seat 18 (id., col. 5,
11. 4--10). In other words, Fusco discloses that the climate control system
distributes conditioned air, according to the driver-side temperature setting
(as determined by controller 50 for seat 18), to both the driver-side area
(seat 18) and the passenger-side area (seat 16) when the passenger-side area
(seat 16) is unoccupied, as called for in claim 1.
We also are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the
combination of Fusco and Kadi fails to disclose or suggest that "the climate
control system distributes conditioned air according to the driver-side
temperature setting to both the driver-side and passenger-side areas when the
automotive vehicle has operated above a predetermined speed for at least a
predetermined amount of time," as recited in claim 1 (Br. 6-7). The
Examiner cites Fusco as disclosing that the climate control system
distributes conditioned air according to the driver-side temperature setting
after the vehicle has been operated for at least a predetermined amount of
time, i.e., the time for establishing occupancy in the passenger-side area
when the HV AC controller detects an ignition start of the vehicle (Final
Act. 3 (citing Fusco, col. 3, 11. 22-29; col. 4, 11. 60-65)). However, the
4
Appeal2013-009592
Application 12/695,429
Examiner acknowledges that Fusco does not explicitly disclose "above a
predetermined speed," and cites Kadi to cure the deficiency of Fusco.
Kadi is directed to a vehicle navigation system, and discloses that
when the navigation system is in use, a wheel speed sensor informs the
system whether the vehicle is stationary or moving (which the Examiner
interprets as "above a predetermined speed") (Kadi, col. 3, 11. 6-9). When
the vehicle is stationary, the navigation system menu is in a first
configuration; however, when the vehicle is in motion, the navigation
system switches the menu to a second configuration disabling all or a
portion of the menu items unless a passenger is present in the vehicle, as
determined by a passenger occupancy sensor in communication with the
navigation system (id., col. 3, 11. 9--20; col. 4, 11. 5-10).
Appellants argue that "Kadi detects passenger presence in a motor
vehicle without using vehicle speed information" (Br. 7). But that argument
is not persuasive of Examiner error at least because it is not commensurate
with the scope of claim 1. There is nothing in claim 1 that requires vehicle
speed information to be used in detecting passenger presence.
We are not persuaded, on the present record, that the Examiner erred
in rejecting independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 15 and 18, which
fall with claim 1.
Dependent claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 1, and recites that "the controller
determines the passenger seat occupancy after the automotive vehicle has
5
Appeal2013-009592
Application 12/695,429
operated above a predetermined speed for at least a predetermined amount of
time."
Appellants argue that claim 6 is separately patentable because
[a] person skilled in the art would have not considered modifying
the teachings as disclosed by Fusco to include the teachings of
Kadi for at least the reason that the passenger occupancy sensor
of Kadi detects passenger presence in the motor vehicle without
using vehicle speed information. In other words, the passenger
occupancy sensor of Kadi detects passenger presence regardless
of the vehicle being in motion.
Br. 8. That argument is not persuasive because, again, it is not
commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 6 recites that the
controller determines the passenger seat occupancy after the automotive
vehicle has operated above a predetermined speed for at least a
predetermined amount of time. Claim 6 does not require determining
passenger seat occupancy using vehicle speed information.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Dependent claim 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 1, and recites that "the climate control
system has a single-zone mode and a dual-zone mode, the controller
changing the climate control system from the single-zone mode to the dual-
zone mode when the controller determines that the passenger-side area is
occupied."
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Fusco, on which
the Examiner relies, does not disclose a system that changes from a single-
zone mode to a dual-zone mode when the controller determines that the
passenger-side area is occupied, as required by claim 11 (Br. 8-9). Instead,
6
Appeal2013-009592
Application 12/695,429
we agree with, and adopt the Examiner's response to Appellants' argument
as set forth at pages 9--10 of the Answer.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Dependent claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and recites that
the driver-side temperature setting is stored in the memory, the
controller being configured to change the passenger-side
temperature setting to the driver-side temperature setting to
control the climate control system to distribute air at a single
temperature to both the driver-side and passenger-side areas in
an effort to achieve the driver-side temperature setting at both the
driver-side and passenger-side areas.
Addressing claim 2 in the Final Office Action, the Examiner cites column 6,
lines 10-21 of Fusco as disclosing that the driver-side temperature setting is
stored in memory (Final Act. 7). The Examiner acknowledges that Fusco
does not explicitly disclose the remaining features set forth in claim 2;
however, the Examiner asserts that "Fusco discloses turning off any
unoccupied zone and the system and method of Fusco reduces the influence
of unoccupied zone control settings on the occupied zone climate control
operation ([5:10-21])" (id.). The Examiner, thus, concludes that
it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention that the system and method as
disclosed by Fusco would allow for the controller being
configured to change the passenger-side temperature setting to
the driver-side temperature setting to control the climate control
system to distribute air at a single temperature to both the driver-
side and passenger-side areas in an effort to achieve the driver-
side temperature setting at both the driver-side and passenger-
side areas.
Id. at 7-8.
7
Appeal2013-009592
Application 12/695,429
Responding to Appellants' argument that "[t]uming off an unoccupied
zone is not setting an unoccupied zone (passenger-side) to the selected
temperature of the occupied zone (driver-side)" (Br. 9), the Examiner notes
that Fusco additionally discloses that when passenger seat 16 (i.e., the
claimed passenger-side area) is unoccupied and passenger seat 18 (i.e., the
claimed driver-side area) is occupied, zone controller 48 for passenger
seat 16 is controlled by HV AC controller 60 as determined by the climate
settings of controller 50 for seat 18 (see Ans. 11-12). In other words, the
HV AC controller controls the system so that air is distributed at a single
temperature to both the driver-side and passenger-side areas, as called for in
dependent claim 2.
Appellants did not present any response to this argument in the
Appeal Brief. And Appellants did not file a Reply Brief.
We are not persuaded, on the present record, that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection.
Dependent claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 1, and recites that
the controller determines whether the automotive vehicle has
operated above the predetermined speed for at least the
predetermined amount of time when the controller determines
that the passenger-side temperature setting has not been adjusted
since an ignition start of the automotive vehicle.
In rejecting claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner
acknowledges that Fusco does not explicitly disclose that the passenger-side
temperature has not been adjusted since the ignition start (Final Act. 10).
However, the Examiner finds that "Kadi teaches a controller determining a
8
Appeal2013-009592
Application 12/695,429
passenger seat occupancy when the vehicle has operated above a
predetermined speed ([3:6-20])" and that "Pham teaches starting a timer
once the ignition is on and determining whether the passenger has not
adjusted the manual temperature knob for a predetermined amount of time
([paragraph][0029][0031])" (id.). And the Examiner concludes,
Id.
it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention to modify the invention as
disclosed by Fusco and include the teachings of Kadi and Pham
in order to accurately determine the presence of a passenger in
the passenger side of the car.
Appellants argue that both Pham and Kadi fail to describe the
controller recited in claim 7, and additionally, that a person skilled in the art
would not have considered modifying Fusco to include the teaching of Kadi
"for at least the reason that the passenger occupancy sensor of Kadi detects
passenger presence in the motor vehicle without using vehicle speed
information. In other words, the passenger occupancy sensor of Kadi detects
passenger presence regardless of the vehicle being in motion" (Br. 10).
Appellants' argument is not persuasive of Examiner error at least
because it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 7. As described
above, there is nothing in claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, and also
nothing in the language of claim 7 itself, that requires vehicle speed
information to be used in detecting passenger presence.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection.
9
Appeal2013-009592
Application 12/695,429
Dependent claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 19-23
Each of claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 19-23 ultimately depends
from one of independent claims 1, 15, and 18. Appellants do not present any
argument in support of the patentability of these dependent claims.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13,
16, 17, and 19-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, and 15-23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10