Ex Parte ELSHAER et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 29, 201914667131 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/667, 131 03/24/2015 28395 7590 04/02/2019 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L 1000 TOWN CENTER 22NDFLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Mohamed ELSHAER 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 83494234 9665 EXAMINER TIKU, SISAY G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2838 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/02/2019 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): docketing@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MOHAMED ELSHAER and CHINGCHI CHEN Appeal2018-003022 Application 14/667, 131 Technology Center 2800 Before MARK NAGUMO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to finally reject claims 1-7 and 9-15, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 In explaining our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed March 24, 2015 ("Spec."); Final Office Action dated May 17, 2017 ("Final Act."); Appeal Brief filed October 17, 2017 ("Appeal Br."); Examiner's Answer dated November 28, 2017 ("Ans."); and Reply Brief filed January 27, 2018 ("Reply Brief'). 2 Appellant is the Applicant, Ford Global Technologies, LLC, which is also identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2018-003022 Application 14/667, 131 The Claimed Subject Matter Appellant's disclosure relates to filtering of high-frequency noise from electrical circuits and, in particular, a power converter that includes switching circuitry and an LC filter having a capacitor electrically connected between an inductor and a coil. Spec. ,r,r 1-2; Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief: 1. A power converter comprising: switching circuitry; and a single stage LC filter including a capacitor electrically connected between an inductor and a bus bar having a shape and being arranged such that current from the switching circuitry flowing through the inductor and bus bar results in negative inductive coupling between the inductor and bus bar that cancels a parasitic inductance of the capacitor. Claims Appendix 1 (key disputed claim language italicized and bolded). The References The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Perreault et al. ("Perreault") Suzuki US 2003/0210110 Al Nov. 13, 2003 US 2007 /024183 8 A 1 Oct. 18, 2007 2 Appeal2018-003022 Application 14/667, 131 The Rejection On appeal, the Examiner maintains (Ans. 2) the following rejection: claims 1-7 and 9-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Perreault (Final Act. 2). OPINION Having considered the respective positions advanced by the Examiner and Appellant in light of this appeal record, we affirm the Examiner's rejection based on the fact-finding and reasoning set forth in the Answer and Final Office Action, which we adopt as our own. We add the following. In response to the Examiner's rejection, Appellant presents argument for the patentability of claim 1 and does not separately argue claims 2-7 and 9-15. Appeal Br. 3--4. We select claim 1 as representative and claims 2-7 and 9-15 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner determines that the combination of Suzuki and Perreault suggests a power converter satisfying all of the limitations of claim 1 and, thus, concludes the combination would have rendered claim 1 obvious. Final Act. 2-5 (citing Suzuki ,r,r 2, 77, 70, Figs. IA, IB; Perreault, ,r,r 69, 72, 73, Figs. 5, 7, 9, 1 IB, 13A). Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 should be reversed because Perreault does not teach or suggest the "bus bar" recitations of the claim. Appeal Br. 3--4; Reply Br. 2-3. In particular, Appellant contends that Perreault does not discuss whether a bus bar can be shaped and arranged such that current from the switching circuitry flowing through the inductor and bus bar results in negative inductive coupling between the inductor and 3 Appeal2018-003022 Application 14/667, 131 bus bar that cancels a parasitic inductance of the capacitor. Appeal Br. 3. Appellant further contends that "just because the elements of Perreault's circuitry can be represented by a T network and elements contemplated by the claimed invention ... does not mean that Perreault somehow suggests the claimed bus bar shape and arrangement." Id. at 3. Appellant also contends that "[t]here are countless combinations and arrangements of elements that can be represented by a T network" and the "fact that elements can be conceptually represented by a T network does not mean that all such combinations and arrangements are known or obvious." Id. at 3. Lastly, Appellant contends that, in contrast to the invention of claim 1, which uses bus bar shape and arrangement to achieve the desired cancellation, "Perrault appears to add components (i.e., coupled windings) to achieve the desired cancellation." Id. at 3; see also Reply Br. 2 ( stating "Perrault describes 506a and 506b as coupled annular windings or cancellation windings, which serve to realize the inductance cancellation technique") (internal quotes omitted). We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner's rejection based on the fact-finding and reasoning provided by the Examiner at pages 2--4 of the Answer and pages 2-5 of the Final Office Action. On the record before us, we find that a preponderance of the evidence and sound technical reasoning support the Examiner's analysis and determination that the combination of Suzuki and Perreault suggests a power converter satisfying all of the limitations of claim 1, including the "bus bar having a shape and being arranged such that current from the switching 4 Appeal2018-003022 Application 14/667, 131 circuitry flowing through the inductor and bus bar results in negative inductive coupling between the inductor and bus bar that cancels a parasitic inductance of the capacitor" limitations of the claim; and the Examiner's conclusion that the combination would have rendered the claim obvious. Suzuki ,r,r 2, 77, 70, Figs. IA, IB; Perreault, ,r,r 69, 72, 73, Figs. 5, 7, 9, 1 IB, 13A. Based on a preponderance of evidence in the record, we concur with the Examiner's determination (Ans. 3) that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted the term "bus bar" as a metallic strip, coil, bar or cable typically copper, brass or aluminum that can conduct substantial current electricity and serves as a common connection for two or more circuits. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (explaining that during prosecution, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification). Moreover, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term "bus bar" to claim 1 and the prior art, we find that a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's findings and determination (Ans. 3--4) that element 506b of Figure 13A of Perreault satisfies and falls within the scope of the "bus bar" limitations of the claim. Perreault, Figs. 13A, ,r,r 57, 58, 72. In particular, as the Examiner finds and illustrates in the Annotated Version of Figure 13A of Perreault at page 4 of the Answer, circuit 500 includes a capacitor C coupled to a cross-field magnetic structure 502, which includes a toroidal control coil 504 and coupled annular coils 506a and 506b ( wherein 506a represents the inductor of the claimed LC filter, and 506b represents the bus bar) wound on a magnetic core 508 having a shape and being arranged to 5 Appeal2018-003022 Application 14/667, 131 conduct substantial current electricity from a common connection point between a capacitor, C, and an inductor, 506a, to the load. Ans. 4. Appellant's contentions do not reveal any reversible error in the Examiner's factual findings and analysis in this regard. Appellant's contention that "Perreault does not discuss whether a bus bar can be shaped and arranged such that current from the switching circuitry flowing through the inductor ... and bus bar that cancels a parasitic inductance of the capacitor" (Appeal Br. 3) is not persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner's rejection because the "specific limitation need not be disclosed in haec verba in the reference." In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660 (1977); see also In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179 (CCPA 1979) ("[A] reference must be considered not only for what it expressly teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests."). Moreover, a naked assertion that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a claim limitation, which is what Appellant essentially asserts in the first full paragraph at page 3 of the Appeal Brief, is not an argument in support of separate patentability. Cf In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2011); 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). We do not find persuasive Appellant's comments at page 3 of the Appeal Brief regarding Perreault's circuitry "being represented by a T network" and there being "countless combinations and arrangements of elements that can be represented by a T network" because they are conclusory and, without more, insufficient to rebut or otherwise establish reversible error in the Examiner's rejection. In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Appellant's comments in this regard also do not in any 6 Appeal2018-003022 Application 14/667, 131 meaningful way address the specific findings and substance of the Examiner's rejection. Appellant's comments at page 3 of the Answer and pages 2-3 of the Reply Brief regarding "coupled annular windings" and elements 506a and 506b of Figure 13A of Perreault are equally unpersuasive because they, too, are largely conclusory and speculative, and Appellant does not provide a persuasive technical explanation to support them. De Blauwe, 736 F.2d at 705. See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (explaining that mere lawyer's arguments or conclusory statements, which are unsupported by concrete factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value). Moreover, Appellant's disagreement as to the Examiner's factual findings regarding what Perreault teaches or would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art, without more, is insufficient to establish reversible error. Cf SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[M]ere statements of disagreement ... as to the existence of factual disputes do not amount to a developed argument."). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7 and 9- 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of Suzuki and Perreault. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-15 is affirmed. It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is affirmed. 7 Appeal2018-003022 Application 14/667, 131 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation