Ex Parte Rozman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2018

14645471 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/645,471 03/12/2015
26096 7590 12/18/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gregory I. Rozman
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.
79695US01;
67036-795US 1
CONFIRMATION NO.
6478
EXAMINER
GONZALEZ, JULIO CESAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2831
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2018 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREGORY I. ROZMAN, JACEK F. GIERAS, and
STEVEN J. MOSS
Appeal2018-004532
Application 14/645,471
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
AVEL YN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 16-19. Claim 7 is included in the
1 In our Decision we refer to the Specification filed March 12, 2015, as
amended, ("Spec."), the Final Office Action appealed from dated June 9,
2017 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed November 13, 2017 ("Appeal
Br."), the Examiner's Answer dated February 7, 2018 ("Ans.") and the
Reply Brief filed March 27, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellant is Applicant, Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation, which
according to the Appeal Brief is also the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1
Appeal2018-004532
Application 14/645,471
Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 5), but this claim has not
been rejected. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal relates to a control of a hybrid
permanent magnet machine with a rotating power converter and energy
source. Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A hybrid permanent magnet machine comprising:
a stator including armature windings;
a rotor including permanent magnets and a main field
winding;
a rechargeable energy source on the rotor; and
an output voltage control circuit including an H bridge
circuit on the rotor and configured to modify power received
from said rechargeable energy source and provide a control
current magnitude and direction in the main field winding to
control the current passing across the main field winding.
Appeal Br. 5 (Claims App'x).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
A. Claims 1, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
(AIA) as unpatentable over Gold3 in view of Wilson. 4
Final Act. 5.
3 Calman Gold, US 6,828,919 Bl, issued December 7, 2004 ("Gold").
4 Scott R. Wilson, US 7,038,406 B2, issued May 2, 2006 ("Wilson").
2
Appeal2018-004532
Application 14/645,471
B. Claims 5, 6, and in the alternative (or conditionally) claim
18, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Gold, Wilson, and further in view of Good. 5 Id. at 6.
C. Claims 9, 10, and in the alternative (or conditionally)
claims 16-19, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Gold, Wilson, and further in view of
Monier. 6 Id. at 7.
Appellant seeks our review of Rejections A---C. See generally Appeal
Br. Appellant presents argument for claims 1, 5, 6, 9 and 10 and does not
separately argue the remaining claims. See id. Therefore, we limit our
discussion to claims 1, 5, 6, 9, and 10. All other claims stand or fall together
with those claims.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
("[I]t has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner's rejections .... ")). After considering the
evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant's arguments, we are
not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the
Examiner's rejection and we do so essentially for the reasons expressed in
the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following.
5 Good et al., US 5,508,601, issued April 16, 1996 ("Good").
6 Monier et al., US 2008/0197816 Al, published August 21, 2008
("Monier").
3
Appeal2018-004532
Application 14/645,471
Re} ection A - Obviousness (claims 1, 9, 10)
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 9, and 10 as obvious over the
combination of Gold and Wilson. Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that
Gold describes a machine having a stator with armature winding, a rotor,
and a voltage control circuit, similar to that claimed. Id. The Examiner also
finds that Gold discloses an H-bridge and "that the system can be used with
magnets." Id. The Examiner acknowledges, however, that Gold fails to
expressly describe that the rotor has magnets. Id. The Examiner further
finds that Wilson discloses a machine with a rotor having magnets and that
"it is well known to use an H-bridge to control the charging of a power
supply." Id. Relevant to claim 9, the Examiner finds that "Wilson teaches
using a rechargeable energy source 62, which supplies power towards the H
bridge 72 and to received power in a charge mode." Id. With respect to
claim 10, the Examiner finds that Wilson teaches a battery having different
modes when charging. Id. at 6. The Examiner reasons that one skilled in
the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Gold and
Wilson "for the purpose of controlling efficiently the power switches of a
converter." Id.
Appellant focuses on the language of claim 1 that requires "[a] rotor
including permanent magnets and a main field winding." Appeal Br. 2.
Appellant explains that while Gold describes a rotor having a main field
winding it does not describe a rotor including magnets and a winding. Id.
And according to Appellant, "there is no rationale for adding permanent
magnets from the Wilson machine into Gold." Id.
Appellant's arguments do not reveal reversible error by the Examiner.
As the Examiner explains, "[i]t would have been obvious ... to design [a]
4
Appeal2018-004532
Application 14/645,471
machine as disclosed in Gold and to modify the invention pertaining to the
limitations taught by Wilson for the purpose of controlling efficiently the
power switches of a converter." Final Act. 6 ( emphasis added). Thus, the
Examiner provides a rationale for the proposed combination. Appellant does
not dispute the accuracy of the Examiner's statement nor argue that the
proposed addition of Wilson's battery into Gold's machine would not
function. Appellant, without more, fails to identify any reversible error.
Appellant also contends, relevant to claims 9 and 10, that the battery
of Wilson is not on the rotor and further, "there is no showing in Wilson that
would require the battery 62 'to supply power towards an H bridge and to
receive power in a charge mode."' Appeal Br. 3. Therefore, according to
Appellant, the proposed combination does not meet the claim language. Id.
Furthermore, Appellant asserts that the capacitor of Gold cannot be replaced
with a battery because the capacitor is "integrally tied into the main field coil
102." Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. The Examiner finds
that Gold describes a rechargeable energy source, i.e., a capacitor, located on
the rotor. Final Act. 5. The Examiner additionally finds that Wilson teaches
a battery as a rechargeable energy source that may be substituted for Gold's
capacitor. Id. at 6. Therefore the Examiner relies on Gold, as opposed to
Wilson, for the position of the rechargeable energy source on the rotor.
Appellant's argument that the battery of Wilson is not on the rotor is an
attack on the references individually and not in combination as the Examiner
has presented. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986);
see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981) (Rather, "[t]he test
[for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the references would
5
Appeal2018-004532
Application 14/645,471
have suggested to those [having] ordinary skill in the art."). Furthermore,
Wilson's battery is substituted for Gold's capacitor based on its known,
similar function. Ans. 7-8. A claim would have been obvious where it
"'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it
had been known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from
such an arrangement." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007) ( quotes and citation omitted). Appellant does not explain why a
battery could not replace the capacitor because the capacitor is "integrally
tied into the main field coil." Accordingly, on this record, Appellant's
arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
With respect to claim 10, Appellant argues that claim 10 requires "a
charging mode for the battery" and that "[ t ]he Examiner makes no mention
of how the modified Gold et al. structure could have its battery charge is
shoe-homed in battery charge." Appeal Br. 4.
Appellant's argument fails to identify reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection. The Examiner finds that Wilson describes a battery
that has a different charge mode. Final Act. 6. The Examiner's findings are
supported by Wilson's description that "[t]he ECIAR goes into a quiescent
state when the vehicle is not being operated and the charging system is not
needed. ECIAR wakes up when it sees the pulse width modulated signal
alt_com provided by the power train control module (PCM)." Wilson, col.
4, 11. 25-30. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to
make the necessary modifications to Gold for the purpose of controlling
efficiently the power switches of a converter. Id. Appellant's argument, set
forth in its entirety above, does not contest the underlying factual findings or
the Examiner's stated rationale to combine the references.
6
Appeal2018-004532
Application 14/645,471
Thus, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 9, and 10.
Rejection B - Obviousness (claims 5, 6, and 18)
The Examiner rejects claims 5, 6, and alternatively 187, as obvious
over the combination of Gold, Wilson, and Good. Final Act. 6. Claim 5
depends on claim 1 and recites that the stator includes "an exciter field
winding communicating with exciter armature windings on said rotor and
said exciter armature windings being said rechargeable energy source."
Appeal Br. 5. The Examiner finds that Good teaches "a stator having
windings 120 being energized/induced by field winding 114 and armature
windings 118, thus the armature windings behaves as an energy source
receiving power via the field winding 112." Final Act. 6. Claims 6 and 18
further require "a rotating rectifier converts power from said exciter
armature windings passing toward said H bridge." Appeal Br. 5, 6. The
Examiner finds that Good teaches a rotating rectifier 108. 8 Id. at 5. The
Examiner reasons that the person skilled in the art would combine the
teachings of Gold and Wilson with those of Good to include the additional
limitations of claims 5, 6, and 18 "for the purpose of reducing damages to a
generator." Final Act. 7.
7 The Examiner explains that claim 18 is alternatively rejected because its
dependency is unclear. Final Act. 6. The Examiner notes that claim 18
depends from withdrawn claim 13. Id. at 2-3.
8 We observe that the Examiner identifies "Maddali et al" as the source of
this teaching. However, it appears that reference to Maddali et al. was in
error and citation to Good was intended as Good describes a rotating
rectifier 108. See e.g., Good, col. 1, 11. 24 ("a rotating rectifier assembly
108), 37-38 ("the rotating rectifier assembly 108), col. 4, 1. 54 ("the rotating
rectifiers 108"); see also Ans. 6 ( explaining the citation to Maddali was a
typographical error and should have been to Good).
7
Appeal2018-004532
Application 14/645,471
Appellant argues that there is no support for the Examiner's rationale
to combine the teachings of Gold and Wilson with Good "for the purpose of
reducing damages to a generator." Appeal Br. 3.
Appellant's arguments do no persuade us of reversible error by the
Examiner. Good expressly provides for a system that protects against
collateral damage to the generator. Ans. 7; see Good, col. 1, 11. 6-11, col. 2,
11. 16-43, col 3, 11. 21-23, and 45--47. Therefore, the Examiner's findings
and conclusions are adequately supported by the record and we affirm the
rejection of claim 5, 6, and alternatively claim 18.
Rejection C-Obviousness (claims 9, 10, and 16-19)
The Examiner rejects claims 9, 10, and in the alternative claims 16-
199, as obvious over the combination of Gold and Wilson, as applied to
claim 1, and further in view of Monier. Final Act. 7. The Examiner
explains that the addition of Monier is to illustrate that the operations of
claims 9, 10, and 16-19 are well known. Id. Specifically, the Examiner
finds that Monier describes a rechargeable energy source that supplies power
toward the H bridge and receives power in charge mode, as required by
claims 9, 16, and 19. Id. And relevant to claims 10, 17, and 18, the
Examiner finds that Monier discloses "that the battery has a different mode
when being charged." Id. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have had reason "to design the combined machine as
9 The Examiner explains that claims 16-19 are alternatively rejected because
the dependencies for these claims are unclear. Final Act. 7. The Examiner
notes that claims 16-19 depend from withdrawn claims 2 and 13. Id. at 2-3.
8
Appeal2018-004532
Application 14/645,471
disclosed above and to disclose the limitations pertaining to Monier et al for
the purpose of avoiding energy losses in a power system." Id.
Appellant argues that the combination including Monier is deficient
because the identified rechargeable energy sources-battery 20 and
capacitors 366--are associated with the stator. Appeal Br. 3. In addition,
Appellant asserts that a capacitor is not a battery. Id. at 4.
We find no persuasive merit in Appellant's assertions. As the
Examiner finds (Final Act. 5; Ans. 7), Gold teaches a rechargeable energy
source 116 mounted on the rotor 100. See Gold, Fig. 1. The Examiner relies
on Wilson for the teaching that a battery may similarly be used as a
rechargeable energy source. Ans. 8; see also Wilson, col. 4, 11. 8-11, Fig. 3.
The Examiner relies on Monier to further reiterate that a battery is a
rechargeable energy source to provide power toward an H bridge and receive
power in charge mode. Final Act. 7; Ans. 10; Monier ,r,r 12-14. Further,
Monier describes a battery that has a separate a charging mode. Appeal Br.
7; Ans. 10; Monier Figs. 4--5. Therefore, the Examiner relies on Gold-not
Monier-to illustrate placement of the renewable energy source on the rotor.
Appellant's position that Monier's battery "is associated with the stator"
amounts to an attack on the references individually (not as part of the
combination) and fails to address the rejection as presented by the Examiner.
Merck, 800 at 1097; see also Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
Furthermore, Appellant's suggestion that a capacitor (from Gold) is
not a battery (from Wilson and Monier) is likewise unpersuasive. See
Appeal Br. 4. As the Examiner explains "[ s ]uch rechargeable energy
source[, i.e., a capacitor,] acts and behaves like a battery," because it
receives (in charging mode) and stores energy for use. Ans. 8-9. Appellant
9
Appeal2018-004532
Application 14/645,471
does not address meaningfully the Examiner's reasoning for making the
proposed substitution and as a result, identifies no reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection.
We therefore sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 9, 10, and in
the alternative claims 16-19 as obvious.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has failed to identify reversible error in the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 9, and 10, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as unpatentable over
Gold in view of Wilson.
Appellant has failed to identify reversible error in the Examiner's
rejection of claims 5, 6, and in the alternative, claim 18, under 35 U.S.C. §
103, as unpatentable over Gold, Wilson, and further in view of Good.
Appellant has failed to identify reversible error in the Examiner's
rejection of claims 9, 10, and in the alternative claims 16-19, under 35
U.S.C. § 103, as unpatentable over Gold, Wilson, and further in view of
Monier.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 9,
10, and 16-19 is affirmed.
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).
AFFIRMED
10