SEW-EURODRIVE GMBH & CO. KG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 11, 2021

2020005286 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2021)

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.
15/665,069 07/31/2017 Helmut BELZ 2915-58A 2900
31554 7590 08/11/2021
CARTER, DELUCA & FARRELL LLP
576 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD
MELVILLE, NY 11747
EXAMINER
AMRANY, ADI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2836
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/11/2021 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):
docket@carterdeluca.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HELMUT BELZ, BENJAMIN MOOS, and JOSEF SCHMIDT1
____________

Appeal 2020-005286
Application 15/665,069
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before N. WHITNEY WILSON, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 29–52. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to systems for transmitting
information via electric lines, and to associated methods. E.g., Spec. 1:10–
13; Claim 29. Claim 29 is reproduced below from page 1 of the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief:

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SEW-
EURODRIVE GmbH & Co. KG. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-005286
Application 15/665,069

2
29. A system, comprising:
an apparatus, including a control unit, connectable to a multi-
phase AC supply voltage source; and
a device connected to the apparatus via a plurality of lines, each
line corresponding to a respective phase of the AC supply-
voltage source, each line adapted to supply AC voltage from the
apparatus to the device to power the device; wherein the
apparatus is adapted to transmit information from the control unit
to the device over only a single one of the plurality of lines that
connect the device to the apparatus; and
wherein the device includes a voltage-measurement device
adapted to measure voltage on each of the plurality of lines, the
device including an amplifier adapted to amplify, by a
predetermined, amplification factor, the measured voltage
associated with only the single one of the lines adapted to
transmit information between the control unit and the device to
an amplified value, the device uniquely identifying information
transmitted between the control unit and the device in
accordance with the amplified value.
ANALYSIS
Claims 29–52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, for failure to
comply with the written description requirement.2 After review of the cited
evidence in the appeal record and the opposing positions of the Appellant
and the Examiner, we determine that the Appellant has not identified
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, we affirm the
rejection for reasons set forth below, in the Final Action dated Sept. 27,
2019, and in the Examiner’s Answer.

2 In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner withdraws several rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Ans. 4.
Appeal 2020-005286
Application 15/665,069

3
The Appellant argues the claims as a group. We select claim 29 as
representative, and the remaining claims will stand or fall with claim 29.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
“[T]he test for [compliance with the written description requirement]
is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys
to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed
subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). However, “[t]he invention claimed
does not have to be described in ipsis verbis in order to satisfy the
description requirement of § 112.” In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 969 (CCPA
1971).
Claim 29 recites, inter alia, an apparatus connected to a device via a
plurality of lines, and that information is transmitted over “only a single one
of the plurality of lines.” Claim 29 further recites that the device includes
“an amplifier adapted to amplify . . . the measured voltage associated with
only the single one of the lines adapted to transmit information.” The
Examiner determines, and the Appellant does not dispute, that those
limitations require a structure in which the amplifier is capable of amplifying
only the voltage of the information line, and not the voltages of non-
information lines (power-only lines). E.g., Ans. 12.
The Examiner determines that the written description does not support
the “amplifier” limitation because any amplifier disclosed by the written
description must be adapted to amplify all lines, rather than only the
information line. Final Act. 7–8.
The Appellant argues that, in Figure 1, switches S1 and S2 apply only
to a single line, L3, indicating that only L3 is an information line. Appeal
Appeal 2020-005286
Application 15/665,069

4
Br. 3. The Appellant states that, “[a]gainst this background, where only a
single supply line L3 is used to transmit information, the Specification states
that ‘the measured value of phase L3 is amplified by a suitable factor.’” Id.
at 3–4 (quoting Spec. 12:11–20). The Appellant argues that, because the
Specification mentions amplification of L3 but “does not mention
amplification of supply lines L1, L2, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would readily understand that Appellant had possession of a system in which
an amplifier is adapted to amplify . . . a measured voltage associated with
only a single line.” Id.
In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner responds that the written
description concerns a system in which the information line must first be
identified from a plurality of lines,3 and that the information line can be
identified using either an averaging method or an amplification method.
Ans. 7. The Examiner finds that the amplification method is described by
page 12 of the Specification, relied on by the Appellant. Id. The Examiner
acknowledges that page 12 of the Specification states, “[f]or instance, the
measured value of phase L3 is amplified,” but the Examiner finds that, in
order for this amplification method to be used to identify the information
line from amongst a plurality of lines, the amplifier must be adapted to and
capable of amplifying each line in order to determine which line is the
information line. Id.
In the Reply Brief, the Appellant repeatedly emphasizes that page 12
of the Specification states that “the measured value of phase L3 is
amplified” and is silent as to any amplification of phases L1 or L2. Reply

3 E.g., Spec. 7:1–2 (“Therefore, at the beginning in a first period of time, that
phase on which the information is coded is determined.”).
Appeal 2020-005286
Application 15/665,069

5
Br. 4–7. The Appellant does not persuasively dispute the Examiner’s
finding that the discussion on page 12 of the Specification concerning
amplification contemplates the use of amplification, as an alternative to
averaging, to determine which line amongst a plurality of lines is the
information line. See generally Reply Br. Instead, the Appellant appears to
accept that characterization of page 12, and the Appellant simply repeats that
page 12 states that “the measured value of phase L3 is amplified” but is
silent as to lines L1 and L2. Id.
We are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection.
We accept the Examiner’s characterization of page 12 of the Specification as
disclosing amplification as an alternative to averaging for purposes of
determining which line amongst a plurality of lines is the information line.
See Spec. 12:11–20 (disclosing the use of amplification “instead of
averaging”). Although we recognize that page 12 specifically mentions
amplification of L3, we discern no reason to reject the Examiner’s finding
that, in order to determine which line amongst a plurality of lines constitutes
the information line, the amplifier must be adapted to amplify each line.
Thus, although page 12 does not expressly describe amplification of other
lines such as L1 and L2, its silence as to lines L1 and L2 does not show
possession of an amplifier adapted to amplify “only the single one of the
lines adapted to transmit information,” as recited by claim 29 and interpreted
by the Examiner. Rather, for reasons explained in detail by the Examiner,
see generally Ans., and not persuasively contested by the Appellant, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the amplifier
contemplated by page 12 of the Specification must be adapted to amplify all
of the lines in order to determine which of the lines is the information line.
Appeal 2020-005286
Application 15/665,069

6
Consistent with that reasoning and with the Examiner’s analysis, we also
observe that none of the Figures depicts an amplifier adapted to amplify only
a single line amongst a plurality of lines.
On this record, the Appellant has not persuasively identified reversible
error in the Examiner’s rejection. See 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 . . . .”).
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Basis Affirmed Reversed
29–52 112, ¶ 1 Written Description 29–52
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED