Ex Parte Celanovic et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2016

11783448 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111783,448 04/10/2007
21839 7590 03/21/2016
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
POST OFFICE BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nikola Celanovic
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.
1004501-000899 7028
EXAMINER
HANIDU, GANIYU A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2016 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):
ADIPDOC 1@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NIKOLA CELANOVIC, LUC MEYSENC, MICHAEL MAZUR,
and PAUL RUDOLF
Appeal2014-005578
Application 11/783,448 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal arises under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Office Action rejecting claims 1-11. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is ABB Research Ltd.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-005578
Application 11/783,448
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The invention is directed to a signal transmission system for driving a
power semiconductor switch in which a control signal and/or a drive signal
is transmitted over a wireless transmission path. See Abstract.
Claims 1 and 10 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and are
reproduced below:
1. A signal transmission system for driving at least one
power semiconductor switch of a power-electronics circuit from
a controller, each power semiconductor switch being connected
to a respective control electrode driver stage,
the controller being able to transmit at least one control
signal to at least one modulator using at least one first
transmission path, and
the at least one modulator being able to transmit at least
one drive signal to each of the control electrode driver stages
using a respective second transmission path, wherein
at least one of the control signal and the drive signal can
be transmitted from a transmitter, which as an antenna for
transmitting electromagnetic radiation, to a receiver, which has
an antenna for receiving electromagnetic radiation, using
electromagnetic radiation, such that at least one of the first
transmission path and the second transmission path is wireless.
10. A signal transmission system for driving a power
semiconductor switch of a power-electronics circuit, the signal
transmission system comprising:
a controller for transmitting a control signal for controlling
a power semiconductor switch; and
a modulator for receiving the control signal via a first
wireless transmission path for controlling the modulator to
transmit a drive signal to a control electrode driver stage via a
second wireless transmission path, the driving signal including a
2
Appeal2014-005578
Application 11/783,448
command suitable to switch the power semiconductor switch,
wherein the modulator and at least one of the controller, and the
control electrode driver stage include a transmitting antenna and
a receiving antenna for wireless transmission and reception.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 11under35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, for failure to meet the written description requirement. Final Act.
6-7.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Applicant's Admitted Prior Art
("AAPA") and Beckmann '474 (US 4,024,474; iss. May 17, 1977). Final
Act. 7-11.
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 4, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable in view of AAP A, Beckmann '4 7 4, and Maslov (US
2004/0021437 Al; pub. Feb. 5, 2004). Final Act. 11-18.
The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable in view of AAPA, Beckmann '474, and Beckmann '003
(US 4,014,003; iss. Mar. 22, 1977). Final Act. 18-20.
ISSUES
The issues are whether the Examiner erred in:
( 1) determining that claims 10 and 11 fail to meet the written
description requirement;
(2) finding that the combination of AAPA and Beckmann
'4 7 4 teaches "at least one of the first transmission path and the second
transmission path is wireless," as required by claim 1;
3
Appeal2014-005578
Application 11/783,448
(3) combining Maslov with AAPA and Beckmann '474 in
support of the obviousness rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, and 7; and
( 4) finding that the combination of AAP A, Beckmann '4 7 4,
and Beckmann '003 teaches a modulator that includes "a transmitting
antenna and a receiving antenna for wireless transmission and
reception," as required by claims 10 and 11.
ANALYSIS
Written description rejection of claims 10 and 11
Claim 10 and 11 each require, among other things, that "the
modulator and at least one of the controller[] and the control electrode driver
stage include a transmitting antenna and a receiving antenna for wireless
transmission and reception." The Examiner finds that there is no written
description support for the claims because the claimed features are
illustrated in separate figures depicting different embodiments, and there is
no further explanation in the specification that describes the claimed
combination. Ans. 4, 18-19. Appellants argue that the specification
supports the claimed features. App. Br. 8-9, Reply Br. 2. Specifically,
Appellants assert that: (i) Figure 2 illustrates a wireless first transmission
path 3 connecting a controller and modulator; (ii) Figure 4 illustrates a
wireless second transmission path 4 connecting a modulator and a control
electrode driver stage; and (iii) the written description states that "[i]n
another embodiment which is not illustrated for the sake of clarity," both the
first transmission path 3 and second transmission path 4 are wireless. Reply
Br. 1-2.
4
Appeal2014-005578
Application 11/783,448
Appellants persuade us that the Examiner erred. Figure 2 illustrates a
first wireless transmission path 3 between the controller 11 and the
modulator Ml connected by a transmitter 5 and receiver 6, and Figure 4
illustrates a second wireless transmission path 4 between the modulator Ml
and the control electrode driver stage connected by a transmitter 5 and
receiver 6. The written description also discloses that antennas may be used
as the transmitter and receiver. Spec. 16:7-11. The written description also
states:
In another embodiment which is not illustrated for the sake of
clarity, at least one control signal can be transmitted using
electromagnetic radiation and the at least one associated first
transmission path 3 is wireless and at least one drive signal can
be transmitted using electromagnetic radiation and the at least
one associated second transmission path 4 is wireless.
Spec. 12:36-13:4. The specification thus discloses a system in which both
the first transmission path and second transmission path are wireless, and the
modulator and control driver have antennas for transmission and reception.
We thus do not sustain the Examiner's written description rejection, which
did not consider the above-quoted passage from the specification. See Final
Act. 6-7.
Obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9 based on AAP A and
Beckmann '474
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of AAP A and Beckmann '4 7 4 teaches "at least one of the first
transmission path and the second transmission path is wireless," as required
by claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 5, 8, and 9. App. Br. 9-12. Specifically,
Appellants argue that even though Beckmann discloses a wireless
transmission path, Beckmann '4 7 4 does not disclose a modulator in that
5
Appeal2014-005578
Application 11/783,448
wireless transmission path. Id. at 11. Thus, according to Appellants,
Beckmann '4 7 4 does not disclose that either of the particular transmission
paths that are claimed is wireless. Id. at 11. Appellants also argue that the
AAP A does not remedy this deficiency because the AAP A does not disclose
wireless transmission. Id. at 12.
The Examiner responds that the AAP A describes all of the structural
features recited in claim 1 except for the transmission of a wireless signal.
Ans. 20; see also id. at 19. The Examiner finds that Beckmann '474 teaches
a controller transmitting a signal through a modulator to a drive stage by
converting a wired signal to a wireless signal. Id. at 20; see also Final Act. 3
(describing how Beckmann '474 discloses a modulator in the signal path).
The Examiner also finds that "it is extremely well known" that transmitting
a control signal wirelessly based on translating a wired transmission into a
wireless transmission inherently includes a controlled receiver having a
modulator coupled to a driver. Ans. 20. The Examiner thus finds that it
would have been obvious to convert the controlled wire signal 3 of the
AAP A into a wireless path such that the wireless path would inherently
include a connection with a controller, modulator, or driver stage. Id. at 21.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. Appellants attempt to
distinguish each reference individually, rather than addressing the combined
teachings of the references. See App. Br. 9-12. Each reference, however,
must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination
with the prior art as a whole. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981) ("The test for obviousness is not ... that the claimed invention must
be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is
6
Appeal2014-005578
Application 11/783,448
what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art."). In KSR, the Supreme Court criticized a
rigid approach to determining obviousness based on the disclosures of
individual prior art references, with little recourse to the knowledge,
creativity, and common sense that a skilled artisan would have brought to
bear when considering combinations or modifications. See KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-22 (2007); see also Randall Mfg. v. Rea,
733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
We agree with the Examiner's findings regarding the combined
teachings of AAPA and Beckmann '474. See Ans. 5-6, 19-20; Final Act.
2--4, 7-9. For example, we agree that in view of the combined teachings, it
would have been obvious to arrive at a transmission system for driving a
semiconductor switch using structures described in the AAP A with the
additional wireless connection structures and functionality taught by
Beckmann '474. See, e.g., Spec. 1:16-2:38, Fig. 1; Beckmann '474 Abstract
1:10-18, 2:66--4:20, 4:55---66, Figs. 1, 4. Appellants fail to persuasively
explain how the Examiner's analysis of the combined teachings of the
AAP A and Beckmann '4 7 4 is erroneous. Appellants also do not separately
address the limitations added by dependent claims 2, 5, 8, and 9, and rely
exclusively on their arguments for independent claim 1. See App. Br. 12.
In light of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9 based on AAPA and Beckmann '474.
Obviousness rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, and 7 based on AAP A,
Beckmann '474, and Maslov
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in combining Maslov with
AAP A and Beckmann '4 7 4 and in finding that Maslov is in a similar field of
7
Appeal2014-005578
Application 11/783,448
endeavor. App. Br. 12-13. Appellants maintain that Maslov relates to a
different technical field---control of electric motors-and that one skilled in
the art of signal transmission systems for driving a power semiconductor
switch of a power-electronics circuit would not consider Maslov because
"the signals to be transmitted are different in nature." Id. at 12.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. Appellants rely
exclusively on unsupported attorney argument. The evidence of record,
however, shows that, like Beckmann '474, Maslov discloses using
semiconductor devices in the circuitry used to drive a load. See, e.g.,
Maslov i-fi-1251-64. Indeed, Maslov discloses that the semiconductor devices
may be thyristors, the very device disclosed in Beckmann '474. See Maslov
i1260; Beckmann '474, Abstract. We therefore are unconvinced that the
transmitted signals are different in nature, and thus sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, and 7 based on the combination of
AAPA, Beckmann '474, and Maslov.
Obviousness rejection of claims 10 and 11 based on AAP A, Beckmann
'474, and Beckmann '003
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of AAP A, Beckmann '4 7 4, and Beckmann '003 teaches
"wherein the modulator and at least one of the controller, and the control
electrode driver stage include a transmitting antenna and a receiving antenna
for wireless transmission and reception," as recited in claims 10 and 11.
App. Br. 13-14. Specifically, Appellants argue that Beckmann '003 does
not disclose that the modulator includes a transmitting antenna and a
receiving antenna for wireless transmission and reception. Id. at 14.
Appellants also argue, for the first time in their Reply Brief, that AAP A and
8
Appeal2014-005578
Application 11/783,448
Beckmann '474 do not disclose "a modulator for receiving the control signal
via a first wireless transmission path for controlling the modulator to
transmit a drive signal to a control electrode driver stage via a second
wireless transmission path." Reply Br. 5.
The Examiner responds that the combination of AAP A with
Beckmann '4 7 4 and Beckmann '003 meet the claimed limitations. Ans. 21.
The Examiner finds that Beckmann '003 teaches wireless transmission for
triggering a semiconductor valve V using wireless transmission via
controller S, transmitting and receiving antenna A, transmitting and
receiving antenna B, and control electrode driver stage. Id. at 17. The
Examiner also finds that it would have been obvious to combine the
teachings of the references in order to provide sharp separation between the
transmitted signal and the return message signal received by the same
transmitting antenna. Id.
Appellants' arguments of error are not persuasive. Appellants again
attempt to distinguish each reference individually, rather than addressing the
combined teachings of the references. See App. Br. 13-14, Reply Br. 4--5.
Each reference, however, must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly
teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. See Keller, 642 F.2d at
425. We agree with the Examiner's findings regarding the combined
teachings of AAPA, Beckmann '474, and Beckmann '003. See Ans. 15-18,
21; Final Act. 18-20; see also Beckmann '003, 3:47--4:23, 5:52---6:25, Fig. 1.
Appellants fail to persuasively explain how the Examiner's analysis of the
combined teachings of the AAP A, Beckmann '4 7 4, and Beckmann '003 is
erroneous.
9
Appeal2014-005578
Application 11/783,448
We therefore sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 10 and 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of AAPA,
Beckmann '474, and Beckmann '003.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 10 and 11 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for failure to meet the written description
requirement.
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of: (i) claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of AAPA and
Beckmann '474; (ii) claims 3, 4, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable in view of AAPA, Beckmann '474, and Maslov; and
(iii) claims 10 and 11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in
view of AAPA, Beckmann '474, and Beckmann '003.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10