Ex Parte Belson et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 23, 2012

11193266 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 23, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte STEVE BELSON, SHAUN HARRIS,
and ROBERT GUENTHER
____________

Appeal 2010-006040
Application 11/193,266
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, THOMAS S. HAHN, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006040
Application 11/193,266

2
Appellants invoke our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 5-15, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 24. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Exemplary Claim
Appealed independent claim 1 is exemplary and reads:
1. A distributed front-end rectifier system in an electronics
system, comprising:
a first alternating current-to direct current (AC/DC) front end rectifier;
a second AC/DC front end rectifier;
an AC power bus directly connected to the first AC/DC front end
rectifier and the second AC/DC front end rectifier, wherein the first and the
second AC/DC front end rectifiers each comprise an AC/DC rectifier and a
DC/DC voltage conversion unit;
a first intermediate DC voltage bus coupled between the first AC/DC
front end rectifier and at least one DC/DC converter output module; and
a second intermediate DC voltage bus coupled to the second AC/DC
front end rectifier and at least one DC/DC converter output module.
Rejections
The Examiner, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), rejected:
1. Claims 1, 6-8, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 20 as being obvious over
Hayashi (US 5,638,264; issued June 10, 1997) and Nakamura (US
5,726,849; issued March 10, 1998);
2. Claim 5 as being obvious over Hayashi, Nakamura, and Bruner
(US 6,449,173 B1; issued September 10, 2002);
Appeal 2010-006040
Application 11/193,266

3
3. Claims 9, 10, 17, 19, 22, and 24 as being obvious over Hayashi,
Nakamura, and Cabaniss (US 5,790,394; issued August 4, 1998);
and
4. Claim 13 as being obvious over Hayashi, Nakamura, and
Takahashi (US 5,768,117; issued June 16, 1998).
Contentions
Independent claim 1 is solely argued as being patentable (App. Br. 6-
11) and Appellants rely on those arguments for contending that the
remaining appealed claims are patentable (App. Br. 12-14).
The Examiner finds that Hayashi teaches the claim 1 recited AC/DC
rectifiers (see elements 76 in Hayashi Fig. 1), and also teaches the recited
DC/DC voltage conversion units (see col. 2, ll. 39-44) where a power
regulator connected to a rectifier circuit is disclosed (Ans. 3). The Examiner
acknowledges that DC voltage buses connecting rectifier circuits and voltage
conversion units are not disclosed in Hayashi (id.), but finds that “Nakamura
discloses an AC/DC converter (11) coupled to a DC/DC converter (21) (see
column 5, lines 23-26 and Figure 3)” (id.).
Appellants contend that Hayashi is non-analogous art and inapplicable
to the claim 1 recited subject matter (App. Br. 6). Appellants further
contend Hayashi fails to teach or suggest an “AC/DC rectifier and a DC/DC
voltage conversion unit” (App. Br. 7). Appellants additionally dispute the
Examiner’s reasoning and underpinning rationale for combining Hayashi
and Nakamura (App. Br. 8), and contend that even if combined the
references do not teach or suggest “a first intermediate DC voltage bus and
a second intermediate DC voltage bus as required by claim 1” (App. Br.
11).
Appeal 2010-006040
Application 11/193,266

4
Issues
1. Has the Examiner erred under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in concluding
Hayashi is analogous art applicable to claim 1 recited subject
matter?
2. Has the Examiner erred under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in combining
Hayashi and Nakamura and concluding that the combined
references teach or suggest AC/DC rectifiers and DC/DC voltage
conversion units with intermediate coupling DC voltage busses as
recited in claim 1?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following Findings of Fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence:
1. Hayashi teaches a power supply having AC-DC switching
supplies, i.e. rectifiers (76) that provide one or a plurality of
uninterrupted DC voltages (col. 1, ll. 14-20; Fig. 1).
2. Hayashi’s disclosed power supply has AC-DC rectifiers with rush
current limiters 61 (Fig. 1) that provide overcurrent protection (col.
4, ll. 57-60; col. 5, ll. 35-45).
3. Hayashi’s AC-DC converter comprises “a power regulator
connected to the rectifier circuit for regulating a d.c. voltage
supplied from the rectifier circuit” (col. 2, ll. 39-44, see also claims
6, 8, 12, 14, and 17).
4. Nakamura teaches a power supply having an AC-DC converter
(11) coupled by conductors to a DC-DC converter (21) (col. 5, ll.
Appeal 2010-006040
Application 11/193,266

5
23-26; Fig. 3) that provides overcurrent protection (col. 1, ll. 40-
45).

ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection over Hayashi and Nakamura
Reviewing the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 and
Appellants’ arguments, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred.
For example, Appellants contend that “Hayashi is non-analogous and
inapplicable to the claimed invention” (App. Br. 6).1 The Examiner
disagrees and responds that “Hayashi and the claimed invention both
concern distributed front-end rectifier systems” (Ans. 6). We find no
persuasive argument or evidence rebutting the Examiner’s findings (accord
FF 1) and conclusion that the claimed rectifier system and the Hayashi
rectifier power system are both in the same field of endeavor. Accordingly,
we agree that Hayashi is analogous art.
Appellants “note that claim 1 requires that each ‘front end rectifier’
comprises an AC/DC rectifier and a DC/DC voltage conversion unit”
(App. Br. 7). Whereas, according to Appellants, “[i]t is clear that there is no
teaching or suggestion that the [switching power supply] 10 of Hayashi

1 Appellants cite to “included” Exhibits A and B and merely contend that
these Exhibits are “believe[d] . . . to be relevant to how one . . . would view
the claims in view of . . . Hayashi” (App. Br. 7). No persuasive arguments
premised from these Exhibits have been found. Further, there are no
identifications in the Appeal Brief’s Evidence Appendix as to, inter alia,
setting forth where in the record the purported evidence was properly
presented to, and entered in the record by, the Examiner. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(ix). Moreover, Appellants have not established, or even alleged,
that the Exhibits were publically available prior to the effective filing date
for the Specification. Accordingly, these Exhibits have not been considered.
Appeal 2010-006040
Application 11/193,266

6
includes an AC/DC rectifier and a DC/DC voltage conversion unit” (id.).
Appellants further argue that “there is absolutely no mention of a DC/DC
output module in Hayashi” (App. Br. 11). The Examiner disagrees as to
Hayashi teaching or suggesting DC/DC voltage conversion. Citing
Hayashi’s column 2, lines 40-44, and claims 6, 8, 12, 14, and 17, the
Examiner finds that:
Hayashi discloses both an AC/DC rectifier and a power
regulator with its input connected to the output of the rectifier
and its output having a DC voltage. . . . [Therefore,] it is
inherent that conversion occurs, and since the power regulator
of Hayashi has both a DC input and a DC output, it is inherent
that the power regulator of Hayashi is a DC/DC voltage
conversion unit.
(Ans. 7.) In response, Appellants disagree and contend Hayashi’s “rectifier
output voltage is disclosed as already being DC/DC converted,” which is
asserted to be at 5 volts DC output (Reply Br. 6). Reviewing Hayashi, we
agree with the Examiner that a rectifier circuit is described as having a
connected power regulator to regulate output DC voltage (accord FF 3), and
we also agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that the Hayashi power
regulator provides DC/DC voltage conversion. Accordingly, we disagree
with Appellants’ contentions that Hayashi fails to teach or suggest DC/DC
power conversion.
Appellants next dispute the Examiner’s identified combination of
Hayashi and Nakamura as lacking proper motivation because the Examiner’s
reasoning and underpinning rationale is outside the scope of the “claimed
invention” (App. Br. 8). The Examiner identified that
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at
the time of the invention, to have connected each of the first
and second AC/DC front end rectifiers of Hayashi to a DC/DC
Appeal 2010-006040
Application 11/193,266

7
converter as taught by Nakamura, thus forming first and second
intermediate DC voltage buses, in order to provide input
overcurrent protection (see Nakamura, column 1, lines 42-45).
(Ans. 3-4). In response to Appellants’ contentions, the Examiner further
identified that “Hayashi is [also] concerned with input overcurrent
protection, as shown by the use of a rush current limiter circuit (61) to
reduce the peak rush current flowing through the commercial AC power
supply (see column 4, lines 57-60 and column 5, lines 35-45)” (Ans. 7).
Appellants respond with the continued assertion that “the claimed invention
is not concerned with overcurrent protection” (Reply Br. 4), and then
acknowledge that “while the combined teachings might motivate one to
replace or supplement the rush current limiter 61of Hayashi with the input
overcurrent suppression circuit disclosed in Nakamura, such a position is
irrelevant to what is being claimed” (id.). We find Appellants’ argument
unavailing because the Supreme Court has explained that “[u]nder the
correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor [e.g.,
overcurrent protection] at the time of invention and addressed by the patent
[both Hayashi and Nakamura] can provide a reason for combining the
elements in the manner claimed.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 420 (2007). (Accord FF 2, 4). Accordingly, we conclude the Examiner
did not err under § 103(a) in combining Hayashi and Nakamura.
Appellants also assert that “there is no teaching or suggestion of
multiple AC/DC rectifiers and DC/DC voltage conversion units that further
includes multiple intermediate DC voltage busses” (App. Br. 10). Based on
our review of the record, we do not find Appellants’ contention persuasive
because Hayashi teaches multiple AC/DC rectifiers with power regulators,
Appeal 2010-006040
Application 11/193,266

8
i.e., DC/DC voltage conversion units and Nakamura teaches coupling
rectifiers and conversion units by using conductors (FF 1, 3, 4).
For the foregoing reasons we will sustain the rejection of
representative claim 1 and also sustain the rejection of claims 6-8, 11, 12,
14, 15, and 20 that are not separately argued.
Other Obviousness Rejections
We also will sustain the Examiner’s separate obviousness rejections
of claims 5, 9, 10, 13, 17, 19, 22, and 24 (Ans. 4-6). Despite nominally
arguing these claims separately, Appellants solely rely on arguments made
in connection with claim 1 and allege that the additional references fail to
cure purported deficiencies (App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 7). We are not
persuaded by these arguments for the reasons previously discussed.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 5-15, 17, 19, 20, 22, and
24 is affirmed.
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).

AFFIRMED

babc