Ex Parte HoogzaadDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 30, 201412095555 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte GIAN HOOGZAAD ____________ Appeal 2012-006223 Application 12/095,555 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before CHARLES F. WARREN, PETER F. KRATZ, and GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges. BEST, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-006223 Application 12/095,555 2 On March 23, 2011, the Examiner finally rejected claims 1, 2, and 6-8 of Application 12/095,555 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated. Appellant1 seeks reversal of this rejection pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE. BACKGROUND The ’555 Application describes driver circuitry for driving a brushless electric motor. Spec. 1. Claim 1 is representative of the ’555 Application’s claims and is reproduced below: 1. A driver for a brushless motor comprising: at least three outputs for supplying coils of the motor, a first output and a second output for providing a first and a second supply signal respectively, wherein during a first commutation state the first and the second supply signal respectively have a first and a second average voltage and wherein during a second commutation state succeeding the first commutation state the first and the second supply signal respectively have a third and a fourth average voltage, the second and the third average voltage having a value intermediate the first average voltage and the fourth average voltage, and another output for providing during one of the commutation states, a fifth average voltage. (App. Br. 11 (Claims App’x) (emphasis added).) 1 NXP Semiconductors is identified as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2.) Appeal 2012-006223 Application 12/095,555 3 REJECTION Claims 1, 2, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Wakui.2 (Ans. 4.) DISCUSSION To resolve this appeal, we need only consider a single question: Did the Examiner reversibly err in finding that Wakui describes a driver for a brushless electric motor having two outputs that provide a first and a second supply signal, wherein (1) during a first commutation state the first and second supply signals respectively have first and second average voltages, (2) during a second commutation state succeeding the first commutation state the first and second supply signals respectively have third and fourth average voltages, and (3) in which the second and third average voltages have values between the values of the first and fourth average voltages? Because we answer this question in the affirmative, we reverse. The Examiner rejected the ’555 Application’s claims as anticipated. The Examiner must establish a prima facie case of anticipation under § 102 by showing, as a matter of fact, that all elements arranged as specified in a claims are disclosed within the four corners of a reference, either expressly or inherently, in a manner enabling one skilled in the art to practice an embodiment of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 1344 (Fed. 2 U.S. Patent No. 6,396,225 B1, issued May 28, 2002. Appeal 2012-006223 Application 12/095,555 4 Cir. 2012); Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1083 (Fed, Cir. 2008). Claims 1 and 6, the ’555 Application’s independent claims, each require that the claimed driver have two outputs. These claims also specify that the average voltage of each output during successive commutation states have a particular relationship: the highest and lowest average voltage values observed during the successive states (1) must not occur in the same commutation state and (2) must occur on different outputs. Appellants argue that Wakui does not describe a driver with these properties: In particular, the Examiner’s proposed application of the circuit in the ’225 reference would appear to involve the generation of two control signals at two outputs, in which the control signals at one of the outputs have a value that is between upper and lower values of the control signals generated at the other output. This fails to correspond to aspects of the claimed invention directed to respectively generating both an intermediate-value signal and an upper/lower value signal at each of two outputs. . . . . . . [T]he Examiner’s proposal places both the highest and lowest signals (10 volts and 0 volts) with one terminal (Vw), and both intermediate signals (2 volts and 8 volts) with the other terminal (Vv). This fails to correspond to aspects of claim 1 in which a first output provides a first and third signal, and in which a second output provides a second and fourth signal, with the second and third signals being intermediate the first and fourth signals. Accordingly, the asserted correspondence fails. (App. Br. 5-6.) The Examiner agrees with Appellants’ analysis of the correspondence proposed in both the Final Rejection and the Answer. (See Ans. 21.) The Examiner notes that Appellants’ Brief refers to first, second, third, and Appeal 2012-006223 Application 12/095,555 5 fourth signals rather than average voltages and suggests that Appellants’ argument does not justify reversal because claim 1 does not refer to third and fourth signals. (Id.) We understand Appellants to be referring to the first, second, third, and fourth voltage levels in this context. This understanding was also apparent to the Examiner, who argues: Even if the examiner reads the “first signal” as “first average voltage”; the “second signal” as “second average voltage”; the “third signal” as “third average voltage”; and “fourth signal” as “fourth average voltage”, the limitation is met by Wakui’s teaching as explained above. The average voltages are: First average voltage = 10 volts at [output] Vw; Second average voltage = 2 volts at [output] Vv; Third average voltage = 8 volts at [output] Vv; The fourth average voltage = 0 volt at [output] Vw. As shown above, the second and third average voltages are intermediate the first and fourth average voltages. (Id.) This argument does not address the requirement in the ’555 Application’s independent claims that the first and fourth average voltages be observed at different outputs of the driver circuit. We, therefore, reverse the anticipation rejection. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 6-8 as anticipated by Wakui. REVERSED lp Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation