Ex Parte Bayerer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2017

13048501 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 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.
13/048,501 03/15/2011 Reinhold Bayerer I560.299.101/2011P50032US 8836
25281 7590 03/31/2017
DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA
FIFTH STREET TOWERS
100 SOUTH FIFTH STREET, SUITE 2250
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
O TOOLE, COLLEEN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2842
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2017 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):
USPTO.PATENTS @dbclaw.com
dmorris@dbclaw.com
DBCLAW-Docket@dbclaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte REINHOLD BAYERER and PIOTR LUNIEWSKI
Appeal 2016-001130
Application 13/048,501
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and BRIAN D. RANGE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a semiconductor device, a power module
comprising the semiconductor device, and a method for switching devices in
a power circuit with paralleled devices. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A semiconductor device comprising:
a first transistor;
a second transistor coupled in parallel with the first
transistor;
a first parasitic inductance between an emitter of the
first transistor and an emitter of the second transistor;
Appeal 2016-001130
Application 13/048,501
a first circuit providing galvanic isolation and
configured to provide a first gate driver signal to the first
transistor based on a common driver signal; and
a second circuit providing galvanic isolation and
configured to provide a second gate driver signal to the
second transistor based on the common driver signal,
wherein the first circuit and the second circuit are
configured to compensate for a voltage drop across the first
parasitic inductance such that the first gate driver signal and
the second gate driver signal are in phase with and at the same
magnitude as the common driver signal.
Hochreutiner
Mori
Hiyama
Jansen
The References
US 4,575,642
US 5,166,541
US 5,547,992 B2
US 7,969,208 B2
The Rejections
Mar. 11, 1986
Nov. 24, 1992
June 16, 2009
June 28, 2011
(filed Dec. 23,2009)
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1—10, 13—17 and 19—22
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Jansen, claims 11, 12 and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Jansen in view of Mori and claims 1—3, 7, 8, 13, 14,
and 19—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hiyama in view of Hochreutiner.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections. We need address only the independent
claims (1,13 and 19). Claims 1 and 13 require a semiconductor device
(claim 1) or a power module (claim 13) comprising a first circuit which
provides galvanic isolation and is configured to provide a first gate driver
signal to a first transistor based on a common driver signal, and a second
circuit which provides galvanic isolation and is configured to provide a
second gate driver signal to a second transistor based on a common driver
signal. Claim 19 requires a method for switching devices in a power circuit
2
Appeal 2016-001130
Application 13/048,501
with paralleled devices, comprising galvanic isolating and shifting a
common driver signal to provide an individual device driver signal at each
device to compensate for an inductive voltage drop between each device.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Jansen and
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Jansen in view of Mori
“Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be
disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior
art reference.” Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868
F.2d 1251, 1255-56 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Jansen discloses a power semiconductor assembly comprising power
drivers (120, 220, 320, 420, 520; Fig. 1) which “may be, for example,
current amplifiers, impedance components or voltage amplifiers” (col. 6,
11. 23—25) and coupling members which “may be, for example, low
impedance links such as conductor tracks, contact pads, bond wires just as
well as e.g., resistance elements, amplifier stages or transformers with or
without a core” (col. 5,11. 60-63).
The Examiner finds that Jansen discloses “a first circuit providing
galvanic isolation (column 5 lines 60-63) configured to provide a first gate
driver signal to the first transistor based on a common driver signal (120)”
(Final Act. 3), “a second circuit providing galvanic isolation (column 5
lines 60-63) configured to provide a second gate driver signal to the second
transistor based on the common driver signal (220)” {id.), and “galvanic
isolating (column 5 lines 60-63) and shifting the common driver signal to
provide an individual device driver signal at each device to compensate for
an inductive voltage drop between each device such that each individual
device driver signal at each device is in phase with and at the same
3
Appeal 2016-001130
Application 13/048,501
magnitude as the common driver signal (Figure 1; column 3 lines 20-25)”
(Final Act. 10)1, and the Examiner points out that the Appellants’
Specification discloses that “[ijsolated drivers 514 and 522 provide galvanic
isolation. The galvanic isolation is provided by coreless transformers or
other suitable circuits” (Spec. 13:29 — 14:2).
The Examiner does not establish that Jansen’s power drivers 120
and 220, which the Examiner relies upon as corresponding, respectively, to
the Appellants’ first and second circuits (isolated drivers 514 and 522) and
are exemplified as current amplifiers, impedance components or voltage
amplifiers (col. 6,11. 23—25), are coupling members as that term is used by
Jansen or can be transformers. Thus, the Examiner has not established that
Jansen discloses, expressly or inherently, every limitation of the Appellants’
claims.
In the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 11, 12, and 18 over
Jansen in view of Mori, the Examiner does not apply any obviousness
rationale regarding the independent claims’ limitations or rely upon Mori for
any disclosure that remedies the deficiency in Jansen as to those limitations
(Final Act. 16—19).
Accordingly, we reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over
Jansen and under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Jansen in view of Mori.
1 At column 3, lines 18—27, Jansen discloses a control circuit which is
configured for connecting a unipolar instead of a bipolar voltage source and
comprises impedance components configured as electrical resistances or
inductances.
4
Appeal 2016-001130
Application 13/048,501
Rejection over Hiyama in view of Hochreutiner
Hiyama discloses a drive device which drives, based on a common
drive control signal, a plurality of semiconductor elements having respective
reference potential electrodes coupled via a main electrode unit (col. 1,
11. 15—17) and reduces influence of an induced electromotive force caused by
a switching operation of the semiconductor elements (col. 2,11. 11—18;
col. 3,11. 20-25).
Hochreutiner discloses that “[f]or high voltage solid state relays with a
high voltage switch on an integrated circuit there must be provided a
galvanic isolation between the electronic switching paths and the control
input of the relay” (col. 1,11. 8—11) “because the high voltage of the switch
may damage the control portion of the relay or may at least result in an
unintentional switching of the relay” (col. 1,11. 19—22).
The Examiner finds that Hiyama’s drive device (101)’s drive
circuits 6 and 7 (col. 3,1. 66 — col. 4,1. 5; Fig. 1) correspond, respectively, to
the Appellants’ first and second circuits, and concludes that “[i]t would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to have the first and second circuits provide galvanic isolation as
taught by Hochreutiner to prevent damage between the switch and control
circuit (column 1 lines 17-24)” (Final Act. 12—13) “which would cause a
malfunction of circuits” (Ans. 4).
Establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of an invention
comprising a combination of known elements requires “an apparent reason
to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed” KSR Int 7 Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
5
Appeal 2016-001130
Application 13/048,501
Hiyama discloses that due to the drive device (101)’s resistance values
of resistances R1 and R2 and capacitance values of capacitors C3 and C5
being set to satisfy specified relationships, the drive control signal received
by drive circuit 6 does not change even when an induced electromotive force
occurs in a parasitic inductance (LP1), such that “it is possible to prevent the
switching operation of switch element 12 from being affected by the induced
electromotive force” (col. 7,11. 51—65) and “it is possible to prevent a
malfunction and destruction of switch element 12, drive circuit 6 and input
buffer 8” (col. 8,11. 5—7). The Examiner does not establish that in view of
that indication that the drive device (101)’s circuit does not need galvanic
isolation, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had an apparent reason
to modify Hiyama’s drive device (101)’s circuit based upon Hochreutiner to
provide galvanic isolation.
Hence, we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hiyama in
view of Hochreutiner.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections of claims 1—10, 13—17, and 19—22 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Jansen, claims 11, 12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Jansen in view of Mori and claims 1—3, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 19—21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hiyama in view of Hochreutiner are reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
6
Appeal 2016-001130
Application 13/048,501
7