Ex Parte Hamaoka et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 27, 2012

10515196 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte KOJI HAMAOKA, HIDETOSHI NISHIHARA,
KATSUMI ENDO, MAKOTO KATAYAMA, SHUICHI YAKUSHI,
TATSUYUKI IIZUKA, YUJI SAIKI, HIDEHISA TANAKA, and
TOMONORI OUCHIYAMA
____________________

Appeal 2009-013554
Application 10/515,196
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, KEN B. BARRETT, and
EDWARD A. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-013554
Application 10/515,196

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Koji Hamaoka et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-6. (App. Br. 2). We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
The invention is directed to an electric compressor driven by an
inverter. (Spec. 1:5-6). Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced
below with emphasis added.
1. An electric compressor comprising:
a hermetic container in which refrigerant is
filled;
a motor having a stator and a rotor equipped
with a permanent magnet, accommodated in the
hermetic container;
a position detection device for detecting a
position of the rotor and outputting a rotor position
detection signal;
a controller for driving the motor; and
a compressing unit accommodated in the
hermetic container and driven by the motor,
wherein the controller controls the motor
with a feedback control, which determines a timing
of turning on/off switching elements based on the
rotor position detection signal, when the motor is
driven a low rpm, and
wherein the controller controls the motor at
a 100% duty with an open-loop control, which
outputs a given frequency and drives the motor
synchronously with the given frequency, such that
the motor operates as a synchronous motor
Appeal 2009-013554
Application 10/515,196

3
independently of the rotor position detection
signal, when the motor is driven at a high rpm.

THE REJECTIONS
The following Examiner's rejections are before us for review.
1. Claims 1, 3/1, 4/1, 5/1, and 6/1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Nishihara (JP 2003-3958 A, pub. Jan. 8, 2003)
in view of Unno (JP 62-260583, pub. Nov. 12, 1987) as evidenced by Weber
(US 5,013,990, iss. May 7, 1991) and Jeong (US 6,206,643 B1, iss. Mar. 27,
2001), and further in view of Murry (5,110,264, iss. May 5, 1992).
2. Claims 2, 3/2, 4/2, 5/2, and 6/2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Nishihara in view of Unno as evidenced by
Weber and Jeong, further in view of Murry, and further in view of Sakanobe
(JP 10-150793, pub. June 2, 1998).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3/1, 4/1, 5/1, and 6/1
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner found Nishihara discloses an electric
compressor comprising a motor with a stator and a rotor, and a controller for
driving the motor, but does not teach that the controller controls the motor as
claimed. (Ans. 4). The Examiner found Unno teaches a controller that
controls a motor with feedback control when the motor is driven at low rpm,
and is "capable of controlling a motor at a 100% duty (i.e. the motor runs
continuously with no off time) with an open-loop control" when the motor is
driven at high rpm. (Id., citing Unno, Abstract; see also Fig. 1) (emphasis
added). According to the Examiner, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have recognized the claim limitation "wherein the motor controls the motor
Appeal 2009-013554
Application 10/515,196

4
at a 100% duty with an open loop control . . . when the motor is driven at a
high rpm," as meaning a controller controlling the motor to be turned ON all
the time. (Ans. 7-8).
The Examiner also found that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have recognized the term "100% duty" to be a "duty cycle," which is "the
ratio of time that a piece of equipment is supplied with power, divided by the
period of operation before the equipment is supplied with power again." (Id.
at 8). Regarding the term "open-loop control," the Examiner found that
"[u]nder the open loop control the motor will always be on then and
operating at 100% duty" (Id. at 9), and "[t]he use of open loop control to
maintain a high RPM sufficiently provides for the determination that Unno
is operating under 100% duty in the open [loop] control mode" (Id. at 10)
(emphasis added).
Appellants contend that Unno does not disclose using open-loop
control while driving the motor at a "100% duty." (App. Br. 4). Appellants
also contend that claim 1 calls for a specialized controller that carries out a
particular motor control depending on the motor's speed, and driving the
motor at "100% duty" at high rpm with an open-loop control (and with a
feedback control) is a structural limitation. (Id. at 5). Appellants contend
that Unno also does not suggest that the controller is capable of driving the
motor at high rpm at "100% duty" while in the open-loop control mode, but
must be programmed to carry out that function. (Id.).
Appellants contend that the Examiner improperly construed the term
"duty." (Reply Br. 2). Particularly, Appellants contend that this term "refers
to an ON/OFF ratio of the PWM signal (i.e., 'ratio of an on-period vs. a
pulse cycle') applied to the power supply and not ON/OFF cycle as
Appeal 2009-013554
Application 10/515,196

5
understood by the examiner." (Id., citing Spec. 2:19-20, 3:21-23). The
dispositive issue in this appeal is whether Appellants' construction is correct.
An applicant is permitted to define specific terms used to describe the
invention by setting forth a definition for terms with reasonable clarity,
deliberateness and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
1994). Definitions of terms contained in the specification are taken into
account when interpreting the claim language. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, Appellants' Specification describes "[t]he
PWM [pulse width modulation] control refers to raising/lowering of an
average output voltage by raising or lowering the duty of pulse width. The
duty is defined in this specification as a ratio of an on-period vs. a pulse
cycle." (Spec. 2:18-20) (emphasis added). Appellants' Specification also
describes "the duty is defined by the following equation: Duty = {on
period/(on period + off period)} x 100. For instance, when an on-period is
50% and an off-period is 50%, the duty becomes 50%." (Spec. 3:21-23)
(emphasis added). We understand that in this latter definition of "duty," the
"on period" and "off period" are of a "pulse."
Claim 1 does not recite the term "duty cycle," but recites the term
"duty." Appellants have defined the term "duty" in the Specification in
terms of a pulse, and we adopt Appellants' definition. As explained by
Appellants, a motor can be continuously operated at a duty of less than
100%. (Reply Br. 2). Applying Appellants' definition to claim 1, even
assuming that Unno's controller is capable of controlling the motor to run
continuously under open-loop control, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner did not make a factual finding supported by a preponderance of
the evidence that Unno's controller would necessarily control the motor at
Appeal 2009-013554
Application 10/515,196

6
any particular "duty" in that control condition. In addition, we agree with
Appellants that the Examiner did not provide a sufficient evidentiary basis
for the finding that open-loop control must operate at 100% duty (Reply Br.
2) and, hence, that the Examiner did not establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that Unno's controller "controls the motor at a 100% duty with an
open-loop control," as claimed.
The Examiner's reliance on the remaining references Weber, Jeong,
and Murry (Ans. 4-5) does not cure the deficiencies of the Examiner's
reliance on Nishihara and Unno discussed supra. Thus, we do not sustain
the rejection of claim 1, and claims 3/1, 4/1, 5/1, and 6/1 which depend from
claim 1.

Claims 2, 3/2, 4/2, 5/2, and 6/2
The Examiner relied on Sakanobe for disclosure with respect to the
electric angle of the three phases of the motor, as recited in claim 2. (Ans. 6-
7). However, the Examiner's reliance on Sakanobe does not cure the
deficiencies of the Examiner's reliance on Nishihara, Unno, Weber, Jeong,
and Murry for claim 1, as discussed supra. Thus, also we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 2, 3/2, 4/2, 5/2, and 6/2.

DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-6 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

mls