Ex Parte Augesky

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 10, 2017

13513011 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2017)

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.
13/513,011 05/31/2012 Christian Augesky 5029-963PUS-320158.000 9876
27799 7590
Cozen O'Connor
277 Park Avenue, 20th floor
NEW YORK, NY 10172
EXAMINER
AHMAD, SHAHZEB K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2838
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2017 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):
patentsecretary @ cozen. com
patentdocket@cozen.com
patentsorter@cozen.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTIAN AUGESKY
Appeal 2016-000388
Application 13/513,011
Technology Center 2800
Before DONNA M. PRAISS, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 13—19 and 21—26. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed September 11,
2014 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed April 30, 2015 (“App. Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer mailed August 4, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief
filed October 2, 2015 (“Reply Br.”).
2 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Siemens AG. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-000388
Application 13/513,011
The subject matter on appeal relates to voltage converters and more
particularly to a converter for converting an input-side alternating voltage
into an output-side direct voltage, where a power factor correction is
provided and the converter comprises a transformer having at least two
primary windings arranged in series. Spec. 1. The subject matter on appeal
also relates to a method for operating such a converter. Id. Claim 13,
reproduced below with emphasis on the key disputed limitations, is
illustrative of the claims on appeal.
13. A converter for converting an input-side alternating
voltage into an output-side direct voltage, wherein a power factor
correction is provided, the converter comprising:
a transformer having at least two primary windings arranged in
series;
a first switch;
a second switch;
rectification elements; and
a storage capacitor unit arranged in series with a first primary
winding of the at least two primary windings;
wherein the storage capacitor unit is connectable in a clocked
manner to the input-side alternating voltage by the rectification
elements by the first switch and a second primary winding of the
at least two primary windings is connectable in the clocked
manner to the storage capacitor unit by the second switch.
App. Br. 8 (Claims Appendix).
DISCUSSION
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 13—19 and 23—26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kuwabara (US 2004/0252528 Al, published
Dec. 16, 2004) (hereinafter “Kuwabara”). Final Act. 5—16. The Examiner
2
Appeal 2016-000388
Application 13/513,011
also maintains the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Kuwabara in view of Sonda (US 4,280,174, issued July 21, 1981)
(hereinafter “Sonda”), and the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Kuwabara in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 2009/0316444 Al,
issued Dec. 24, 2009) (hereinafter “Yamaguchi”). Id. at 16—19.
We will focus on representative independent claim 13 because it
contains the argued limitations that also are present in independent claim 23.
The Examiner finds, and Appellant does not dispute, that Kuwabara’s
Figure 4 teaches a converter having every limitation recited in claim 13
except “a power factor correction” and “a storage capacitor unit. . .
connectable in a clocked manner to the input-side alternating voltage by the
rectification elements by the first switch and a second primary winding of
the at least two primary windings is connectable in the clocked manner to
the storage capacitor unit by the second switch.” Id. at 5—6; see App. Br. 4—
6. To account for these differences, the Examiner relies on Kuwabara’s
Figure 6. Id. at 7. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Figure 6 illustrates a
switching power device that uses a Power Factor Correction (PFC) that
includes a first switch (14), rectification elements (5), and a storage
capacitor (6) connected in series with the primary side of the transformer,
wherein the storage capacitor (6) is connectable in a clocked manner to the
input-side alternating voltage by the rectification elements (5) by the first
switch (14). Id.
The Examiner determines that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated, based on Kuwabara’s Figure 6, “to move
Component 24 of Figure 4 to a connection point before Capacitor
Component 6 as shown in Figure 6 to provide the benefit of the higher
3
Appeal 2016-000388
Application 13/513,011
harmonic components being eliminated from the input current.” Ans. 3—A\
see also Final Act. 4—5, 7.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rationale for modifying
Kuwabara’s Figure 4 is flawed because Kuwabara’s Figure 6 does not
provide “a basis upon which to perform [the proposed] modification” and
“the proffered modification . . . changes the principle of operation of the
circuits depicted in Kuwabara.” App. Br. 5—6 (emphasis omitted).
Appellant’s argument is persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 13. Figures 4 and 6 in Kuwabara disclose
alternative configurations of power switching devices that can remove
higher harmonic components of an input current at a level sufficient for
practical use. See Kuwabara ^fl[ 5, 11, 40. With respect to Figure 6,
Kuwabara teaches that “[t]he inductor 19, the second switching element 14,
the diode 15, the smoothing capacitor 6, the current detection resistance 16,
and the second control circuit 18 constitute a booster converter” (e.g.,
boosting a voltage of the capacitor). Id. 1 6. Kuwabara teaches that turning
ON and OFF switching element 14 by control circuit 18 (i.e., Pulse Width
Modification (PWM) control) in this configuration improves the power
factor and suppresses higher harmonic waves by approximating the
waveform of the input current to sinusoidal waves. Id. The Examiner,
however, has not directed us to any disclosure in Kuwabara that teaches or
suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art that simply positioning the second
switching element 14 at a point before capacitor 6 alone, without for
example, the second control circuit 18 or the inductor 19, would eliminate
higher harmonics within a switching power source device. Moreover, one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify the power
4
Appeal 2016-000388
Application 13/513,011
switching device depicted in Figure 4 based on a desire to eliminate higher
harmonic waves from the input current, as proposed by the Examiner, given
that device of Figure 4 already achieves this result albeit in a different
manner. See Kuwabara 140; see also id. at 48-49 (“by alternately turning
ON and OFF the first and second switching elements, which are connected
to two respective primary side-windings of the transformer series ... it is
possible to improve the power factor and suppress higher harmonic waves
by approximating the waveform of the input current to sinusoidal waves).
Thus, the Examiner’s reason for moving switching element 24 of
Kuwabara’s Figure 4 to a connection point before capacitor 6 is not
supported by rational underpinnings, but rather, is based on improper
hindsight reasoning based on this record.
Because the Examiner’s rejections all rely on the modification of
Kuwabara’s Figure 4 based on Kuwabara’s Figure 6, we cannot sustain any
of the stated rejections.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 13—19 and
21—26 are reversed.
REVERSED
5