Ex Parte Clothier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2016

12749156 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121749, 156 03/29/2010
25227 7590 06/22/2016
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
1650 TYSONS BOULEVARD
SUITE400
MCLEAN, VA 22102
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andrew Charlton CLOTHIER
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.
424662036500 6545
EXAMINER
DUDA, RINA I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2016 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):
EOfficeVA@mofo.com
PatentDocket@mofo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW CHARLTON CLOTHIER and
TUN CAY CELIK
Appeal2014-003479
Application 12/749,156
Technology Center 2800
Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a rejection of claims 1-
23.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part and
enter a new ground for rejection pursuant our authority under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b).
1 In this Opinion, we refer to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed October
15, 2013), the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed March 15, 2013),
The Advisory Action ("Adv. Act.," mailed October 18, 2013), the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed November 21, 2013), and the
Specification ("Spec.," originally filed March 29, 2010).
Appeal2014-003479
Application 12/749,156
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to control of an electric machine. Spec. 1 :9. A
control system controls the excitation of phase windings of the electric
machine (e.g., a motor) in response to a signal. Id. at 1: 11-12.
Claims 1 and 16, reproduced below, are illustrative:
1. A method of controlling an electric machine, the
method comprising:
storing a plurality of power maps, each power map
comprising control values for driving the electric machine at
different power;
selecting one of the power maps in response to an input
signal; and
exciting a winding of the electric machine at times
defined by the control values of the selected map.
16. A control system for an electric machine, the control
system storing a plurality of power maps, each power map
comprising control values for driving the electric machine at
different power, and the control system is configured to select a
power map in response to an input signal. 2
THE OBJECTION AND REJECTIONS
Claim 16 stands objected to as a duplicate of claim 1. Final Act. 2-3.
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Soucy (US 6,476,510 B2; issued Nov. 5, 2002). Final Act. 3.
2 Appellants' Claims Appendix incorrectly recites claim 16 as though an
amendment filed after final rejection on October 14, 2013 had been entered.
Br. 13. But that amendment was not entered by the Examiner. Adv. Act. 1-
2. Thus, we include the text of claim 16 as it presently stands for this
appeal.
2
Appeal2014-003479
Application 12/749,156
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Clothier (US 2007/0252551 Al; published Nov. 1, 2007). Final Act. 3--4.
Claims 2-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Clothier and Lee (US 4,323,835; issued Apr. 6, 1982). Final Act. 4---6.
ANALYSIS
THE OBJECTION
Appellants argue the objection is overcome by an amendment filed
October 14, 2013 and does not otherwise argue the substance of the
objection. Br. 9. That amendment was not entered by the Examiner (Adv.
Act. 1-2) and, thus, we decline to address the Appellants' argument
regarding the objection to claim 16.
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTIONS
The Examiner finds both Soucy and Clothier teach all features of
claim 1. Final Act. 3--4. Appellants argue Soucy fails to disclose "exciting a
winding of the electric machine at times defined by the control values of the
selected map." Br. 5. Specifically, Appellants argue Soucy's control
parameter relates to the amount of fuel to be supplied to a power source and
is, thus, unrelated to exciting windings of an electric machine at time defined
by the control values. Id. In like manner, Appellants argue Clothier fails to
disclose times for exciting windings that are defined by control values. Br.
8.
We agree with Appellants that neither Soucy nor Clothier teach
winding excitation times defined by control values of the map. "A claim is
anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found,
3
Appeal2014-003479
Application 12/749,156
either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference."
Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir.
1987).
Regarding Soucy, the Examiner further finds claim 1 does not recite
the particular types of control values stored in the maps. Ans. 6. However,
we agree with Appellants (Br. 5), the Examiner has not shown the fuel
values (control values) associated with the maps of Soucy expressly or
inherently define winding excitation times as required by claim 1.
Regarding Clothier, the Examiner finds, "Clothier describes in
paragraph 0044 that the times at which the windings are excited are defined
by the on and off times the windings of the motor are fired." Ans. 8. Again,
we agree with Appellants (Br. 8-9) that the Examiner has not shown the
voltage compensation map (comprising advance angle values as described in
paragraph 44 of Clothier) expressly or inherently teaches the recited control
values that define winding excitation times.
In view of the above discussion, we are persuaded the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 1 and, thus, we do not sustain the rejections of claim 1 and
its dependent claims 2-15.
Appellants raise additional issues in the Briefs regarding the rejections
of claim 1. We are persuaded of error with regard to the identified issue
discussed supra, which is dispositive as to the rejection of claim 1 and its
dependent claims 2-15. Therefore, we do not reach the additional issues.
4
Appeal2014-003479
Application 12/749,156
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Claims 2-23 are rejected over the combination of Clothier and Lee.
As discussed supra, we reverse the rejection of claims 2-15 dependent from
claim 1.
Regarding claim 16 and its dependent claims 17-23, the Final Office
Action appears to be devoid of analysis for the rejection of independent
claim 16. Final Act. 4. However, the Examiner's Answer clarifies that
claim 16 is rejected for essentially the same reasons as claim 1 (Ans. 9).
Specifically, the Examiner identifies Clothier's "control map" and "voltage
compensation map" as the recited plurality of maps comprising control
values for driving an electric machine at different power. Ans. 9 (see also
Ans. 8 (section (2B))). Unlike claim 1, claim 16 does not require that the
control values of the plurality of maps define times for winding excitation as
recited in claim 1.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim
16 for essentially the same reasons as claim 1. Br. 10. Regarding the
rejection of claim 1 applicable to the rejection of claim 16, Appellants
contend,
In a nutshell, Clothier describes a controller that stores a
control map that stores values (i.e. tum-on and tum-off angles)
for driving the motor at a desired power. The controller
additionally stores a voltage-compensation map that stores
correction factors that are applied to the values selected from the
control map such that the same desired power is achieved
irrespective of the voltage of the power supply. Therefore,
Clothier does not select one of the two maps it discloses; instead
Clothier must use the control map and the voltage compensation
map together.
Br. 7. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 16.
5
Appeal2014-003479
Application 12/749,156
Clothier discloses a plurality of maps (the control map and the voltage
compensation map). Both maps of Clothier define "control values for
driving the electric machine at different power" as recited in claim 16. The
control map provides advance angles for energizing windings of a motor for
a first power setting (e.g., a default power) and the second map (voltage
compensation map) provides adjustments for those advance angles (e.g.,
another power setting corresponding to a particular voltage). See, e.g.,
Clothier i-f 5. That Clothier uses both maps in combination does not preclude
reading the "selecting" recitation of claim 16 on Clothier- i.e., if either one
or both maps are "selected," then the recitation "selecting a power map" is
met.
In view of the above discussion, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 16 or claims 17-23 dependent therefrom and not
separately argued with particularity (Br. 10). Thus, we sustain the rejection
of claims 16-23.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
CLAIM 1 REJECTED UNDER§ 103(A)
We issue a new ground of rejection for independent claim 1 pursuant
to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). We reject claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Clothier. We adopt the Examiner's
findings regarding the teachings of Clothier (Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 7-8)
noting in particular that the control values in Clothier's two maps specify
angles of the rotor of a motor for excitation of windings based on the present
angular position and speed of the rotor. See, e.g., Clothier i-fi-1 7, 26.
Appellants admit "Clothier's control map stores values (i.e. tum-on and tum-
6
Appeal2014-003479
Application 12/749,156
off angles) that may be said to relate to the times at which the winding is
excited." Br. 8-9 (emphasis added). We agree. Knowing the present
angular position and rotational speed of the rotor, specification of an angular
position for turning on/off the winding excitation is equivalent to specifying
the time at which the excitation should be switched. Thus, we find Clothier
teaches or at least suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art "exciting a
winding of the electric machine at times defined by the control values of the
selected map" as recited in claim 1.
We further explain our new grounds of rejection as follows. Clothier
teaches providing a control map in the form of a look-up table. See Clothier
i-f 26, Fig. 2. Each entry of the look-up table stores "control parameters for
controlling the machine to produce [a] corresponding speed and torque,"
where the control parameters are "on-advance" and "off-advance" rotor
angles. Id. Because a motor's power is the product of its speed and torque,
each entry of Clothier's lookup table is a power map storing control
parameters for driving the motor at a different power. Consequently,
Clothier's lookup-table meets the limitation of "storing a plurality of power
maps [lookup table entries], each power map comprising control values [on-
advance and off-advance angles] for driving the electric machine at different
power," as recited in claim 1.
Clothier further teaches measuring the speed and torque of a motor,
inputting these measurements into a control system, and using the lookup
table to find the firing angles (control parameters) needed to achieve a
desired speed and torque. See Clothier i-f 26. That is, Clothier teaches
"selecting one of the power maps [a lookup table entry for a desired speed
7
Appeal2014-003479
Application 12/749,156
and torque] in response to an input signal [a measured speed and torque]," as
recited in claim 1.
Finally, Clothier teaches using the firing angles in the selected lookup
table entry to control energization of the motor's windings. See Clothier
i-f 26. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants'
invention would have known how to excite the windings of Clothier's motor
at times defined by Clothier's firing angle control parameters given the
measured speed of the motor. Indeed, Appellants admit that Clothier's on-
advance angle and off-advance angle control parameters "relate to the times
at which the [motor's] winding is excited." Br. 8-9 (emphasis added); see
also Spec. 22:9-20 (relating the advance time used to excite a motor's
winding to the motor's advance angles). Accordingly, Clothier teaches or
suggests "exciting a winding of the electric machine at times defined by the
control values [on-advance and off-advance angles] of the selected map
[lookup table entry selected to achieve a desired speed and torque]," as
recited in claim 1. Although we decline to reject every claim pursuant to our
discretionary authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we emphasize that our
decision does not mean claims 2-15 (dependent from claim 1) are
patentable. Rather, we leave the patentability determination of the
remaining claims to the Examiner. See MPEP § 1213.02.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-15
is reversed.
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 16-23
is affirmed.
8
Appeal2014-003479
Application 12/749,156
We enter a new ground of rejection for claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Clothier.
This Decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides that "[a] new ground of rejection ...
shall not be considered final for judicial review."
Section 41.50(b) also provides that Appellants, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of
the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so
rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in
which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner. The
new ground of rejection is binding upon the examiner unless an
amendment or new Evidence not previously of Record is made which,
in the opinion of the examiner, overcomes the new ground of rejection
designated in the decision. Should the examiner reject the claims,
appellant may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this subpart.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The request for
rehearing must address any new ground of rejection and state with
particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or
overlooked in entering the new ground of rejection and also state all
other grounds upon which rehearing is sought.
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Further guidance on responding to a new ground of
rejection can be found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
§ 1214.01.
9
Appeal2014-003479
Application 12/749,156
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-IN-PART
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
10