Panasonic Automotive Systems Company of America, Division of Panasonic Corporation of North AmericaDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 22, 202014803145 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2020) 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. 14/803,145 07/20/2015 HAROLD ARTHUR SMITH 11123.1040USC2 1657 52558 7590 05/22/2020 PANASONIC AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS COMPANY OF AMERICA 776 HWY 74 SOUTH c/o Panasonic Legal PEACHTREE CITY, GA 30269 EXAMINER PHAN, MINH Q ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2852 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/22/2020 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): Larry.Roach@us.panasonic.com Vertisha.Percival@us.panasonic.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HAROLD ARTHUR SMITH Appeal 2019-003860 Application 14/803,145 Technology Center 2800 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7 and 9–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Panasonic Automotive Systems Company of America, Division of Panasonic Corporation of North America. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed October 31, 2018, at 3. Appeal 2019-003860 Application 14/803,145 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The invention relates to a current sensing system and method. Spec. 1, Title. Appellant discloses that the current sensing circuit has a wide common mode voltage tolerance, measurement device protection, and is current limiting. Id. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A current sense circuit comprising: a voltage-to-current converter circuit that is adapted to receive a voltage that is proportional to a load current through a load and to produce a current proportional to the load current; and a current-to-voltage converter circuit that is adapted to receive the current proportional to the load current and to produce a voltage proportional to the load current. Independent claim 9 recites a method of sensing current drawn by a load comprising receiving a voltage proportional to a load current, producing and receiving a current proportional to the load current, and producing a voltage proportional to the load current. Independent claim 15 recites a motorized vehicle comprising, among other things, a current sense circuit as recited in claim 1. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Name Reference Date Fiegura US 6,114,774 Sept. 05, 2000 Ivanov US 6,198,296 B1 Mar. 06, 2001 Saeueng et al. (“Saeueng”) US 2006/0273740 A1 Dec. 07, 2006 Klang US 2006/0279288 A1 Dec. 14, 2006 Appeal 2019-003860 Application 14/803,145 3 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains, and Appellant requests our review of, the following rejections: 1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Saeueng; 2. Claims 3 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Saeueng in view of Klang; 3. Claims 7 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Saeueng in view of Ivanov; 4. Claims 5, 6, 15, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fiegura in view of Saeueng; 5. Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fiegura in view of Saeueng, and further in view of Ivanov; and 6. Claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Fiegura in view of Saeueng, and further in view of Klang. OPINION Appellant’s arguments focus solely on the anticipation rejection and limitations of claim 1. Appellant relies on the arguments against the anticipation rejection of claim for the remaining claims and rejections. For convenience, therefore, our discussion focuses on claim 1. However, we have fully considered Appellant’s arguments to the extent applicable to each ground of rejection. Upon consideration of the evidence of record and each of Appellant’s arguments as set forth in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, we determine that Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining the Board’s Appeal 2019-003860 Application 14/803,145 4 long-held practice of requiring Appellant to identify the alleged error in the Examiner’s rejection). Accordingly, we affirm the stated anticipation and obviousness rejections based substantially on the fact findings and for the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer. We offer the following for emphasis only. The Examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Saeueng. The Examiner finds that Saeueng teaches a current sense circuit as recited in claim 1, comprising a voltage to current converter circuit represented by current sensing resistor 203 for receiving a voltage proportional to a load current and producing a current proportional to the load current, and a current to voltage converter circuit represented by current sensing amplifier 204 for receiving a current proportional to the load current and producing a voltage proportional to the load current. Final Act. 4; Ans. 4. Appellant argues that no current is produced that is proportional to a load current through Saeueng’s load 201 because the current drawn by the two inputs to amplifier 204 are not proportional to a load current through load 201. Appeal Br. 7. This argument is not persuasive because Appellant fails to explain in any detail why Saeueng fails to teach producing a current proportional to the load current through load 201. The Examiner specifically finds that current sensing resistor 203 performs the function of a voltage to current converter circuit by receiving a voltage proportional to the voltage drawn by the load and producing a current proportional to that voltage. Ans. 4. The Examiner further finds that sensed voltage across resistor 203 inherently produces a proportional current according to Ohm’s Law (i.e., voltage (“V”) equals current (“I”) times resistance (“R”)). Appeal 2019-003860 Application 14/803,145 5 Despite acknowledging that Ohm’s Law provides a current through a resistor that is proportional to the voltage across the resistor, Appellant contends that “the current and the voltage are not the same thing.” Reply Br. 4. Appellant fails to explain the significance of this fact, especially given that Appellant recognizes that a resistor provides a current that is proportional to the voltage across the resistor. If the voltage across Saeueng’s resistor 203 is proportional to the load current through load 201 as the Examiner finds, then the current through the resistor is proportional to the load current by virtue of Ohm’s Law. According to Appellant, the voltage across resistor 203 may be proportional to the load current through load 201 only if the load has a fixed resistance. Reply Br. 2. Appellant contends that Saeueng fails to disclose that the load resistance is fixed, and asserts that most useful loads have a variable resistance, e.g., based on being turned on or off, or having a potentiometer. Id. Appellant further asserts that because Saeueng discloses several resistors connected in parallel with load 201, changes in load resistance will result in a different percentage change in the load current than in the current through resistor 203. Id. at 3. Appellant then urges that “[b]ecause the current through resistor 203 is not proportional to the current through load 201, the voltage across resistor 203 is also not proportional to the current through load 201.” Id. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Appellant has not established a premise of the argument that the current through resistor 203 is not proportional to the current through load 201. We note that Appellant’s resistors 208, 210 are connected in the same manner as Saeueng’s resistors positioned on opposite sides of resistor 203. Moreover, Appeal 2019-003860 Application 14/803,145 6 Saeueng’s load 201 is connected similarly to Saeueng’s current sensing resistor 203 as Appellant’s load 202 is connected to Appellant’s current sense resistor 204. Given these similarities between Saeueng’s and Appellant’s circuit structure, Appellant fails to adequately explain why Saeueng’s unlabeled resistors would produce changes in load resistance resulting in a different percentage change in load current than the current through resistor 203, whereas Appellant’s would not. We recognize that Appellant discloses resistors 208, 210 are parts of the voltage-to-current converter circuit, but note that Appellant discloses that such conversion provides more than mere conversion of a voltage proportional to load current to a current proportional to load current. See Spec. ¶ 18 (“adapted to measure the flow of current in the presence of significant and variable voltage, and to avoid over-ranging an analog-to-digital converter or other measurement display device”). As such, Appellant has not shown that the voltage across resistor 203 is not proportional to the current through load 201. Appellant next argues that Saeueng fails to disclose a current-to-voltage converter circuit. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant contends that Saeueng’s amplifier 204 does not receive a current proportional to the load current. Reply Br. 3. Instead, Appellant asserts that Saeueng’s resistor 203 carries the load current and amplifier 204 receives only a voltage applied across resistor 203. Id. However, Appellant fails to adequately support this assertion which is an essential premise of this argument. As the Examiner finds, Ohm’s Law provides that the voltage and current applied over a resistor are proportional to each other. As such, Saeueng’s resistor 203 receives a voltage proportional to the load current, as the Examiner finds, Appeal 2019-003860 Application 14/803,145 7 and produces a current that is proportional to this voltage by virtue of Ohm’s Law. In this regard, Appellant asserts that Saeueng’s amplifier 204 is a well-known type of device that measures a voltage across resistor 203 but does not draw current from resistor 203. Reply Br. 3. Appellant contends that it is well known that an operational amplifier is connected to a fixed voltage source from which the amplifier draws current, though such voltage sources are often not shown in circuit diagrams because it is so well known that they are necessary. Id. However, Appellant fails to direct our attention to any evidentiary support on this record for these assertions, especially given that Appellant proffers these assertions for the first time in the Reply Brief. Absent evidentiary support for these assertions, we cannot accept as fact that it was well known that Saeueng’s amplifier 204 does not draw current from resistor 203, given that such is contrary to Saeueng’s explicit description. See Saeueng ¶ 19 (“a current sensing amplifier 204 is coupled to the current sensing resistor 203”); Fig. 2. Thus, Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that Saeueng anticipates claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1. Because Appellant does not present separate arguments against the remaining claims and rejections, we likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2–7 and 9–20. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7 and 9–20 is affirmed. Appeal 2019-003860 Application 14/803,145 8 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 12, 14 102(e) Saeueng 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 12, 14 3, 13 103(a) Saeueng, Klang 3, 13 7, 11 103(a) Saeueng, Ivanov 7, 11 5, 6, 15, 17, 19, 20 103(a) Fiegura, Saeueng 5, 6, 15, 17, 19, 20 16 103(a) Fiegura, Saeueng, Ivanov 16 18 103(a) Fiegura, Saeueng, Klang 18 Overall Outcome 1–7, 9–20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation