ATIEVA, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2020

2019006854 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 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.
15/156,183 05/16/2016 Yifan Tang A68348 1300US.C1 2596
26158 7590 09/30/2020
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
ATTN: IP DOCKETING
P.O. BOX 7037
ATLANTA, GA 30357-0037
EXAMINER
JOSEPH, DEVON A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2846
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2020 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):
BostonDocket@wbd-us.com
IPDocketing@wbd-us.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YIFAN TANG

Appeal 2019-006854
Application 15/156,183
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
MICHAEL G. MCMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Primary
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21–40.2 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—i.e., “ATIEVA, INC.” (Application Data Sheet filed May
16, 2016 at 4), which is also identified as the real party in interest (Appeal
Brief filed February 11, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) at 1).
2 See Appeal Br. 5–16; Non-Final Office Action entered September 11,
2018 (“Non-Final Act.”) at 2–9; Examiner’s Answer entered June 28, 2019
(“Ans.”) at 3–10.
Appeal 2019-006854
Application 15/156,183

2
I. BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to an induction motor controller
and to a method for producing alternating current (AC) power for an
induction motor (Specification filed May 16, 2016 (“Spec.”) ¶¶ 4–6).
Representative claim 21 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief, as follows:
21. An induction motor controller, comprising:
a DC (direct current) to AC (alternating current) inverter
configured to produce AC power for an induction motor from
switching signals and DC power;
a space vector modulator configured to produce the
switching signals, based on a commanded stator voltage vector
in a phase voltage reference frame;
a flux and torque estimator configured to produce at least
a rotor flux, in a rotor flux feedback loop, and a torque in a torque
feedback loop, based on outputs of the space vector modulator
and the DC to AC inverter;
a DQ to XY vector rotator configured to produce the
commanded stator voltage vector in the phase voltage reference
frame, based on a commanded stator voltage vector in a stator
flux reference frame; and
a torque regulator and flux regulator, configured to
produce the commanded stator voltage vector in the stator flux
reference frame, based on the rotor flux in the rotor flux feedback
loop and the torque in the torque feedback loop.
(Appeal Br. 17).
II. REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 21–40 stand rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Bhangu et al.3 (“Bhangu”) (Ans. 3–10; Non-Final Act. 2–9).

3 US 2014/0203754 A1, published July 24, 2014.
Appeal 2019-006854
Application 15/156,183

3
III. DISCUSSION
The Appellant relies on the same or similar arguments for all claims
on appeal, focusing only on independent claims 21, 28, and 35 (Appeal Br.
5–16). Absent any arguments that claims 21, 28, and 35 are separately
patentable from one another, we decide this appeal on the basis of claim 21,
which we designate as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). By this
rule, claims 22–40 stand or fall with claim 21.
The Examiner finds that Bhangu describes every limitation recited in
claim 21 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) (Non-Final Act. 2–3).
In support, the Examiner relies primarily on Bhangu’s Figures 1, 5, and 8
and descriptions related thereto (id.).
The Appellant provides a number of arguments in support of reversal
(Appeal Br. 5–16), but for the reasons stated in the Answer (Ans. 3–10) and
below, we do not find any of them sufficient to identify reversible error in
the Examiner’s rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
First, the Appellant contends that Bhangu’s Figure 5 does not
disclose an induction motor controller because Bhangu’s permanent magnet
motor has been mischaracterized as an induction motor controller (Appeal
Br. 5). According to the Appellant, “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art
would know that induction motors and permanent magnet motors differ” (id.
at 5–6).
As the Examiner finds (Ans. 4–5), Bhangu discloses that “[a]s is
known in the art, permanent magnet synchronous machines can be classified
according to the location of the one or more permanent magnets included in
the rotor” and that a preferred example of such a machine is an interior
permanent magnet synchronous machine (“IPMSM”) (Bhangu ¶ 92).
Appeal 2019-006854
Application 15/156,183

4
Bhangu discloses a controller and method for controlling an IPMSM (e.g.,
id. ¶ 176; Fig. 5). According to Bhangu, “the method may be applied to a
wide variety of AC machines, i.e. such that the AC machine could be any
one of an induction machine, a synchronous machine, a synchronous
reluctance machine, a switch reluctance machine, a brushless synchronous
machine” (id. ¶ 93 (emphasis added)). Because an induction machine is one
of only a few enumerated machine classes (see, e.g., In re Petering, 301 F.2d
676, 681 (CCPA 1962)), Bhangu’s disclosure directly refutes the
Appellant’s unsubstantiated argument that “a person of ordinary skill in the
art would know that induction motors and permanent magnet motors differ”
(Appeal Br. 5–6). Cf. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Second, the Appellant argues that “[t]he Examiner has erred by citing
elements of differing machines in differing drawings, with no evidence that
these cited elements are all in the same machine or could be combined into
one machine” (Appeal Br. 6). According to the Appellant, “[t]here is no
disclosure in Bhangu that the space vector modulator 106 in Fig. 1, flux and
torque estimator 414 in Fig. 5, and PI flux regulator 642 and PI torque
regulator 644 in Fig. 8 belong together in one controller with one control
scheme” (id. at 7).
We disagree. Our reviewing court has stated that, to anticipate,
“‘[t]he [prior art] reference must clearly and unequivocally disclose the
claimed [invention] or direct those skilled in the art to the [invention]
without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures
not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference.’”
Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(quoting In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972) (plurality)).
Appeal 2019-006854
Application 15/156,183

5
Bhangu states that Figure 1 “is a schematic diagram showing an
apparatus including a controller for controlling a permanent magnet
synchronous machine according to a field oriented control scheme in a 2D
rotating reference frame using conventional field weakening techniques”
(Bhangu ¶ 133 (emphasis added)). But, with respect to Figures 5 and 8,
Bhangu teaches that both figures are directed to a controller for controlling
an IPMSM according to a direct torque and flux control scheme (id. ¶¶ 138,
141, 176, 205, 214). Therefore, Bhangu’s teachings regarding Figures 5 and
8 are disclosures that are “directly related to each other” and thus may be
considered together in an anticipation rejection. As Bhangu’s Figures 5 and
8 appear to include all the limitations required by claim 21—e.g., a space
vector modulator 606, an observer 662 that estimates flux linkage of the
stator and torque, and proportional-integral (PI) flux and torque regulators
642, 644 as shown in Figure 8 (id. ¶¶ 208, 213–214, 217), we do not find the
Appellant’s argument sufficient to identify reversible error in the rejection.
Third, the Appellant argues that “[t]he Examiner has . . .
mischaracterized a flux linkage of the stator as a rotor flux” because a
“[r]otor flux is not the same as flux linkage of the stator” (Appeal Br. 8
(citing Spec. ¶ 2)). The Examiner, on the other hand, provides a detailed
response, which we find to be reasonable (Ans. 8–9). The Appellant does
not explain persuasively how and why the cited portion of the current
Specification supports the Appellant’s argument and does not rebut (e.g., by
way of a reply brief) the findings made in the Examiner’s response to the
Appellant’s argument. Therefore, the Appellant’s argument is ineffective to
identify reversible error.
Appeal 2019-006854
Application 15/156,183

6
Fourth, the Appellant argues that Bhangu’s Figure 5 has not been
shown to include a space vector modulator and that the flux and torque
estimator 414 shown therein has not been shown to have inputs that are
outputs of such a space vector modulator (Appeal Br. 9). The Appellant
argues further that Bhangu’s switching table 412 in Figure 5 has not been
shown to be a space vector modulator (id.).
The Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Consistent with the
Examiner’s position (Ans. 9), Bhangu’s Figure 5 shows that the flux and
torque estimator 414 produces flux feedback and torque feedback to the
switching table 412, which, as in Figure 8’s space vector modulator 606,
appears to provide switching signals to an inverter 404 (Bhangu ¶ 209; Figs.
5 and 8). Therefore, we do not find the Appellant’s arguments persuasive to
identify reversible error.
Fifth, the Appellant argues that “the PI flux regulator 642 and PI
torque regulator 644 in Bhangu[’s] Fig. 8 are not shown to produce output
based on rotor flux, and there is no rotor flux feedback loop in Bhangu”
(Appeal Br. 10 (some bolding removed)). Again, the Appellant contends
that “[t]he Examiner has erred by mischaracterizing a reference flux linkage
of the stator as a rotor flux” (id.).
We do not find the Appellant’s argument persuasive. In addition to
the Examiner’s reasoning (Ans. 10), Bhangu’s Figure 8 shows that the
observer (estimator) 662 uses inputs from the outputs of the space vector
modulator 606, inverter 604, and converter 664 to observe flux linkage of
the stator and torque values to allow PI flux and PI torque regulators 642,
644 to produce reference voltages (Bhangu ¶¶ 214, 217).
Appeal 2019-006854
Application 15/156,183

7
For these reasons, and those well-stated in the Answer and Non-Final
Action, we uphold the Examiner’s rejection.

IV. CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21–40 102(a)(1) Bhangu 21–40

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