Rowland, Jeffrey R.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 28, 2020

14293295 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 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.
14/293,295 06/02/2014 Jeffrey R. Rowland 83442502 6591
28866 7590 01/28/2020
MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD
ONE MARITIME PLAZA - FIFTH FLOOR
720 WATER STREET
TOLEDO, OH 43604
EXAMINER
DECKER, PHILLIP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3762
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2020 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):
MST@mstfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY R. ROWLAND
Appeal 2019-001620
Application 14/293,295
Technology Center 3700
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5 and 7–10. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-001620
Application 14/293,295
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to air extractor systems for vehicle cabins for
reducing outside noise propagation into the vehicle cabin through an air
extractor. Spec. 1:16–18.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A vehicle body with a passenger cabin, comprising:
an exterior body panel with an air extractor aperture; and
a molded interior trim panel mounted to the body panel
defining a planar laterally extending chamber, wherein the trim
panel has an air passage fluidically coupling the chamber with
the passenger cabin, wherein the air passage is laterally separated
from a footprint region of the trim panel which is aligned with
the air extractor aperture, and wherein the footprint region has an
integrally-molded undulating surface on a side facing the air
extractor aperture and wherein the undulating surface extends
laterally outside the footprint region to attenuate noise that
spreads laterally through the chamber from the air extractor
aperture to the air passage.
Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Steward US 4,781,774 Nov. 1, 1988
Wittenmayer US 5,153,388 Oct. 6, 1992
Gac (“Gac ’045”) US 6,106,045 Aug. 22, 2000
Gac (“Gac ’677”) US 6,116,677 Sept. 12, 2000
Albin, Jr. US 7,182,172 B2 Feb. 27, 2007
McCarthy US 2013/0267159 A1 Oct. 10, 2013
Hopkins GB 2 292 786 A Mar. 6, 1996

Appeal 2019-001620
Application 14/293,295
3
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gac ’677, Hopkins, and Gac ’045.
II. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gac ’677, Hopkins, Gac ’045, and Albin.
III. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gac ’677, Hopkins, Gac ’045, Albin, and Wittenmayer.
IV. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gac ’677, Hopkins, Gac ’045, and Steward.
V. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gac ’677, Hopkins, Gac ’045, and McCarthy.
OPINION
Rejection I– Gac ’677, Hopkins, and Gac ’045 (1, 2, 8, and 10)
The Examiner finds that Gac ’677 discloses many of the elements
recited in independent claim 1, including an air extractor aperture (exhauster
20) and a molded interior trim panel (panel assembly 35). Final Act. 3.
However, the Examiner finds Gac ’677 “does not explicitly disclose
the trim panel is a molded interior trim panel; and the surface has an
integrally-molded undulating surface.” Final Act. 3 (emphasis omitted).
Addressing these deficiencies, the Examiner finds (i) Hopkins teaches a
surface structure with an undulating surface, and (ii) Gac ’045 discloses a
vehicle interior trim panel that is molded. Id. at 4 (citing Hopkins, Fig. 1;
Gac ’045 3:42–43, 56–58, Fig. 4). The Examiner reasons that, in light of the
teachings in Hopkins, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found
it obvious to modify the flat panel disclosed by Gac ’677 such that its
Appeal 2019-001620
Application 14/293,295
4
surface includes undulations because this would disperse sound energy to a
greater extent than a flat surface could. Id.
Appellant argues “Gac ’677 attenuates sound passing through the trim
panel but fails to address the sound energy spreading laterally within the
ducts to reach the opening of the air passage.” Appeal Br. 3 (emphasis
added). Appellant contrasts this arrangement with the claimed invention,
where, according to Appellant, “the undulating surface is exposed to the
chamber carrying the noise, so that sound reflection paths are broken up
resulting in a reduction of the laterally spreading sound energy.” Id. In
other words, Appellant asserts that “[s]ince the insulating sheet of [Gac
’677] is smooth, it does not have the same impact on noise that spreads
along the chamber as does the undulating surface of claim 1.” Id. at 4.
Appellant addresses the combination of the teachings of Gac ’677 and
Hopkins, stating, “[t]he addition of Hopkins fails to strengthen the rejection
since the sheet material in Hopkins is disclosed as being used with the
corrugated surface facing inwards (i.e., against the duct to which it is
attached).” Appeal Br. 3 (emphasis added). Appellant argues that Gac ’677,
Hopkins, and Gac ’045 “reduce the sound penetration through the interior
panel. However, nothing in the combined references addresses the sound
field spreading from the footprint region.” Id. (emphases added).
In response, the Examiner notes that trim panel assembly 10 of Gac
’677 (which holds insulating member 35) is larger, in both the vertical and
horizontal directions, than exhausters 20. Ans. 5, 8. The Examiner provides
annotated copies of Figures 1 and 5 of Gac ’677 to illustrate this point (id. at
5, 7), and we reproduce these figures below.
Appeal 2019-001620
Application 14/293,295
5

Annotated Figure 1 of Gac ’677 is a perspective view of the interior of
the back of a passenger cabin of a truck depicting exhausters 20 and much
larger trim panel assembly 10 (on which insulating member 35 is located).
See Ans. 5; Gac ’677 5: 44–45, 3:26–29.

Annotated Figure 5 of Gac ’677 is a partial cross-section of a trim
panel assembly 10 depicting insulating member 35, and, via two unlabeled
Appeal 2019-001620
Application 14/293,295
6
horizontal lines added by the Examiner, the Examiner’s finding as to where
opening of exhauster 20 is situated with respect to panel assembly 10 (i.e.,
the “footprint” section of the trim panel which is aligned with the air
extractor). See Ans. 7; Gac ’677 2:56–57. Annotated Figure 5 also depicts
duct opening 82 (facing out of the page) at the end of panel assembly 10.
See also Gac ’677, Fig. 3 (depicting duct openings 82 at the far left and right
ends of trim panel 10).
The Examiner finds that, given the arrangement depicted in Figure 1
of Gac ’677, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
sound entering the space between panel assembly 10 and exhauster 20 would
“bounce between the rear wall and the sound attenuating member 35 several
times,” thus reducing the level of the noise exiting openings 82. Ans. 8.
Therefore, according to the Examiner, Appellant’s contention that Gac ’677
fails to address the sound energy spreading laterally within the ducts to
reach the opening of the air passage is incorrect. Id. at 8–9.
In any event, the Examiner notes that the rejection is based on the
combination of Gac ’677, Hopkins, and Gac ’045, and Hopkins is relied
upon to teach an undulating, sound-absorbing surface. Ans. 9.
As for Appellant’s contention that the undulating, sound-absorbing
surface in Hopkins is directed inwards (i.e., against the duct to which it is
attached) (Appeal Br. 3), the Examiner states, “Hopkins is used only to
modify the surface of the Gac ’677 insulating member 35 on a side facing
the air extractor aperture to have an undulating surface. The Examiner does
not rely on Hopkins for its position relative to a duct as suggested by
Appellant.” Ans. 9.
In reply, Appellant argues, “[t]he claimed invention distinguishes
from the combination of references in providing the undulating surface at the
Appeal 2019-001620
Application 14/293,295
7
particularly recited location,” and “[t]he prior art specifically lacks this
structural limitation since the prior art surfaces of the laterally extending
chamber from the air extractor aperture to the air passage is smooth. The
smooth surfaces cannot provide the same enhancement of noise attenuation
as achieved by the claimed structure.” Reply Br. 1–2.
We agree with the Examiner that (i) the arrangement disclosed by Gac
’677 would attenuate noise that spreads laterally through the chamber from
the air extractor aperture to the air passage, and (ii) a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have found it obvious to make the sound-absorbing surface,
which is already disclosed by Gac ’677, an undulating surface, thereby
enhancing sound absorption. Gac ’677 teaches that “sound-insulating
member 35 extends along the entire length of support structure 30 to
facilitate air exchange with exhausters 20.” Gac ’677 4:58–60. As shown in
Figures 1 and 4 of Gac ’677, sound-insulating member 35 overlaps
exhausters 20 and creates a long, narrow channel through which air that
enters via duct openings 82 may travel and exit via exhausters 20. Id. at
3:5–15, 4:58–5:5. Describing the arrangement shown in Figure 3, Gac ’677
states, “[t]his arrangement enables sound-insulating member 35 to absorb
and insulate sound enter in through exhausters 20, thereby minimizing the
introduction of sound into the passenger cabin 12.” Id. at 4:55–58. Thus,
given the overlap between sound-insulating member 35 and exhausters 20, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that some energy of any
sound entering via exhausters 20 would necessarily be absorbed by sound-
insulating member 35. A person of ordinary skill in the art would also
understand that the acoustic barrier, modified to include undulations
(corrugations in two directions) as disclosed by Hopkins, would improve
sound absorption. I.e., the Examiner’s proposed modification to the sound-
Appeal 2019-001620
Application 14/293,295
8
insulating member 35 of Gac ’677 merely enhances a function that this
component already performs.
As for Appellant’s contention that Hopkins positions its acoustic
barrier facing inwards such that “transferring the sheet material from
Hopkins to [Gac ’677] would still result in the surface presented to the
chamber with the lateral noise spreading being smooth,” (Appeal Br. 4), this
argument fails for the following reasons. Appellant’s argument relies on the
acoustic sheet disclosed by Hopkins being bodily incorporated into the
arrangement disclosed by Gac ’677. However, the Examiner relies on the
general teaching that an undulated surface, such as that disclosed by
Hopkins, enhances sound absorption.2 See Final Act. 3–4; see also Ans. 8–
9. The Examiner’s rejection need not directly physically substitute the
acoustic sheet of Hopkins, along with any associated positioning or
connections, into Gac ’677’s arrangement. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d
1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Furthermore, Hopkins states, “[t]he illustrated acoustic sheet material
can readily be bent and folded, corrugated face inwards, around noisy
ducting or other items to be covered, without risk of the foam layer cracking
or tearing.” Hopkins 2:31–3:1 (emphasis added). Thus, considering that
Hopkins intends the corrugated surface to be directed toward the source of
noise, which is the same orientation as what is proposed in the Examiner’s
rejection, Appellant’s argument based on a bodily incorporation of the
acoustic sheet of Hopkins is without merit.

2 Appellant does not dispute that an undulating surface improves sound
absorption relative to a smooth surface.
Appeal 2019-001620
Application 14/293,295
9
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues, for the first time, that the
Examiner provides an inadequate rationale for combining Gac ’677 and
Hopkins such that the resultant undulating surface would face the air
extractor aperture. Reply Br. 2. This argument fails to apprise us of
Examiner error inasmuch as the sound-insulating member 35 of Gac ’677 is
already in this location (see Gac ’677 4:58–60, Fig. 4), and the Examiner’s
proposed modification merely changes the surface of the sound-insulating
member 35 of Gac ’677 from smooth to undulated, as taught by Hopkins
(see Hopkins 2:31–33; Final Act. 4), to enhance sound absorption.
Providing the undulations on the surface facing the exhauster 20 in Gac
’677, rather than away from exhauster 20, is in accordance with the
Examiner’s stated rationale as well as in accordance with how Hopkins uses
its sheet material where the corrugated surface faces inwards (toward the
source of noise).
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments in support of the
patentability of claim 1, but find them unavailing. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of claim 1. Appellant makes no additional arguments for
claims 2, 8, and 10, which depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. 4.
Accordingly, claims 2, 8, and 10 fall with claim 1.
Rejections II–V– Gac ’677, Hopkins, Gac ’045, Albin, Wittenmayer,
Steward, and McCarthy (claims 3–5, 7, and 9)
Appellant does not make arguments for the patentability of claims 3–
5, 7, and 9 aside from those discussed above regarding claim 1. See Appeal
Br. 2–6. Accordingly, for the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claims 3–5, 7, and 9 (Rejections II–V).
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
Appeal 2019-001620
Application 14/293,295
10
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 8, 10 103(a) Gac ’677, Hopkins,
Gac ’045
1, 2, 8, 10
3, 4 103(a) Gac ’677, Hopkins,
Gac ’045, Albin
3, 4
5 103(a) Gac ’677, Hopkins,
Gac ’045, Albin,
Wittenmayer
5
7 103(a) Gac ’677, Hopkins,
Gac ’045, Steward
7
9 103(a) Gac ’677, Hopkins,
Gac ’045, McCarthy
9
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7–10

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