ABB SCHWEIZ AG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 29, 2020

15122854 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2020)

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.
15/122,854 08/31/2016 Sjoerd Bosga 04190-P0004A 7246
137670 7590 05/29/2020
ABB - Whitmyer IP Group LLC
600 Summer Street
Stamford, CT 06901
EXAMINER
BOUZIANE, SAID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2846
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SJOERD BOSGA, VELI-MATTI LEPPANEN,
MEHANATHAN PATHMANATHAN, ROBERT CHIN, and
YUJING LIU
Appeal 2019-003152
Application 15/122,854
Technology Center 2800
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 An Oral Hearing was held on May 15, 2020.
2 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 ABB
Schweiz AG. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003152
Application 15/122,854
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to “a circuit for consecutively reversing a
current direction in a coil.” Spec. 1:2, 3. Claims 1–19 are pending;
claims 1, 10, and 11 are independent. Appeal Br. 14–16. Claim 1 is
reproduced below for reference (emphasis added):
1. A commutation circuit comprising:
a coil connected to an H bridge, the H bridge comprising
four main switches for reversing polarity and a resulting coil
current in the coil,
a voltage source configured to generate a bypass current,
and
at least one auxiliary switch for controlling the bypass
current to thereby decrease a switch current through at least one
of the main switches,
wherein the commutation circuit is configured to decrease
the switch current through at least one of the main switches
without adjusting states of the remaining main switches.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to
comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 2.
Claims 1–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being
unpatentable over Liu (US 2013/0241368 A1; Sept. 19, 2013). Final Act. 3.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-003152
Application 15/122,854
3
35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
After the mailing of the Final Action, Appellant submitted an
amendment to overcome the Examiner’s written description rejection. See
Appeal Br. 4. The Examiner has not entered this amendment. See Advisory
Action, mailed April 5, 2018. Accordingly, this claim amendment is not
currently before us. See MPEP § 1206 (“[A] brief shall not include any non-
admitted amendment.”).
Appellant “respectfully asks that the amendment be considered in the
present Appeal since it materially reduces the issues in the Appeal.” Appeal
Br. 5. Any such request for entry of an amendment, however, must be made
by petition. See 37 CFR 1.127 (“From the refusal of the primary examiner
to admit an amendment, in whole or in part, a petition will lie to the Director
under § 1.181.”); see also MPEP §§ 714.13 (II), 1002.02(c); 1201, 1206.
Therefore, we consider the Examiner’s rejection with respect to the claims
that are currently pending.
Appellant does not present substantive arguments with respect to the
pending claims. See Appeal Br. 5; 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(iv). Accordingly, we
summarily sustain the Examiner’s written description rejection of claims 1–
19.
35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner relies on Liu’s disclosure of “Fig. 4A–F [which]
show[s] coil (22) connected to H-bridge of four switches ([20a]–[20d]),
voltage source (24), and Fig. 5A–F [which] show auxiliary switch (20e or
20f)” in the prior art rejection. Page 6 of the Examiner’s Answer mailed
February 21, 2019 (“Ans.”). The Examiner finds Liu teaches, “[w]hen the
auxiliary switch is close[d] (ON), voltage source 24 injects a current (29c),”
Appeal 2019-003152
Application 15/122,854
4
and “the role of injecting current 29c . . . in the direction opposite to [the]
switch current 29a” will “reduce the switch current 29a through at least one
of the main switches.” Id. at 8 (citing Liu ¶¶ 51, 52).
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection is in error, because “a
person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that [Liu’s auxiliary]
switches 20e and 20f do not control a bypass current to thereby decrease a
switch current through at least one of the main switches 20a–20d,” as
claimed. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant contends that, instead, “Liu only
discloses that the switches 20e and 20f ‘allow disconnection of the capacitor
24 from the winding subsection 22.’ (Liu ¶ [0057].).” Id.
We are persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error. Independent
claim 1 recites a commutation circuit comprising “at least one auxiliary
switch for controlling the bypass current to thereby decrease a switch
current through at least one of the main switches” (emphasis added). We
agree with the Examiner that Liu’s switches 20e and 20f and current 29c
teach or suggest the recited at least one auxiliary switch for controlling the
bypass current. See Final Act. 4; Liu Fig. 5C. The Examiner, however, has
not shown Liu thereby decreases a switch current through at least one of the
main switches, as claimed.
Particularly, the Examiner has not identified any teachings of Liu with
respect to decreasing a current using an auxiliary switch. The Examiner
cites Liu’s disclosure that “first current 29a thus dominates initially but will
reduce with time” (Ans. 8, quoting Liu ¶ 49), but this reduction is prior to a
change in state of the auxiliary switches; the reduction in current 29a is due
to closing of additional main switches. See Liu Figs. 4B, 5B (depicting main
switch 20c closing while auxiliary switches 20e and 20f stay open), ¶ 49 (“In
Appeal 2019-003152
Application 15/122,854
5
a second state of the current reverser shown in FIG. 4B, the switch 29b[3] is
closed.”). Liu makes no mention of controlling bypass current 29c to
decrease a current across a main switch. See Appeal Br. 10 (“Liu does not
teach . . . .that the operation of [auxiliary] switches 20e and 20f cause an
effect (e.g., decrease) in a switch current through the closed main
switches.”); Liu Figs. 4c, 4d, 5c, 5d, ¶¶ 49–58. Nor does the Examiner
provide a reason to modify Liu to implement auxiliary switches to reduce a
main switch current. See Final Act. 4; Liu ¶ 59; KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (To reject a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
obviousness “analysis should be made explicit.”). Accordingly, we are
persuaded the Examiner has not established that Liu teaches or suggests all
limitations of independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6.
We are persuaded the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1 is in error. Independent claims 10 and 11 recite similar
limitations and are rejected for the same reasons (see Final Act. 5, 6); thus,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claims 1, 10, 11, and the claims dependent thereon.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1–19 112(a) written description 1–19
1–19 103 Liu 1–19
Overall
Outcome
1–19

3 “Liu mistakenly recites ‘switch 29b’ when it intended to recite ‘switch
20c.’” Appeal Br. 11.
Appeal 2019-003152
Application 15/122,854
6
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed because we have affirmed at
least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).

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