Emerson Climate Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 14, 2021

2020005217 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 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.
15/487,226 04/13/2017 Joseph G. Marcinkiewicz 0315-000955-US 5135
27572 7590 07/14/2021
HARNESS DICKEY (TROY)
5445 Corporate Dr.
Suite 200
Troy, MI 48098
EXAMINER
TRUNEH, ZEMENAY T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2846
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/14/2021 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):
sto-ptomail@hdp.com
troymailroom@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________
Ex parte JOSEPH G. MARCINKIEWICZ
_______________
Appeal 2020-005217
Application 15/487,226
Technology Center 2800

Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–12 and 21–24 of Application
15/487,226. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed Apr. 13, 2017 (“Spec.”)
of Application 15/487,226 (“the ’226 Application”); the Final Office Action
dated July 9, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Advisory Action dated Oct. 18, 2019
(“Adv. Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed Dec. 18, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the
Examiner’s Answer dated May 18, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed
July 2, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies EMERSON CLIMATE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-005217
Application 15/487,226

2
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter of the ’226 Application relates to drive circuits for
compressor systems. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 6. The drive circuit includes a rectification
circuit, a buck converter, a first inverter, and a second inverter. Spec. ¶ 6.
Claim 8 is representative of the ’226 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief.
8. A drive circuit comprising:
a rectification circuit configured to rectify a first
alternating current (AC) voltage signal to generate a rectified
voltage signal;
a buck converter configured to downconvert the rectified
voltage signal to a first direct current (DC) voltage signal,
wherein the first DC voltage signal is supplied to a DC bus;
a first inverter configured to convert the first DC voltage
signal to a second AC voltage signal and supply the second AC
voltage signal to a compressor motor; and
a condenser fan motor assembly configured to receive the
first DC voltage signal and one of
convert the first DC voltage signal to a third AC
voltage signal and supply the third AC voltage signal to a
condenser fan motor,
pulse the first DC voltage signal and supply the
pulsed first DC voltage signal to the condenser fan
motor, and
convert the first DC voltage signal to a second DC
voltage signal and supply a pulsed version of the second
DC voltage signal to the condenser fan motor.
Appeal Br. 26–27 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-005217
Application 15/487,226

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Name Reference Date
Rizzo US 2008/0115512 A1 May 22, 2008
Tan et al. (“Tan”) US 2010/0253295 A1 Oct. 7, 2010
Kane et al
(“Kane”)
US 2011/0141774 A1 June 16, 2011
Wood US 2017/0287721 A1 Oct. 5, 2017
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections: (1) claims 8, 9, and
21–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) over Rizzo; (2) claims 1 and 4 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Rizzo in view of Tan; (3) claims 2, 5–7, and 11 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Rizzo in view of Tan and Wood; (4) claim 3 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Rizzo in view of Tan and Kane; and (5) claims 10, 12,
and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Rizzo in view of Wood. Final Act. 3–15.
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues for reversal of the Examiner’s rejections on the basis
that “Rizzo fails to disclose . . . a first inverter configured to convert a first
DC voltage signal to a second AC voltage signal, where the first DC voltage
signal is generated by a buck converter, which downconverts a rectified
voltage signal to generate the first DC voltage signal.” Appeal Br. 10.
Anticipation rejection of claims 8, 9, and 21–23
Independent claim 8 of the ’226 Application contains the limitations
a buck converter configured to downconvert the rectified
voltage signal to a first direct current (DC) voltage signal,
wherein the DC voltage signal is supplied to a DC bus;
Appeal 2020-005217
Application 15/487,226

4
a first inverter configured to convert the first DC voltage signal
to a second AC voltage signal and supply the second AC
voltage signal to a compressor motor.
Id. at 26–27.
Regarding claim 8, the Examiner finds that Rizzo teaches, inter alia,
“a first inverter (inverter 68) configured to convert the first DC voltage
signal to a second AC voltage signal ([0017]) and supply the second AC
voltage signal (output of inverter 68) to a compressor motor (compressor
motor [0002]: conventional refrigeration include[s] AC induction motors for
operating the compressor).” Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that control
module 60 is energized by a 15 Volt DC input that is output by power
module 40, and that inverter 68 is in control module 60. Ans. 4 (citing
Rizzo FIG, 1 and ¶ 16). Thus, the Examiner relies on the 15 Volt DC signal
to be the claimed “first DC voltage signal” and IGBT Inverter 68 to convert
the 15 Volt DC signal to a second AC voltage signal supplied to the
compressor motor.
FIG. 8 of Rizzo is a schematic illustrating an example inverter module
for the motor control module of FIG. 7. Rizzo ¶ 13. FIG. 7 is a block
diagram illustrating an example motor control module for the refrigeration
system of FIG. 1. Id. ¶ 12.
Appellant argues that Rizzo does not disclose conversion of a DC
voltage signal to an AC voltage signal, where the first DC voltage signal is
generated by a buck converter. Appeal Br. 10 (citing Rizzo FIG. 8 and
¶ 32). Appellant argues that
[t]he inverters 68, 70, [and] 72 convert the 280V DC to 280
Volt DC PWM signals to power a compressor, a condenser, and
evaporator motors. The inverters 68, 70, [and] 72 do not
Appeal 2020-005217
Application 15/487,226

5
convert the 15V DC (or output of the power supply 52 referred
to by the Examiner as a ‘buck converter’) to AC signals.
Id. at 11 (citing Rizzo ¶ 32).
In response, the Examiner finds that FIG. 8 of Rizzo is an
embodiment that is different from that shown in FIG. 1, and the inverter 68
illustrated in FIG. 8 “is not necessarily the inverter 68 shown in FIG. 1.”
Ans. 4.
Rizzo states “the 280 Volt DC (i.e., bus voltage) is provided to the
motor control module 60, specifically the inverter modules, wherein three
motor commutation modules 62, 64, 66 (FIG. 1) are configured in parallel to
the DC bus.” Rizzo ¶ 32. Rizzo also states, “[t]he inverter 68 drives the
three phases of the motor with a 280 Volt DC PWM signal.” Id. ¶ 38.
We find nothing in Rizzo, nor does the Examiner identify anything,
that suggests inverter 68 in FIG. 1 would operate differently from inverter 68
in FIG. 8. Nor does the Examiner identify any disclosure in Rizzo that
indicates the 15 Volt DC signal input into the compressor motor controller
62 is converted into a second AC signal. See generally Final Act., Ans.
The Examiner must establish a prima facie case of anticipation under
§ 102 by showing, as a matter of fact, that all elements arranged as specified
in a claim are disclosed within the four corners of a reference, either
expressly or inherently, in a manner enabling one skilled in the art to
practice an embodiment of the claimed invention without undue
experimentation. ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 668 F.3d
1340, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex Inc., 550 F.3d
1075, 1083 (Fed. Cir. 2008). This the Examiner fails to do.
Appeal 2020-005217
Application 15/487,226

6
Rizzo does not anticipate claims 8 or its dependent claims 9 and 21–
23 because the reference fails to teach the inverter as claimed. We do not
sustain the rejection.
Obviousness rejections of claims 1–7, 10–12, and 24
The Examiner finds claims 1 and 4 obvious over Rizzo in view of
Tan; claims 2, 5–7, and 11 obvious over Rizzo in view of Tan and Wood;
claim 3 obvious over Rizzo in view of Tan and Kane; and claims 10, 12, and
24 obvious over Rizzo in view of Wood. Final Act. 6–15. In each case, the
Examiner relies on Rizzo to teach the buck converter and inverter limitations
stated above in relation to claim 8. Id.
Appellant relies on at least the same arguments made to support lack
of anticipation of claims 8, 9, and 21–23. See Appeal Br. 18–20.
For the reasons given supra in relation to claim 8, we do not sustain
the rejections of claims 1–7, 10–12, and 24.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
8, 9,
21–23 102(a)(1) Rizzo
8, 9,
21–23
1, 4 103 Rizzo, Tan 1, 4
2, 5–7, 11 103 Rizzo, Tan, Wood 2, 5–7, 11
3 103 Rizzo, Tan, Kane 3
10, 12, 24 103 Rizzo, Wood 10, 12, 24
Overall
Outcome
1–12,
21–24
REVERSED