Ex Parte AugeskyDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 10, 201713513011 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2017) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation