David Mohr et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 23, 2021

2020000590 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2021)

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.
14/397,069 10/24/2014 David Paul Mohr 84080537 5681
56436 7590 07/23/2021
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
LEE, THOMAS C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2115
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/23/2021 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):
chris.mania@hpe.com
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DAVID PAUL MOHR, MICHAEL G. WATERS, and
ZACHARY J. GERBOZY
____________________

Appeal 2020-000590
Application 14/397,069
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, 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 1–17. (See Final Act. 1–2.) We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2

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 Hewlett
Packard Enterprise Development LP. (Appeal Br. 1.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed October 24, 2014;
the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed June 5, 2018; the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.”) filed April 1, 2019; the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed
August 6, 2019; and the Reply Brief filed October 4, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-000590
Application 14/397,069

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method and control system for managing
rectifiers using a controller, the controller managing the rectifiers based on
first and second input power measurements, the “first input power
measurement provided from a meter. . . . [that] delivers input power to a
rectifier which delivers power to a load” and “[the] second input power
measurement provided from the rectifier.” (Spec. ¶ 43, Abstr.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A controller to manage multiple rectifiers, the controller
comprising:
a meter interface, coupled to a meter that delivers power
to multiple rectifiers, to receive a first input power
measurement provided from the meter; and
a rectifier interface, coupled to multiple rectifiers that
deliver power to a load, to receive at least a second input power
measurement provided from the multiple rectifiers;
a management module, coupled to the multiple rectifiers,
to, manage the multiple rectifiers via controlling the delivery of
power to the multiple rectifiers based on the first input power
measurement and the second input power measurement.
(Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.).)

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Behrens et al.
(“Behrens”)

US 2005/0050272 A1 Mar. 3, 2005
Prasad et al. (“Prasad”)

US 2009/0237963 A1 Sept. 24, 2009
Appeal 2020-000590
Application 14/397,069

3
Divan (“Divan”)

US 2009/0296298 A1 Dec. 3, 2009
Familiant et al.
(“Familiant”)

US 2013/0080793 A1

Mar. 28, 2013
Royak et al. (“Royak”)

US 2013/0094258 A1 Apr. 18, 2013

REJECTIONS
Claims 4, 5, 7, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite. (Final Act. 2.)
Claims 1, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, and 16 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Divan in view of Royak.
(Final Act. 3–8.)
Claims 2, 3, 9, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Divan in view of Royak and Behrens. (Final Act.
8–9.)
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Divan in view of Royak and Familiant. (Final Act. 10.)
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Divan in view of Royak and Prasad. (Final Act. 10–11.)

ANALYSIS
Section 112, Second Paragraph Rejection
Appellant acknowledges the rejection of claims 4, 5, 7, and 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite, and states “the
rejection under 35 USC 112(b) is not being appealed herein.” Appeal Br. 3.
As Appellant does not identify any error in the Examiner’s indefiniteness
Appeal 2020-000590
Application 14/397,069

4
rejection of these claims, there are no issues for us to decide with respect to
this rejection, and we sustain it pro forma.
§ 103(a) Rejections
Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error
in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985–86 (Fed. Cir.
2006). We review the appealed obviousness rejections of claims 1–3, 6, 8,
9, and 11–17 for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in
light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), (cited with approval in In
re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the
Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the
examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering the evidence presented in this
Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded that
Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action
and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
With respect to claim 1, Appellant contends the art cited by the
Examiner does not teach or suggest “controlling the delivery of power to the
multiple rectifiers, based on [a first input power measurement provided from
a meter that delivers power to multiple rectifiers, and a second input power
measurement provided from the multiple rectifiers],” as claimed. (Appeal
Br. 4.) In particular, Appellant argues “power from the rectifier 10 [in
Royak] to the load 6 is controlled based, in part, on command values at the
rectifier output” (Reply Br. 4), but
inspection of FIG. 1 of Royak in particular shows that there are
no control signals that control the amount of power provided to
the active rectifier 10 from the power source 4 (via a filter 30).
Appeal 2020-000590
Application 14/397,069

5
The control signals 102 [in Royak] are input to and control the
rectifier 10—i.e., controlling the amount of power that the
rectifier 10 provides, not the amount of power that is provided to
the rectifier 10. There are no control signals that can colorably
be said to control the amount of power that the power source 4
provides to the rectifier 10
(Appeal Br. 5 (citing Royak ¶¶ 27–28, Fig. 1)). Appellant further argues
“claim 1 explicitly recites multiple rectifiers. . . . By comparison, the applied
art describes a single rectifier 10 made up of multiple switches S1–S6. . . .
That such a single rectifier is made up of multiple switches S1–S6 does not
make each switch a rectifier.” (Appeal Br. 5 (citing Royak ¶ 24).)
We do not agree with Appellant’s arguments. Instead, we agree with
the Examiner’s findings. (Final Act. 3–6; Ans. 11–15.) In particular, we
agree with the Examiner’s findings that (i) Royak’s synchronous-to-
stationary converter 116 and gate pulse generator 130 teach the claimed
management module managing (via switching control signals 102, see Fig. 1
of Royak) multiple rectifiers (switching devices S1–S6) via controlling the
delivery of power to the multiple rectifiers (as claimed) based on (i) a first
input power measurement (“[T]he measured voltage and/or current values
[received by line synchronization hardware 118] corresponding to the power
delivered by the AC source 4,” see Royak ¶ 27) and (ii) a second input
power measurement (“the DC voltage and/or current at the rectifier output”
used for “closed loop control of the DC output of the active rectifier 10,” see
Royak ¶¶ 25, 28). (Ans. 13–14 (citing Royak ¶¶ 24, 27–28, Fig. 1); Final
Act. 4–5.) Appellant’s argument that Royak merely “describes a single
rectifier 10 made up of multiple switches S1–S6” instead of “multiple
rectifiers” as claimed, is unpersuasive. (See Appeal Br. 5.) The argument
ignores Royak’s disclosure of “IGBT type switching devices S1–S6 of the
Appeal 2020-000590
Application 14/397,069

6
rectifier 10, wherein other forms of rectifier switching devices can be used
having appropriate control terminals operated according to the switching
control signals 102 (e.g., semiconductor-based switches such as silicon
controlled rectifiers (SCRs)[)].” (See Royak ¶ 24 (emphasis added);
Ans. 13–14 (citing Royak ¶ 24); Final Act. 4.)
Appellant’s additional arguments regarding Royak’s lack of “control
signals that can colorably be said to control the amount of power that the
power source 4 provides to the rectifier” are unpersuasive because the
arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. (See Appeal
Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 3.) Claim 1 generically recites “manage the
multiple rectifiers via controlling the delivery of power to the multiple
rectifiers,” which does not require controlling the amount of power that the
power source provides to the rectifier (as Appellant argues, see id.).
Appellant’s Specification similarly does not require the control of power to
be performed exclusively by controlling an amount of power provided to the
rectifier from its power source.3 Independent claim 12 (reciting “managing
the rectifier and the different rectifier via control of power to the rectifier
and the different rectifier,” and discussed by Appellant in the Reply Brief at
page 4) also fails to recite or require controlling the amount of power that
the power source provides to rectifiers (as Appellant argues). In view of the
broad language of claims 1 and 12, we agree with the Examiner that

3 Rather, the Specification explains that “controller 102 manages the rectifier
118 by performing at least one of: disabling through a switch . . . within the
rectifier 118, adjusting the input power 114 higher or lower provided to the
rectifier 118 through an electrical device . . . , detecting a power failure
within the rectifier 118, and monitoring a status of the rectifier 118.” (See
Spec. ¶ 20 (emphasis added).)
Appeal 2020-000590
Application 14/397,069

7
claim 1’s management of “multiple rectifiers via controlling the delivery of
power to the multiple rectifiers” (and the similar limitation in claim 12) is
taught by Royak’s switching control signals (102) driving control terminals
of rectifier switching devices S1–S6 “according to any suitable pulse width
modulation control scheme.” (See Royak ¶¶ 24–25, 27–28, Fig. 1; Ans. 14;
Final Act. 5.) In Royak, control signals 102 control the gates of rectifier
switching devices S1–S6 to selectively enable or disable power through the
switching devices (see Royak ¶¶ 24–25, 28), thereby “controlling the
delivery of power to the multiple rectifiers,” as claimed. (Ans. 14; Final
Act. 5.)
Appellant additionally argues Royak does not teach controlling the
delivery of power to multiple rectifiers based on “a first input power
measurement of the power provided to multiple rectifiers” and “a second
input power measurement of the power that the multiple rectifiers delivered
to a load.” (Appeal Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 2, 4.) Appellant’s arguments
are, again, not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Claim 1 broadly
recites “a first input power measurement provided from the meter [that
delivers power to multiple rectifiers],” not “a first input power measurement
of the power provided to multiple rectifiers” (as Appellant argues, see
Appeal Br. 4 (emphasis added).) Claim 1 further recites “a second input
power measurement provided from the multiple rectifiers,” not “a second
input power measurement of the power that the multiple rectifiers delivered
to a load” (as Appellant argues, see id. (emphasis added)). As the Examiner
finds, and we agree, Royak teaches the claimed first and second input power
measurements. (Final Act. 4; Ans. 13–14.) In particular, Royak’s
management module (synchronous-to-stationary converter 116 and gate
Appeal 2020-000590
Application 14/397,069

8
pulse generator 130 of rectifier controller 100) controls delivery of power to
the rectifiers (via switching control signals 102) based on (i) a first input
power measurement (“measured voltage and/or current values [received by
line synchronization hardware 118] corresponding to the power delivered by
the AC source 4,” see Royak ¶ 27), and (ii) a second input power
measurement (“the DC voltage and/or current at the rectifier output” used
for “closed loop control of the DC output of the active rectifier,” see Royak
¶ 28). (Final Act. 4; Ans. 13–14.) The “measured voltage and/or current
values [received by line synchronization hardware 118] corresponding to the
power delivered by the AC source 4” (see Royak ¶ 27) teaches a first input
power measurement provided from the meter (Royak’s AC source 4) that
delivers power to the rectifiers, as claimed. (Final Act. 4; Ans. 13.) And the
“DC voltage and/or current at the rectifier output” used for “closed loop
control of the DC output of the active rectifier” (see Royak ¶ 28) teaches a
second input power measurement provided from the rectifiers, as claimed.
(Final Act. 4; Ans. 13–14; see Royak ¶ 28 (describing closed loop control of
the rectifier’s DC output is performed “based on one or more setpoint or
command values related to the DC voltage and/or current at the rectifier
output (e.g., DC voltage reference signal or value Vdc.ref and/or DC current
reference signal or value Id.com)” and based on a “DC voltage feedback signal
or value Vdc.fbk [that] is subtracted from the DC voltage reference setpoint
signal or value Vdc.ref”).)
Accordingly, Appellant has failed to clearly distinguish the claimed
invention over the prior art relied on by the Examiner. We therefore sustain
the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1 and 12, and
independent claim 8 reciting limitations similar to those of claim 1 and
Appeal 2020-000590
Application 14/397,069

9
argued for the same reasons. (See Appeal Br. 4, 6.) We also sustain the
Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 11, and 13–17,
not separately argued.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claims 4, 5, 7, and 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is summarily AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1–3, 6, 8, 9, and 11–
17 is AFFIRMED.

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
4, 5, 7, 10 112, 2nd
Paragraph
Indefiniteness 4, 5, 7, 10
1, 6, 8, 12, 13,
15, 16
103(a) Divan, Royak 1, 6, 8, 12,
13, 15, 16

2, 3, 9, 14 103(a) Divan, Royak,
Behrens
2, 3, 9, 14
11 103(a) Divan, Royak,
Familiant
11
17 103(a) Divan, Royak,
Prasad
17
Overall
Outcome
1–17

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED