Ex Parte Adragna et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 10, 2017

12820549 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2017)

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.
12/820,549 06/22/2010 Claudio Adragna 53696(09-AG-084/LP) 2359
102473 7590 03/14/2017
Slater Matsil, LLP - ST-EP
17950 Preston Road, Suite 1000
Dallas, TX 75252
EXAMINER
TSEHAYE, ZEKRE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2838
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2017 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):
docketing @ slatermatsil. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CLAUDIO ADRAGNA, GIUSEPPE GATTAVARI,
PAOLO MATTAVELLI, ENRICO ORIETTI, and GIORGIO SPIAZZI
Appeal 2014-002529
Application 12/820,549
Technology Center 2800
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
February 7, 2013 decision finally rejecting claims 14 and 16—32 (“Final Act.”).
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as STMicroelectronics
S.r.l. (Br. 1).
Appeal 2014-002529
Application 12/820,549
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ invention is directed to a switching, multi-phase resonant
voltage converter (Abstract). The converter includes a plurality of primary
windings, a plurality of secondary windings magnetically coupled to the
respective primary windings (id.). The primary windings are coupled to a
neutral point that is electrically floating, and the secondary windings have a
neutral point which is coupled to a reference voltage (e.g., Spec. 7—8, 11).
Details of the claimed invention are set forth in Claim 14 as reproduced below
from the Claims Appendix:
14. A switching multi-phase resonant voltage converter
comprising:
a plurality of primary windings;
a plurality of secondary windings magnetically coupled
to each of the plurality of primary windings;
a plurality of inductor-inductor-capacitor (LLC) resonant
circuits each coupled to a respective one of said plurality of
primary windings;
said plurality of primary windings being coupled to have
a neutral point that is electrically floating and said plurality of
secondary windings having a neutral point coupled to
a reference voltage;
a plurality of sensors configured to sense winding
currents;
a comparison circuit configured to generate phase control
signals based upon comparison of the winding currents; and
a control circuit configured to generate pulse width
modulation (PWM) driving signals based upon the phase
control signals.
2
Appeal 2014-002529
Application 12/820,549
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Isono2 in view of Drummond,3 and
further in view of Yoshida.4
II. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Isono in view of Drummond and Yoshida, and further in
view of Bendre.5
III. Claims 23—25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Isono in view of Drummond and Yoshida, and further in
view of Li.6
IV. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Isono in view of Drummond and Yoshida, and further in
view of Lee.7
V. Claims 27—30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Isono in view of Drummond, and further in view of
Lee.
VI. Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Isono in view of Drummond and Lee, and further in view of
Bendre.
2 Isono, US 6,297,976 Bl, issued October 2, 2001.
3 Drummond, US 5,535,906, issued July 16, 1996.
4 Yoshida, US 7,035,125 B2, issued April 25, 2006
5 Bendre et al., US 7,307,361 Bl, issued December 11, 2007.
6 Li et al., US 7,218,059 B2, issued May 15, 2007.
7 Lee et al., US 7,414,868 B2, issued August 19, 2008.
3
Appeal 2014-002529
Application 12/820,549
DISCUSSION
We decide this appeal based on limitations common to all of the claims.
Accordingly, we focus our discussion on the rejection of claim 14 over Isono
in view of Drummond and Yoshida.
The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Isono does not teach a “plurality of
primary and secondary windings being coupled to have a neutral point that is
electrically floating and said plurality of secondary windings having a neutral
point coupled to a reference voltage” (Final Act. 2). The Examiner finds that
these elements are taught by Drummond (Final Act. 3, citing Drummond,
FIG. 1, element 32). In particular, the Examiner finds that windings
(including both primary and secondary windings) in element 32 of
Drummond’s FIG. 1 are coupled to have a neutral point that is electrically
floating because it is not grounded, and that the secondary windings have a
neutral point which is coupled to a reference voltage because they are coupled
to a specific central node and the voltage on that node is the reference voltage
(Ans. 3).
Appellants argue that Drummond “fails to disclose the plurality of
secondary windings have a neutral point coupled to a reference voltage” (Br.
10—11). According to Appellants, the Examiner finds that the secondary
windings of Drummond are coupled to both a neutral point and a voltage
reference (id.). Appellants contend that Drummond’s FIG. 1 fails to
distinguish between the coupling arrangements of the primary and secondary
windings, both of which have floating neutrals (Br. 11), and that transformer
32 cannot satisfy both the “electrically floating” and “reference voltage”
limitations (Br. 12). Finally, Appellants argue that a person of skill in the art
4
Appeal 2014-002529
Application 12/820,549
would understand that an electrically floating winding is a winding that is not
coupled to a reference voltage, for example a ground (id.).
In response, the Examiner determines that the claim term “reference
voltage” does not require a constant or specific voltage and, therefore, “under
the broadest reasonable interpretation, the reference voltage on the secondary
winding of Drummond (i.e. figure 1, block 32), can be construed to be a
variable reference voltage” (Ans. 15—16). The Examiner further determines
that a value on the claimed reference voltage does not have to have specific or
constant value.
It is well established that “the PTO must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the specification. . . . Therefore, we
look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but
otherwise apply a broad interpretation.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted, emphasis added).
In this instance, neither Appellants nor the Examiner have directed us to
anything in the Specification, or other evidence for how the phrase “reference
voltage” should be construed. Thus, we must look to the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the phrase. While the Examiner is correct that the claim does
not explicitly recite that the “reference voltage” must have a specific value,
the Examiner has not provided an explanation of why a “reference” voltage
need not be constant. In the absence of an explanation of how a “reference
voltage” can be anything other than a constant value, we cannot agree with the
Examiner that the broadest reasonable construction of “reference voltage”
would include a variable voltage.
In order to reject a claim in a patent application as obvious under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner must establish a prima facie case of
5
Appeal 2014-002529
Application 12/820,549
obviousness, including the presence of each element of the claim. In the
absence of a proper prima facie case of obviousness, an applicant who
complies with the other statutory requirements is entitled to a patent. In re
Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this instance, we find that a
preponderance of the evidence supports Appellants’ position that the
Examiner has not shown that the prior art teaches or suggests the plurality of
secondary windings having a neutral point which is coupled to a reference
voltage. It follows that we reverse the rejections.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20—22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Isono in view of Drummond,
and further in view of Yoshida.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Isono in view of Drummond and Yoshida, and further
in view of Bendre.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 23—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Isono in view of Drummond and Yoshida, and further
in view of Li.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Isono in view of Drummond and Yoshida, and further
in view of Lee.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 27—30, and 32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Isono in view of Drummond, and further
in view of Lee.
6
Appeal 2014-002529
Application 12/820,549
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Isono in view of Drummond and Lee, and further in
view of Bendre.
REVERSED
7