Ex Parte 7815420 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2015

95002007 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2015)

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.
95/002,007 06/01/2012 7815420 144074.00750 9925
26710 7590 03/31/2015
QUARLES & BRADY LLP
Attn: IP Docket
411 E. WISCONSIN AVENUE
SUITE 2350
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-4426
EXAMINER
DOERRLER, WILLIAM CHARLES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3993
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2015 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
____________________

HAYWARD INDUSTRIES, INC.
Third Party Requester/Cross-Appellant
v.

PENTAIR LTD. and PENTAIR AQUATIC SYSTEMS
(f/k/a PENTAIR WATER POOL AND SPA, INC.)
Patent Owner/Appellant
____________________

Appeal 2015-000273
Reexamination Control 95/002,007
U.S. Patent No. 7,815,420 B2
1

Technology Center 3900
____________________

Before: JOHN C. KERINS, DANIEL S. SONG, and BRETT C. MARTIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1
Issued to Robert M. Kroehl on October 19, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as
the ’420 patent).
Appeal 2015-000273
Reexamination Control 95/002,007
U.S. Patent No. 7,815,420 B2

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant/Patent Owner appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and
315(a) from the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–4. App. Br. 2. Cross-
Appellant/Requester appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(c) and 315(b) from the
Examiner’s decision not to adopt various rejections of claims 1-5. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 315.
We are informed that the ’420 Patent is the subject of litigation in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
(Case No. 5: 11-CV -459, Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc. and Danfoss
Drives A/S v. Hayward Industries, Inc. and Hayward Pool Products, Inc.).
App. Br. 1. We are also informed that the ’420 Patent is a divisional of
U.S. Patent No. 8,540,493, which is related to (A) U.S. Patent Nos.
8,641,385; 8,444,394; 7,990,091; 7,983,877; 7,976,284; 7,857,600;
7,821,215; 7,751,159; 7,704,051; 7,686,587; 7,612,510; and 7,572,108,
(B) U.S. Application Nos. 12/973,778 and 111980,096, (C) Reexamination
Control Nos. 95/002,005 and 95/002,008, and (D) IPR2013-000287. App.
Br. 1-2.
We AFFIRM.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed generally to a pump controller
method. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of detecting a fault condition in a motor of a
pump, the method comprising:
Appeal 2015-000273
Reexamination Control 95/002,007
U.S. Patent No. 7,815,420 B2

3
positioning a temperature sensor on a heat sink of a
controller;
sensing a first temperature value of the heat sink with the
temperature sensor;
generating and storing a fault condition code if the first
temperature value is greater than a temperature upper limit;
shutting down a drive to the motor;
sensing a second temperature value of the heat sink with
the temperature sensor; and
attempting to restart the drive to the motor if the second
temperature value is less than a limp mode temperature limit.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Jensen US 5,158,436 Oct. 27, 1992
Stark US 6,116,040 Sep. 12, 2000
Installation, Operation and Maintenance Manual for VLT 6000 Series
Adjustable Frequency Drive ("Danfoss"). Mar., 2000.
Baldor Motors and Drives Series 10 Inverter Control Installation and
Operating Manual ("Baldor"). Feb., 2000.
User Guide Dinverter 2B Variable Speed Drive for three-phase
induction motors ("Dinverter"). Nov. 1998.

THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claim 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Baldor and Danfoss. RAN 7.
Appeal 2015-000273
Reexamination Control 95/002,007
U.S. Patent No. 7,815,420 B2

4
2. Claim 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Baldor and Jansen. RAN 8.
3. Claim 1 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
unpatentable over Dinverter. Id.
4. Claim 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dinverter. Id.
5. Claim 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dinverter and Danfoss. RAN 9.
6. Claim 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dinverter and Jensen. Id.
7. Claim 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dinverter and Stark. Id.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Baldor and Danfoss
One of Patent Owner's main arguments regarding the teachings of
Danfoss and Baldor is that both references contain a time delay that
precludes a finding that the motor is restarted "if the second temperature
value is less than a limp mode temperature limit" as recited in claim 1. See,
e.g., Patent Owner ("P.O.") App. Br. 10, 11. Patent Owner argues that in
each reference, a period of time must elapse before restart is attempted and
that this negates the alleged cause and effect of claim 1. See P.O. App.
Br. 4-5. We disagree that the claim language at issue requires the cause and
effect advanced by the Patent Owner.
In fact, Patent Owner's own arguments show the fallacy in this
position. For example, the Patent Owner states that "[i]n other words, the
Appeal 2015-000273
Reexamination Control 95/002,007
U.S. Patent No. 7,815,420 B2

5
attempt only occurs if the second temperature is below the limp mode
temperature limit." P.O. App. Br. 3. It is telling that the Patent Owner
needed to include the word "only" in this description of what the claim
allegedly means. We agree that had claim 1 stated that the restart occur
"only if the second temperature value is less than a limp mode temperature
limit" then Patent Owner's argument would have merit as to Baldor (Danfoss
still teaches this by way of precluding a fault reset until the temperature
drops below 60° C, as discussed infra). The claim, however, does not limit
the method to restarting only if the temperature condition is met. Under the
broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim language at issue merely
requires a restart be attempted at some point when the temperature is below
the claimed limit. Even if this were to be the result of a time lapse allowing
the temperature to cool, provided that a second temperature sensing occurs
as claimed, if the restart occurs at a temperature below what is claimed, then
the language is met.
Patent Owner also points to the Specification in support of this
argument, but again, the disclosure noted therein does not support the
proposition. P.O. App. Br. 5. It is true that the patent describes that "[i]f the
second temperature value is less than the limp mode temperature limit, the
controller can attempt (at 412) to restart the motor drive." Spec. col. 20,
ll. 6-9. The Specification also goes on to explain that "[i]f the second
temperature value is not less than the limp mode temperature limit, the
controller can continue to sense (at 408) the heat sink temperature until the
heat sink temperature falls below the limp mode temperature limit." Spec.
Appeal 2015-000273
Reexamination Control 95/002,007
U.S. Patent No. 7,815,420 B2

6
col. 20, ll. 9-14 (emphasis added). Together, these two statements describe
both when a restart can and cannot occur.
Patent Owner did not include this additional "if not" statement in the
claim, however, which prescribes what happens if the temperature is still
above the limit. Had this language been included, then a full course of
action would have been present in the claims stating what would happen
both if the temperature were below, as well as what would happen if the
temperature were not below, the claimed limit. Clearly the Patent Owner
knew how to describe such a full description of conditions for restarting (or
not), but chose only to claim what would happen if the temperature were
below the claimed limit without prohibiting a restart attempt if the
temperature were still too high. Accordingly, as stated above, all that is
required by claim 1 is that a restart attempt occur at some point when the
temperature is below the limit. It also is not necessary that this attempt
occur as soon as the temperature drops below, but merely that the attempt
occurs at a time when the temperature is as claimed.
Regarding the remainder of the claim limitations, we agree with the
Examiner and the Requester that Baldor teaches temperature monitoring of a
heatsink via the fact that Baldor produces a fault code F19 relating to a
heatsink overtemperature and causes a trip (or motor stop). See Baldor 4-2.
We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner's arguments to the contrary. See, e.g.,
P.O. App. Br. 10, 15-16. We further agree with the Examiner and the
Requester that Danfoss also teaches a fault trip due to a heatsink
overtemperature as described in relation to Alarm 29, which may be either
80° C or 90° C depending on the type of drive. Danfoss 99.
Appeal 2015-000273
Reexamination Control 95/002,007
U.S. Patent No. 7,815,420 B2

7
Patent Owner argues that Danfoss is deficient because "monitoring a
heat sink temperature 'during operation' is insufficient." App. Br. 15. It is
clear from Danfoss, however, that temperature monitoring does not occur
only during motor operation, but also after a trip lock. Danfoss expressly
states that the "fault cannot be reset until the temperature of the heatsink has
fallen below 60° C." Id. Therefore, in order for Danfoss to prevent a fault
reset, it must continue to monitor the temperature, which equates to the
claimed requirement of taking a second temperature measurement. Also,
this second temperature corresponds to the limp mode temperature limit,
which is lower than the limit that causes the fault in the first place.
Patent Owner additionally argues that Danfoss "teaches away from a
restart attempt being triggered by a sensed temperature" because Danfoss
requires that "[a]fter a Trip Lock Fault, the input power must be removed,
the cause of the fault corrected, and input power restored to reset the drive."
P.O. App. Br. 8 (citing Danfoss 96). While this may be true with regard to
Danfoss, it is essentially irrelevant because it is Baldor that is used to teach
restarting after a fault trip. All Danfoss is being used for is to teach the limp
mode temperature limit and continued sensing after shut down,
2
which then
allows for a reset of the fault to occur. Restarting in Danfoss is not possible
until the fault is cleared, but once the fault is cleared, then a restart, as taught

2
Patent Owner argues that the Examiner provides a conflicting explanation
of the rejection by relying on the Requester's statement of the rejection, but
then also stating that Danfoss teaches sensing the second temperature. P.O.
App. Br. 15. We disagree and find the Examiner's reference to page 99 of
Danfoss in the ACP (p. 19) along with the statement in the RAN that this
feature is shown in Danfoss (RAN 17) amount to sufficient support for the
finding that Danfoss teaches sensing a second temperature.
Appeal 2015-000273
Reexamination Control 95/002,007
U.S. Patent No. 7,815,420 B2

8
in Baldor, would be permissible. Further, while not relied upon as an
alternative basis for rejecting the claims, we observe that even if all of the
steps laid out in Danfoss were to occur, Danfoss alone would still meet the
claim language because, as noted above, there is no requirement that the
restart occur immediately upon the temperature falling below the limp mode
limit. Danfoss still teaches that a restart can occur once the fault is cleared
and as long as that restart occurs below the limp mode temperature limit, the
claim language is met.
Lastly, Patent Owner argues that the heatsink temperature monitoring
in Baldor may not necessarily relate to a fault condition in the motor. App.
Br. 15-16. As pointed out by Requester, however, Baldor "explicitly
discloses that a heat sink overtemperature condition could be caused by a
motor overload condition." Requester's Resp. Br. 7 (citing Baldor 4-5 and
Emadi Decl. ¶ 41). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner and Requester
that Baldor sufficiently relates to motor fault monitoring as claimed.
Cross-Appellant's Arguments Regarding Claim 5
Requester/Cross-Appellant argues that the Examiner erred by not
adopting the various proposed rejections of claim 5 involving Commander
Guide.
3
Requester's App. Br. 12-13. Requester's sole basis for this is that
Commander Guide teaches modifying the specific operational parameter of
motor speed in response to a change in voltage and that "the controller
includes logic for detecting changes in input mains voltage, and for
modifying operational parameters of the controller in response." Req. App.
Br. 13. Requester then goes on to assert that it would be obvious to extend

3
Control Techniques Advanced User Guide for Commander SE (Exh. A to
Appeal Br. of Requester).
Appeal 2015-000273
Reexamination Control 95/002,007
U.S. Patent No. 7,815,420 B2

9
this to the temperatures associated with a heat sink of the drive. Id. We
agree with the Patent Owner that these arguments amount to impermissible
hindsight. P.O. Resp. Br. 7.
As stated by the Patent Owner, "[d]ynamically controlling the
operation of a drive based on a fluctuating DC Bus voltage is immaterial to
(and provides no insight into) setting a limp mode temperature limit based
on an input voltage" as stated in claim 5. Id. We do not see how this single
teaching of motor control based on voltage would extend to setting the limp
mode temperature limit simply because control logic is in place that could
allow for such modification. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's
decision not to adopt the rejections of claim 5 involving Commander Guide.
Remaining Issues
Because we have sustained a rejection that covers each of claims 1-4,
we will not reach the remaining rejections of claims 1-4. Requester also
argues for the adoption of additional rejections of claims 1-4, but for the
same reasons, we will not reach the cross-appeal regarding the other non-
adopted rejections.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 1-4 as unpatentable over Baldor and Danfoss, and not to adopt the
proposed rejections of claim 5 involving Baldor.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). In the event
neither party files a request for rehearing within the time provided in
37 C.F.R. § 41.79, and this decision becomes final and appealable under
Appeal 2015-000273
Reexamination Control 95/002,007
U.S. Patent No. 7,815,420 B2

10
37 C.F.R. § 41.81, a party seeking judicial review must timely serve notice
on the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. See
37 C.F.R. §§ 90.1 and 1.983.

AFFIRMED

Quarles & Brady, LLP
Attn: IP Docket
411 E. Wisconsin Avenue
Suite 2350
Milwaukee, WI
53202-4426

Third Party Requester:

McCarter & English, LLP
Four Gateway Center
100 Mulberry Street
Newark, NJ 07102