10911060 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2013)

Ex Parte Wollenhaupt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 6, 2013

10911060 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2013)

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. 10/911,060 08/03/2004 Ralf Wollenhaupt 11150/44A 8654 26646 7590 02/06/2013 KENYON & KENYON LLP ONE BROADWAY NEW YORK, NY 10004 EXAMINER WILSON, GREGORY A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3749 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/06/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RALF WOLLENHAUPT, MATTHIAS PIETSCH, and MATTHIAS MICHANICKI ____________ Appeal 2011-011682 Application 10/911,060 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, LINDA E. HORNER, and ANTON W. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Ralf Wollenhaupt et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2011-011682 Application 10/911,060 2 THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention “relates to a method for controlling an apparatus for air conditioning a vehicle seat, which includes at least one heating device for heating the vehicle seat and at least one ventilating device for ventilating the vehicle seat.” Spec. 1, ll. 10-14. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for controlling an apparatus for air conditioning a vehicle, the apparatus including at least one heating device configured to heat the vehicle seat and at least one ventilation device configured to ventilate the vehicle seat, comprising: when the ventilation device is manually switched on, automatically regulating the heating device to heat the seat at least as a function of a seat surface temperature. THE EVIDENCE The Examiner relies upon the following evidence: Schuller US 5,921,314 Jul. 13, 1999 Yoshinori US 6,105,667 Aug. 22, 2000 THE REJECTIONS Appellants seek review of the following rejections: 1. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Schuller. 2. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Yoshinori. 3. Claims 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yoshinori. Appeal 2011-011682 Application 10/911,060 3 PROCEDURAL HISTORY The claims on appeal were before us in prior appeal 2007-3142, decided March 13, 2008, in which the Board reversed the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-5, 10-16, and 18-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Orizaris (US 6,186,592 B1; iss. February 13, 2001) and claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Faust (US 5,934,748; iss. August 10, 1999). Subsequent to the Board’s decision, the Examiner reopened prosecution and rejected the claims in view of Schuller and Yoshinori as set forth supra. Final Office Action, dated Dec. 19, 2008. Appellants appeal the rejections set forth in the Final Office Action. App. Br. 3-4. CONTENTIONS Appellants argue the claims subject to the first and second grounds of rejection (i.e., claims 1-19) as a group. App. Br. 4-7 (first ground); id. at 7-9 (second ground). We select claim 1 as the representative claim for each ground of rejection, and claims 2-19 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). With regard to the third ground of rejection, Appellants argue only that Yoshinori does not render unpatentable claims 20-23 by virtue of their dependency from independent claim 19, which Appellants argue is patentable over Yoshinori for the reasons set forth in the arguments rebutting the anticipation rejection of claim 1. App. Br. 9. As such, the outcome of this appeal turns on our determination of whether Schuller or Yoshinori discloses the method of claim 1. Appeal 2011-011682 Application 10/911,060 4 ANALYSIS Claim Construction Independent claim 1 is directed to a method for controlling an apparatus for air conditioning a vehicle, where the apparatus includes a heating device configured to heat the vehicle seat and a ventilation device configured to ventilate the vehicle seat. Claim 1 recites a single method step, which calls for, “when the ventilation device is manually switched on, automatically regulating the heating device to heat the seat at least as a function of a seat surface temperature.” The Specification describes an embodiment in which a set wheel 9 of an operating device 8 can be manually set by a passenger to a setting between certain click-in steps, e.g., click-in steps 10d and 10e for a cooling operation, and in accordance with the manual setting by the passenger, a control device 6 generates a command signal for the ventilating devices according to a setpoint value characteristic curve. Spec. 11, ll. 23-28. The control device 6 also has certain automatic operating conditions to protect the passenger from undercooling. Id. at 11, l. 28 – 12, l. 9. For example, the control unit 6 automatically generates a command signal for the heating devices according to a setpoint value characteristic curve. Id. at 11, ll. 28- 32. The Specification further describes: [I]f the performance of one or both heating devices is not sufficient for heating the air blown by ventilating devices 7a and 7b toward the passenger to a specified level, because the air temperatures in the passenger compartment are too low, ventilating devices 7a and 7b, despite manual operation, are not switched on until the temperature of the air in the passenger Appeal 2011-011682 Application 10/911,060 5 compartment has reached a specified threshold value. The apparatus is operated during this time only using heating devices 4a, 4b. If, during the operation of ventilating devices 7a and 7b, the temperature in the passenger compartment falls below the threshold value or below a second specified threshold value, ventilating devices 7a, 7b are switched off. Id. at 11, l. 34 – 12, l. 9 (emphasis added). In light of Appellants’ description of manual operation of the ventilation device, we understand the claim limitation of “when the ventilation device is manually switched on” to refer to a time period during which the passenger has set an on/off switch for the ventilation device to “on,” e.g., between click-in steps 10d and 10e, regardless of whether the ventilation device is actually operating or its operation has been overridden by a control device. Anticipation by Schuller Appellants argue that Schuller does not disclose manually switching on the ventilation device but merely activates and sets a desired temperature on the climatic condition controller. App. Br. 5-6. Appellants explain that “[e]ven if the on-off switch [of Schuller] is set to the ‘on’ position and a desired temperature is set, the ventilation device may not be switched on if the climatic conditions are already within the desired range.” App. Br. 6. We agree with the Examiner that Schuller discloses the claimed method for controlling an apparatus for air conditioning a vehicle that includes means to manually switch on the ventilation device by way of the on-off switch 10 and set-point adjuster 12. Ans. 3, 7; Schuller, col. 3, ll. 48- 53 and col. 5, ll. 29-40. For example, a passenger can set the set-point Appeal 2011-011682 Application 10/911,060 6 adjuster 12 to a setting above or below the temperature within the vehicle and then turn the on-off-switch 10 to the “on” position thereby manually switching on the ventilation device. Further, even if Schuller’s microprocessor 20 prevents operation of the air-conditioning device 18 under certain conditions when the on-off switch 10 is in the “on” position, this arrangement is no different from the manual operation described in Appellants’ Specification, which may be overridden by a controller. See claim construction infra. Appellants further argue that Schuller does not disclose automatically regulating a heating device to heat a seat at least as a function of a seat surface temperature when the ventilation device is manually switched on because Schuller does not operate its heating element during cooling. App. Br. 6. This argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, which does not call for the heating element to operate during cooling, but rather requires only that the heating device be operated when the ventilation device is manually switched on. In Schuller, the air-conditioning device 18 is operated during both cooling and heating operations. See, e.g., Schuller, col. 5, ll. 41-53 (describing that during the heating operation, the heating element heats the seat to a desired temperature and then the air-conditioning device is also switched on and the power output of the heating element is reduced to ensure that the seat is warmed uniformly and to ensure that moisture is removed from the seat contact surface of the seat part). See also id. at col. 6, ll. 42-51; fig. 3. As such, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 8) that Schuller Appeal 2011-011682 Application 10/911,060 7 discloses the method of claim 1. Claim 1 is anticipated by Schuller, and claims 2-19 fall with representative claim 1. Anticipation by Yoshinori Appellants argue that Yoshinori does not disclose manually switching on the ventilation device, “because the [electronic control unit (ECU)] 21 ultimately, and automatically, controls whether and which system components are switched on.” App. Br. 7. We agree with the Examiner that Yoshinori discloses the claimed method for controlling an apparatus for air conditioning a vehicle that includes means to manually switch on the ventilation device (seat blower 13) by way of a seat switch provided in an operation panel 20. Ans. 5, 10; Yoshinori, col. 4, ll. 31-35, 58-66. Further, even if Yoshinori’s ECU 21 were to prevent operation of the seat blower 13 under certain conditions when the seat switch is in the “on” position, this arrangement is no different from the manual operation described in Appellants’ Specification, which may be overridden by a controller. See claim construction infra. Appellants further argue that Yoshinori does not disclose automatically regulating a heating device to heat a seat at least as a function of a seat surface temperature when the ventilation device is manually switched on because during a cooling mode, warm air does not flow through the warm air passage of the air conditioning unit. App. Br. 8. This argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, which does not call for the heating element to operate during a cooling mode, but rather Appeal 2011-011682 Application 10/911,060 8 requires only that the heating device be operated when the ventilation device is manually switched on.1 In Yoshinori, the seat blower 13 (ventilation device) is operated during both cooling and heating operations. See, e.g., Yoshinori, col. 4, l. 58 – col. 5, l. 17 (describing that during heating, when the seat switch of the operation panel is turned on, the front air conditioning unit is operated through the ECU to supply warm air to the seat duct, which is blown into the front seat by the seat blower unit). See also id. at col. 6, ll. 39-43 (disclosing that after the electrical heater is turned on, the seat blower may then be operated). As such, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 10-11) that Yoshinori discloses the method of claim 1. Claim 1 is anticipated by Yoshinori, and claims 2-19 fall with representative claim 1. For the same reasons, Appellants have failed to persuade us of error in the rejection of claims 20-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Yoshinori. DECISION We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-23. 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED mls 1 We further note that Appellants’ arguments, which refer to the second embodiment of Yoshinori, are not responsive to the Examiner’s rejection, which relies on the first embodiment of Yoshinori.