Ex Parte Bobb et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2016

13418997 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/418,997 03/13/2012
101681 7590 06/21/2016
MYERS BIGEL & SIBLEY, P, A,
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rennie Bobb
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
9060-202CT 6930
EXAMINER
CA V ALLARI, DANIEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2836
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2016 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
Ex parte RENNIE BOBB, PAUL LUKOSIUS,
FREDERICK TASSITINO, JR., and JOHN TRACY1
Appeal2015-000640
Application 13/418,997
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 1--4, 6-9, and 11-14 as
anticipated by Rosa (US 5,210,685, issued May 11, 1993).2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
1 Eaton Corporation is identified as the real party in interest. Br. 1.
2 A rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd paragraph, has been
withdrawn by the Examiner (Ans. 2).
Appeal2015-000640
Application 13/418,997
Appellants claim an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) comprising
an AC input 101, and AC output 102, a converter circuit 120 operative to
generate an AC voltage at the AC output, a switch 110 operative to couple
the AC input to the AC output responsive to a first state of a switch drive
signal and to decouple the input from the output responsive to a second state
of the switch drive signal, and a control circuit 130 operative to detect a
current in the switch following a transition of the switch drive signal to the
second state and to initiate control of the AC output by the converter circuit
responsive to the detected current following the transition of the switch drive
signal to the second state (independent claim 1, Figure 1; see also
corresponding independent method claim 6). The control circuit 130 may be
operative to inhibit control of the AC output by the converter circuit
(independent claim 13).
A copy of representative claims 1 and 13, taken from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. An uninterruptible power supply (UPS), compnsmg:
an AC input configured to be coupled to an AC source;
an AC output;
a converter circuit operative to generate an AC voltage at the AC
output;
a switch operative to couple the AC input to the AC output through
the switch responsive to a first state of a switch drive signal and to decouple
the AC input from the AC output responsive to a second state of the switch
drive signal; and
a control circuit operative to detect a current in the switch following a
transition of the switch drive signal to the second state and to initiate control
of the AC output by the converter circuit responsive to the detected current
following the transition of the switch drive signal to the second state.
13. An uninterruptible power supply (UPS), comprising:
an AC input configured to be coupled to an AC source;
an AC output;
2
Appeal2015-000640
Application 13/418,997
a converter circuit operative to generate an AC voltage at the AC
output;
a switch operative to couple the AC input to the AC output through
the switch responsive to a first state of a switch drive signal and to decouple
the AC input from the AC output responsive to a second state of the switch
drive signal; and
a control circuit operative to detect a current in the switch following a
transition of the switch drive signal to the second state and to inhibit control
of the AC output by the converter circuit responsive to the detected current
following the transition of the switch drive signal to the second state.
Appellants present arguments specifically directed to claims 1, 6, and
11-14 although certain of these arguments are merely reiterations of
previously submitted arguments (Br. 6-8). Therefore, we will focus on
these claims in our disposition of this appeal.
We sustain the§ 102 rejection for the reasons expressed in the Final
Action and the Answer with the following comments added for emphasis.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Appellants opine that, in the column 10,
lines 14--32, disclosure of Rosa, "both the 'commutation mode' and the
'UPS mode' involve the inverter controlling the AC output" (Br. 6) and that,
"[ d]uring the time delays TD 1 and TD2 illustrated in Fig. 9 of Rosa, the
GTOs are already actively controlling the AC output, so 'initiation of
control' occurs before these time periods" (id. at 6-7). For this reason,
according to Appellants, Rosa does not teach initiating control of the AC
output by the converter circuit responsive to the detected current following
the transition of the switch drive signal to the second state as required by
these claims (id. at 7). As for claims 11-14, Appellants additionally argue
that Rosa does not teach the inhibiting control requirement of these claims
(id. at 7-8).
3
Appeal2015-000640
Application 13/418,997
In response, the Examiner explains that the rejection does not rely on
the Rosa embodiment described by Appellants "but rather the alternative
embodiment wherein the inverter (converter) GTO switches do not provide
said commutation function and therefore are not operating in the
commutation mode and therefore only operate in the 'UPS Mode"' (Ans. 3).
With reference to Figure 9 of Rosa, the Examiner finds that Rosa's
alternative embodiment starts time delay TD2 when measured current
reaches 0 and initiates control of the AC output only in the UPS mode (i.e.,
following transition of the switch drive signal to the second state) (id. at 5
(citing Rosa col. 14, 11. 24--34)). With respect to the inhibiting requirement
of claims 11-14, the Examiner additionally finds that this claim requirement
is satisfied by the fact that Rosa delays and therefore inhibits control of the
AC output (id. at 5-7).
Appellants have not filed a reply brief contesting the Examiner's
position that the rejection relies on the alternative embodiment of Rosa
rather than the embodiment described in the Appeal Brief arguments or
contesting the Examiner's findings that Rosa's alternative embodiment
satisfies the argued limitations of claims 1, 6, and 11-14. Based on the
record before us, therefore, Appellants fail to show error in the Examiner's
ultimate finding that the appealed claims are anticipated by Rosa.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
4