Ex Parte Kellner et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 29, 201712054537 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 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. 12/054,537 03/25/2008 Steven Andrew Kellner 226624-1 6246 91959 7590 10/03/2017 GE GPO- Transportation- The Small Patent Law Group 901 Main Avenue 3rd Floor Norwalk, CT 06851 EXAMINER LE, MARK T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3617 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/03/2017 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): gpo.mail@ge.com marie.gerrie@ge.com lori.E.rooney@ge.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEVEN ANDREW KELLNER, BRET DWAYNE WORDEN, SCOTT ZARELLA, and AJITH KUTTANNAIR KUMAR Appeal 2016-006786 Application 12/054,537 Technology Center 3600 Before EDWARD A. BROWN, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Steven Andrew Kellner et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claims 28, 31, 34, 35, 38-41, 44-47, 50, and 51 as unpatentable over Smith (US 2007/0239327 Al, pub. Oct. 11, 2007), Oleski (US 2006/0138285 Al, pub. June 29, 2006), Donnelly (US 6,308,639 Bl, iss. 1 The subject application was previously before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Appeal No. 2012-010746. See Decision dated January 2, 2015. In that Decision, the Examiner was AFFIRMED-IN-PART. Appeal 2016-006786 Application 12/054,537 Oct. 30, 2001), and Yamamoto (US 2005/0166686 Al, pub. Aug. 4, 2005); and (2) claims 36, 37, 42, 43, 48, and 49 as unpatentable over Smith, Oleski, Donnelly, Yamamoto, and Hachikawa (US 7,461,599 B2, iss. Dec. 9, 2008). Claims 1—27, 29, 30, 32, and 33 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter relates to “systems and methods for setting up and linking distributed power systems for a locomotives and a train consist.” Spec. 11, Figs. 4—9. Claims 28, 31, and 34 are independent. Claim 28 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites: 28. A system comprising: at least one controller configured to be communicatively linked to a communication system, the communication system configured for communications between a lead unit and a remote unit of a train, the lead unit and the remote unit including motors capable of propelling the train by rotating wheels of the lead unit and the remote unit; wherein the at least one controller is configured to receive a remote unit direction of movement; wherein the at least one controller is configured to examine one or more of a lead unit direction of movement of the lead unit or the remote unit direction of movement to determine if the lead unit and the remote unit are acting to propel the train in a common direction; and wherein at least one of the lead unit direction of movement or the remote unit direction of movement is based on a phase relationship between different phases of current supplied to one or more of the motors in at least one of the lead unit or the remote unit. 2 Appeal 2016-006786 Application 12/054,537 ANALYSIS Obviousness over Smith, Oleski, Donnelly, and Yamamoto Claims 28, 31, 34, 35, 38-41, 44^47, 50, and 51 Appellants do not offer arguments in favor of independent claims 31 or 34 or dependent claims 35, 38-41, 44-47, 50, and 51 separate from those presented for independent claim 28. Br. 10—11. We select claim 28 as the representative claim, and claims 31, 34, 35, 38-41, 44-47, 50, and 51 stand or fall with claim 28. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Smith, Oleski, and Donnelly disclose the system of claim 28 except for the “claimed direction of movement being based on a phase relationship between different phases of current supplied to a motor.” See Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner notes that “in the structure of Smith, the direction of movement is being determined based on a signal from an axle generator instead of a phase relationship as claimed. However, it is also known that a direction of movement can also be based on a phase relationship as claimed.” Id. at 3 (citing Yamamoto Ull, 39, 40, Fig. 1). Specifically, the Examiner finds that paragraph 11 of Yamamoto “describe^] a phrase relationship,” which is described in greater detail in paragraphs 39 and 40 of Yamamoto, “that include[s] a detection of the torque direction of a motor based on U-V phase relationships . . . wherein current sensors 4,5 are also used to provide signals for determining U, V phase relationships in the process of detecting the torque direction of motor 1.” Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to determine the direction of movement of the locomotive motors of Smith, as modified, based on phase relationships,” as taught by Yamamoto since “[t]he task of choosing one known 3 Appeal 2016-006786 Application 12/054,537 device/method of detection over another known device/method of detection is merely an obvious matter of design choices for achieving the expected advantages of the selected device/method.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner further notes that “[i]n the case of Smith, as modified, the direction of movement or rotation of the locomotive motors is considered to be corresponding to the direction of movement of the locomotive propelled by said motors” and that “the structure of Smith, as modified, include[s] controller 14 that receives and processes the information regarding the direction of movement based on a phase relationship similar to that taught by Yamamoto.” Id. Appellants contend that Yamamoto fails to disclose the subject matter of claim 28. Br. 11. In particular, Appellants contend that “Yamamoto does not determine a direction of movement based on a phase relationship between different phases of current.” Br. 11; see also id. at 10. According to Appellants, “Yamamoto examines the magnitudes of sine and cosine signals, and not phases or phase relationships of the sine or cosine signals, to determine the direction of rotation.” Br. 11; see also id. at 10. Appellants further contend that “the sine and cosine signals that are examined in Yamamoto are not phases of current supplied to any motor. The signals examined by Yamamoto are output by the resolver. These signals are not current supplied to a motor.” Br. 11; see also id. at 10. In response to Appellants’ contentions, the Examiner asserts that Appellants appear to “disregard the phase relationships based on the signals provided by current sensors 4,5 arranged for sensing U,V phases of the current supplied to motor 1, as taught by Yamamoto.” Ans. 6; see also Final Act. 6. In addition, the Examiner notes that: 4 Appeal 2016-006786 Application 12/054,537 [T]he system shown in [Figure] 1 of Yamamoto includes detection device 75 to determine the torque direction (movement direction) of a motor bas[ed] on the signals of current sensors 4,5; wherein, the phase relationships between the different U, V phases of the current supplied to motor 1 are derived from the signals of current sensors 4,5. Ans. 6; see also Final Act. 6. The Examiner further asserts that paragraph 11 of Yamamoto discloses that “the detection of a torque direction (direction of movement) of a motor is based on the magnitudes of the currents flowing through two of the phase windings, i.e. referring to a phase relationship of the supply [of] current to the motor” and that “the concept is described in greater detail[] in paragraphs [39 and 40] of Yamamoto, wherein the detection of the torque direction of motor 1 is determined bas[ed] on the information including the phase relationships of U and V phases of the supply [of] current supplied to motor 1.” Ans. 6—7; see also Final Act. 3, 6. The Examiner’s findings are sound and supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and the Examiner’s conclusions therefrom are based on rational underpinnings. Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument apprising us of Examiner error. In particular, Appellants do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s finding that “detection of the torque direction [i.e., direction of movement] of motor 1 [of Yamamoto] is determined bas[ed] on the information including the phase relationships of U and V phases of the supply [of] current supplied to motor 1.” See Ans. 6—7; see also Final Act. 3, 6; Yamamoto Ull, 39, 40; Br. 10-11. In summary, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 28 as unpatentable over Smith, Oleski, Donnelly, and Yamamoto. Accordingly, we sustain the 5 Appeal 2016-006786 Application 12/054,537 Examiner’s rejection of claim 28 as unpatentable over Smith, Oleski, Donnelly, and Yamamoto. We further sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 31, 34, 35, 38-41, 44-47, 50, and 51, which fall with claim 28. Obviousness over Smith, Oleski, Donnelly, Yamamoto, and Hachikawa Claims 36, 37, 42, 43, 48, and 49 Appellants do not offer arguments in favor of dependent claims 36, 37, 42, 43, 48, and 49 separate from those presented for independent claims 28, 31, and 34. Br. 10—11. As discussed above in relation to the rejection over Smith, Oleski, Donnelly, and Yamamoto, Appellants’ arguments regarding claims 28, 31, and 34 are not persuasive. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above for claims 28, 31, and 34, we likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 36, 37, 42, 43, 48, and 49 as unpatentable over Smith, Oleski, Donnelly, Yamamoto, and Hachikawa. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 28, 31, 34, 35, 38-41, 44-47, 50, and 51 as unpatentable over Smith, Oleski, Donnelly, and Yamamoto. We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 36, 37, 42, 43, 48, and 49 as unpatentable over Smith, Oleski, Donnelly, Yamamoto, and Hachikawa. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation