FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 7, 2020

2019006763 (P.T.A.B. May. 7, 2020)

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.
15/413,499 01/24/2017 Aaron Peter Klop 83742491 9819
121691 7590 05/07/2020
Ford Global Technologies, LLC/
King & Schickli, PLLC
800 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 200
Lexington, KY 40503
EXAMINER
VANAMAN, FRANK BENNETT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/07/2020 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):
laura@iplaw1.net
uspto@iplaw1.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte AARON PETER KLOP, DAVID BRIAN GLICKMAN,
ROBERT H. VASBINDER, and RONALD L. ANDERSON

Appeal 2019-006763
Application 15/413,499
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant, Ford Global Technologies, LLC,1 appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1– 20. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.

1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies itself as the sole real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-006763
Application 15/413,499

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification
The Specification “relates generally to grille shutters and actuators for
opening and closing vehicle grille openings.” Spec. ¶1.
The Claims
Claims 1–20 are rejected. Final Act. 1. No other claims are pending.
Id. Claims 1, 10, and 15 are independent. Appeal Br. 18–20 (Claims App.).
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below.
1. A flush-mounted active grille shutter system,
comprising:
a grille defining a plurality of airflow openings and
including a plurality of bushings; and
a single vertically translatable blocking member
translatable along guide slots defined by the plurality of
bushings between a fully open position exposing the plurality of
airflow openings and a fully closed position blocking the
plurality of airflow openings.
Id. at 18.
The Examiner’s Rejection
The rejection before us is of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over US 2012/0043146 A1, published Feb. 23, 2012
(“Schneider”) and WO 2015/171623 A1, published Nov. 12, 2015
(“Manhire”). Final Act. 2.
DISCUSSION
The Independent Claims (Claims 1, 10, and 15)
Appellant argues together the independent claims, which are claims 1,
10, and 15. Appeal Br. 10–15. We choose claim 1 as representative. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-006763
Application 15/413,499

3
Schneider discloses “a radiator grill[e] for a motor vehicle.”
Schneider ¶1. The Examiner found that Schneider teaches all of the subject
matter of claim 1, except that instead of specifically teaching “a vertically
translatable single blocking member operable in a vertical direction, driven
by an actuator mounted on an actuator bracket having a vertical orientation
and bracket arms attached to the grill[e],” as recited in claim 1, Schneider
only generally teaches “that the vanes may be driven by an unillustrated
actuator.” Final Act. 2 (citing Schneider ¶¶60, 63, Figs. 1–3); see also id. at
4 (“Schneider teaches a vane arrangement as claimed, but is unspecific on
the actuator structure.”).
Manhire discloses “an active grille shutter or vane system for a
vehicle having a curvilinear exterior grille.” Manhire 1:5–6. The Examiner
found that Manhire teaches the missing limitation. Final Act. 2–3 (citing
various reference numerals from Manhire’s Figures); see also id. at 4
(“Manhire teaches an arrangement for an analogously oriented arrangement
which employs a single vertical blocking member driven by an actuator
arrangement mounted to a bracket having a vertical orientation and at least
two bracket legs, as claimed.”).
The Examiner concluded:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention and/or at the time of filing to provide
the grill[e] elements taught by Schneider, where a vane drive
scheme is mentioned in generic terms but not specifically
described with substantive detail, with a single blocking member
drive and actuator as taught by Manhire for the purpose of
providing a known drive element of simple documented design
and construction for the purpose of achieving the opening and
closing of the vanes taught by Schneider, where Schneider does
not teach a specific mechanism for operating the vanes, the
Appeal 2019-006763
Application 15/413,499

4
reference to Schneider resultantly being deemed ready for
improvement.
Id. at 3; see also id. at 4 (“Schneider, lacking any specific disclosure as to
the actuator and blocking member drive arrangement, may reasonably be
deemed ready for improvement, e.g., by the application of a known and
documented vane drive arrangement such as taught by Manhire.”).
Appellant argues that the proposed modification of Schneider in view
of Manhire lacks “a single vertically translatable blocking member,” as
recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 10–15. Appellant points out that Manhire’s
linkage bar 40a, 40b, which the Examiner finds to be a single vertically
translatable blocking member (see Final Act. 3), does not block any airflow
openings. Appeal Br. 12. Instead, Appellant further points out, “the
Manhire linkage bar merely pivots each of the Manhire vanes 29a, 29b, 31a,
31b between an open and a closed configuration,” and “[i]t is the vane
arrangement, i.e. a plurality of individual pivoting vanes 29a, 29b, 31a, 31b,
that operates to prevent or allow airflow []through Manhire’s grille
openings.” Id. at 13.
This argument is not persuasive because, as the Examiner points out,
“Appellant’s own single blocking ‘member’ (320 in general) is likewise
actually comprised of a plurality of separately identified parts.” Ans. 6
(citing Spec. ¶¶20–24, 27, Figs. 3–4). For example, the Specification states:
“The flush-mounted active grille shutter system 300 comprises a translatable
blocking member 320 including a plurality of vanes 340 dimensioned to
block airflow through airflow openings 220 when positioned appropriately.”
Spec. ¶20; see also Appeal Br. 7 (Appellant’s “Summary of Claimed Subject
Matter” identifying reference numeral 320 as a “single vertically translatable
blocking member”).
Appeal 2019-006763
Application 15/413,499

5
Appellant also argues that, even “if . . . Manhire’s entire assembly
including linkage bar 40a, 40b and vanes 28 is construed as a single
blocking member, the Appellant’s claim limitation is still not met.” Appeal
Br. 13. This is so, according to Appellant, because “Manhire’s vanes 28
clearly do not translate vertically, but instead are expressly taught to pivot.”
Id. Appeal Br. 13. This argument is not persuasive.
First, the claim language does exclude pivoting or non-vertical
translation. It requires vertical translation but that translation need not be
exclusively vertical. Indeed, Appellant’s Specification does not disclose
exclusively vertical translation. Instead, it discloses rotational movement
that includes both horizontal and vertical elements. See Spec. Fig. 4 (curved
arrows indicating path of translation).
Second, the rejection does not bodily incorporate Manhire’s vanes
into Schneider. As found by the Examiner, Schneider’s existing “vanes (16)
. . . traverse vertically between a fully open position and a fully closed fluid-
tight position.” Final Act. 2 (citing Schneider Fig. 1 (open position) and
Fig. 2 (closed position); see also Ans. 7 (“Schneider already teaches an
arrangement where vanes translate along a vertically extending path (see
travel paths 32, 36 as illustrated in Schneider figures 1 and 2, vanes 16 being
vertically raised in the open position illustrated in figure 1 and lowered in
the closed position in figure 2).”).
Finally, Appellant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would not have modified Schneider in view of Manhire because “Schneider
in fact does proffer possible actuator designs for its movable air flap
assembly although admittedly no details are provided.” Appeal Br. 15. As
best we can discern, Appellant’s argument is that, because Schneider already
Appeal 2019-006763
Application 15/413,499

6
includes an actuator (albeit one of unknown structure/operation), the skilled
person would have no reason to modify it in view of Manhire. See id. This
argument is not persuasive. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007) (“[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior
art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known
in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.”),
417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill.”).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 1, as well
as that of claims 10 and 15, which fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Dependent Claims (Claims 2–9, 11–14, and 16–20)
Appellant argues together under the same heading all of the dependent
claims. Appeal Br. 16–17; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“[A]ny
claim(s) argued separately or as a subgroup shall be argued under a separate
subheading that identifies the claim(s) by number.”). Nevertheless, in our
discretion, we separately consider Appellant’s specific arguments regarding
claims 3, 11, 13, 16, and 17.
Claims 2, 4–9, 12, 14, and 18–20
For these claims, Appellant rests on its arguments presented for
claims 1, 10, and 15. See Appeal Br. 16. Because Appellant does not
apprise us of error in the rejection of claims 1, 10, or 15, it likewise does not
apprise us of error in the rejection of claims 2, 4–9, 12, 14, and 18–20.
Thus, we affirm the rejection of claims 2, 4–9, 12, 14, and 18–20.
Appeal 2019-006763
Application 15/413,499

7
Claims 3, 11, and 16
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and recites “wherein the actuator
bracket is vertically oriented and includes bracket arms attached to the
grille.” Appeal Br. 18. The Examiner found that Manhire’s “curvilinear
vane mounting plates 26a, 26b” constitute “bracket arms” within the
meaning of the claim. Appellant argues that Manhire “teaches that ref. num.
26a, 26b are vane mounting plates, not bracket arms.” Appeal Br. 16.
However, a so-called ipsissimis verbis teaching is not required. See In re
Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 317 (CCPA 1978) “([A]lthough appellants would
have us hold that Hildebrandt fails as an anticipation because it does not
contain a description of the subject matter of the appealed claims, ipsissimis
verbis, we cannot countenance a result which so obviously exhalts [sic] form
over substance.”); In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
(“reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test”). Thus, it does not
matter what Manhire calls the asserted structure. What matters is whether
that structure constitutes “bracket arms” within the meaning of the claim.
We agree with the Examiner that “[i]t is not clear from Appellant’s
arguments, or from the limitations recited in the claims, what specific
structural attribute Appellant is asserting is lacking.” Ans. 10.
Appellant next argues that “Manhire’s vane mounting plates 26a, 26ba
are attached to the active grille shutter system frame 12 (see Figure 1
reproduced below), not to any element of a vehicle grille.” Id. Appellant’s
argument is not accurate. Manhire Figure 1 is reproduced below.
Appeal 2019-006763
Application 15/413,499

8

Manhire Figure 1 shows “an active grille shutter system with the vanes in
the open position in accordance with the present invention.” Manhire 2:24–
25. “The active grille shutter system 10 can be a part of the vehicle grille or
it can be located behind a vehicle grille.” Id. at 4:10–11. In the former
alternative, the vane mounting plates would be attached to an element of a
vehicle grille.
Neither of Appellant’s arguments apprise us of error. Thus, we affirm
the rejection of claims 3, 11, and 16.2
Claims 13 and 17
Claims 13 and 17 recite “the rotary actuator is operatively connected
to the translatable blocking member by at least one drive arm.” Appeal Br.
19–20. Appellant argues that the Examiner failed to identify an asserted
drive arm in the prior art. Id. at 16–17. The Examiner identifies -- in the

2 Claims 11 and 16 do not recite “bracket arms,” but they do recite “a
vertically-oriented bracket attached to the grille and adapted for carrying the
rotary actuator.” Appeal Br. 19–20 (emphasis added). Thus, Appellant’s
second argument, unlike the first argument, potentially applied to all three of
claims 3, 11, and 16. Regardless, neither argument is persuasive.
Appeal 2019-006763
Application 15/413,499

9
Answer at least -- Manhire’s reference numeral 52 as a “drive arm” within
the meaning of the claim. Ans. 11–12. Manhire refers to this structure as
“primary drive pin 52.” Manhire 5:25. Despite use of the word “drive,”
Manhire does not disclose that the “primary drive pin 52” drives anything.
It is mentioned just once in the last line of page 5. See id. And as best we
can discern from the drawings, the pin 52 does not drive anything; rather
structure is driven about it. Compare Manhire Fig. 2, with Fig. 4. This is in
clear contrast to how Appellant uses the term. See Spec. ¶¶22–23, Figs. 3–4
(ref. 460).
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 13 and 17.

SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Schneider,
Manhire
1–12, 14–
16, 18–20
13, 17

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 IN PART