Ex Parte Brown

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2019

13449248 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/449,248 04/17/2012
22434 7590 02/25/2019
Weaver Austin Villeneuve & Sampson LLP
P.O. BOX 70250
OAKLAND, CA 94612-0250
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stephen C. Brown
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.
VIEWP041US 1061
EXAMINER
LEI, JIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2872
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2019 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@wavsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN C. BROWN 1
Appeal2017-006845
Application 13/449,248
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JULIA HEANEY, and SHELDON M.
McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-5 and 9-17 as
unpatentable over Greer (US 7,133,181 B2, issued Nov. 7, 2006) in view of
Atherton et al. (US 2004/0001056 Al, published Jan. 1, 2004), and claims
18-28 and 32--44 as unpatentable over these references in combination with
Ahmed (US 7,610,910 B2, issued Nov. 3, 2009). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 View, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest (App. Br. 2).
Appeal2017-006845
Application 13/449,248
We AFFIRM.
Appellant claims a window controller for powering an optically-
switchable device and a system comprising a plurality of such window
controllers wherein the controller comprises first and second inductors for
filtering first and second PWM signals to provide first and second
substantially DC voltage signals to first and second conductive electrode
layers of the optically-switchable device (independent claim 1 (window
controller) and remaining independent claim 25 (system)).
A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A window controller for powering an optically-
switchable device, the optically-switchable device including a
first conductive electrode layer, a second conductive electrode
layer, and an electrochromic layer arranged between the first
conductive electrode layer and the second conductive electrode
layer, the window controller comprising:
a command-voltage generator configured to generate a
command voltage signal;
a pulse-width-modulated-signal generator configured to
generate:
a first pulse-width-modulated (PWM) signal based on the
command voltage signal, the first PWM signal for powering the
first conductive electrode layer, the first PWM signal having a
frequency and a first adjustable duty cycle, the first adjustable
duty cycle including a first portion during which a voltage of
the first PWM signal is at a first value, the first adjustable duty
cycle further including a second portion during which the
voltage of the first PWM signal is at a second value; and
a second PWM signal based on the command voltage
signal, the second PWM signal for powering the second
conductive electrode layer, the second PWM signal having the
frequency and a second adjustable duty cycle, the second
2
Appeal2017-006845
Application 13/449,248
adjustable duty cycle including a first portion during which a
voltage of the second PWM signal is at the second value, the
second adjustable duty cycle further including a second portion
during which the voltage of the second PWM signal is at the
first value; and
first and second inductors for filtering the first and the
second PWM signals, respectively, to provide first and second
substantially DC voltage signals to the first and the second
conductive electrode layers, respectively;
wherein:
the first and the second PWM signals are complementary
signals such that the first portion of the first PWM signal
coincides with the first portion of the second PWM signal and
the second portion of the first PWM signal coincides with the
second portion of the second PWM signal; and
the pulse-width-modulated-signal generator is configured
to adjust the first and the second duty cycles to increase or
decrease the durations of the first portions of the first and the
second PWM signals relative to the durations of the second
portions of the first and the second PWM signals responsive to
the command voltage signal during operation of the optically-
switchable device to increase or decrease an effective DC
voltage applied across the optically-switchable device.
App. Br. 18-19 (Claims Appendix).
Appellant presents arguments directed to claim 1 (App. Br. 10-14)
that are reiterated with respect to claim 25 (id. at 15). No additional separate
arguments are advanced against the rejections of claims 2-5, 9-28, and 32-
44 (see id. at 10-16). Therefore, we will focus on claim 1 in our disposition
of this appeal.
3
Appeal2017-006845
Application 13/449,248
We will sustain the Examiner's rejections for the reasons given in the
Non-Final Office Action (dated February 23, 2016) and the Examiner's
Answer. We add the following comments for emphasis.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Greer discloses a window
controller having each of the claimed features except for the first and second
inductors required by the claim (Non-Final Action 2---6). More specifically,
the Examiner finds that Greer discloses an H-bridge driver circuit for the
window controller but does not disclose that the circuit includes first and
second inductors (id. at 6 (citing Greer Fig. 13)). With regard to this
deficiency, the Examiner finds that Atherton discloses an electrochromic
window driver (i.e., controller) having an H-bridge driver circuit with first
and second inductors for eliminating unwanted ripple in the DC voltage (id.
( citing Atherton ,r 31, Fig. 6) ). The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to provide the H-bridge driver circuit of Greer's window
controller with first and second inductors to eliminate ripple in the DC
voltage as taught by Atherton (id.).
Appellant argues that Atherton does not disclose first and second
inductors for filtering first and second PWM signals as claimed because only
one of Atherton's inductors (i.e., LC filter 67) receives a variable DC
voltage signal while the other inductor (i.e., LC filter 68) does not receive a
PWM signal (App. Br. 10).
However, we agree with the Examiner that the combined teachings of
Greer and Atherton would have suggested providing Greer's H-bridge driver
circuit with first and second inductors for filtering the first and second PWM
4
Appeal2017-006845
Application 13/449,248
signals of Greer (i.e., in order to eliminate ripple in the DC voltage as taught
by Atherton) (Ans. 5-6). As correctly explained by the Examiner, "[ o ]ne
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references" (id. at 6 ( citing, e.g., In
re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986))).
In addition, Appellant disputes the Examiner's characterization of
Greer as applying a DC voltage by arguing that Greer explicitly discloses
applying AC voltage (App. Br. 11 (citing Greer's col. 12, 1. 66-col. 13, 1. 9
disclosure of preferred embodiments)). Appellant acknowledges Greer's
recitation "an average applied voltage of 2-3V DC" (Greer col. 15, 1. 50) but
states "[i]t is well known that AC voltage measurements are often cast in the
scale of DC equivalence" (App. Br. 11). Appellant also states, "[a]s one of
ordinary skill in the art would appreciate, the application of AC signals
having an average DC voltage equivalence is not the same as 'provid[ing]
first and second substantially DC voltage signals to the first and the [sic]
second conductive electrode layers,' as independent claim 1 recites" (id.). 2
Further regarding this matter, Appellant argues "the Examiner's cited
motivation to combine Greer with Atherton-to eliminate ripple in a DC
voltage-is misplaced" because Greer applies AC, not DC, voltage (id. at
12).
The Examiner responds by finding that Greer explicitly teaches
applying direct current/DC voltage (Ans. 6 ( citing Greer col. 5, 11. 28-31,
2 Appellant proffers no evidence in support of these statements.
5
Appeal2017-006845
Application 13/449,248
col. 14, 11. 44--47)). The Examiner also reiterates the finding that Greer's
PWM signals have substantially DC voltage portions (id. at 5 ( citing Greer
col. 15, 11. 50, 60-61), 7) and determines that signals having both DC and
AC voltage portions satisfy the claim 1 feature of providing "substantially
DC voltage signals" (id. at 7). In support of this determination, the
Examiner finds that Appellant's Figure 5C discloses applying "AC signals
having an average DC voltage equivalence" (id.) and accordingly that the
claim phrase "substantially DC voltage signals" is properly interpreted as
including the application of AC signals having an average DC voltage
equivalence (id.).
The argument under consideration is not persuasive for the above
reasons given by the Examiner. Appellant's implication that Greer applies
only AC voltage to the electrochromic (i.e., optically-switchable) device (see
App. Br. 11) is vitiated by Greer's express disclosures, cited by the
Examiner, of applying DC voltage. Moreover, as indicated in footnote 2,
supra, Appellant provides no evidence in support of the previously quoted
statement that "the application of AC signals having an average DC voltage
equivalence is not the same as 'provid[ing] first and second substantially DC
voltage signals to the first and the [sic] second conductive electrode layers,'
as independent claim 1 recites" (id.). In contrast, the Examiner offers
Appellant's Figure 5C disclosure as evidence supporting the interpretation of
"substantially DC voltage signals" ( claim 1) as encompassing AC signals
having an average DC voltage equivalence (Ans. 7). We emphasize that
Appellant does not address, and therefore does not show error in, the
Examiner's claim interpretation (see generally Reply Br.).
6
Appeal2017-006845
Application 13/449,248
Finally, Appellant argues that a person of ordinary skill would not
combine Greer and Atherton as proposed by the Examiner because "the
incorporation of inductors ... would remove the alternating currents
required by Greer's EC device, and consequently, render the circuit 420
inoperative for its intended purpose" (App. Br. 14).
Appellant's argument lacks convincing merit for the reasons given by
the Examiner (Ans. 9--10). The Examiner explains, "in the case of the
voltage of 100 Hz (see Greer, col. 4, line[s] 55-56), an inductor with a small
impedance in the LC filter would not affect much of the AC portion of the
PWM signal, as well as the heating and coloring/bleaching processes of
Greer" (id.). The Examiner further explains "[a] person of ordinary skill in
the art would combine Greer and Atherton to have inductors with proper
impedances in the driving circuit ... [ whereby Greer's circuit] will not be
inoperative for its intended purpose" (id. at 10). Appellant does not address,
and accordingly does not show error in, the Examiner's explanations (see
generally Reply Br.).
For the reasons expressed by the Examiner and emphasized above, we
sustain the§ 103 rejections of representative claim 1 as well as claims 2-5,
9-28, and 32--44.
The decision of the Examiner 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).
7
Appeal2017-006845
Application 13/449,248
AFFIRMED
8