Ex Parte ELSHAER et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 29, 2019

14667131 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2019)

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