David Mohr et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 23, 20212020000590 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation