Ex Parte De

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 14, 2017

13583961 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/583,961 09/11/2012 Tathagata De PA-0012813-US-AA 7585
87059 7590
Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
DHAKAL, BICKEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/18/2017 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TATHAGATA DE
Appeal 2015-008078
Application 13/583,9611
Technology Center 2800
Before PETER F. KRATZ, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and JULIA HEANEY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
1 Appellant identifies Carrier Corporation as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
2 We refer to the Specification filed September 11, 2012 (“Spec.”), the Final
Office Action issued August 14, 2014 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed
February 16, 2015 (“Appeal Br.”), and the Examiner’s Answer issued July 2,
2015 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2015-008078
Application 13/583,961
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection of claim 8 and 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-17 over applicant’s admitted prior art
(AAPA)3 in view of Choi.4 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to chiller system including, inter
alia, a rectifier to provide DC power via a DC bus to a first inverter that
provides AC power to a chiller motor and a second inverter that also draws
DC power from the DC bus and provides AC power to a motion controller.
Spec. Abstract, Fig. 2.
Each independent claim relates to a system in which supplied AC
power is converted into DC power and then some DC power is converted by
an inverter into AC power which is supplied to a motor controller.
Independent claim 1 is directed to a chiller system that includes, inter alia,
an inverter [the second inverter] connected to a DC bus to receive DC power
and output AC power to the motor controller. Independent claim 8 is
directed to a chiller system that includes, inter alia, an inverter connected to
a unit [the variable frequency drive unit] to receive DC power from the unit
and output AC power to the motor controller. Independent claim 14 is
directed to a method for controlling a system that includes, inter alia,
3 De, US 2013/0043819 A1—the publication of the instant application on
appeal—is cited for its Figure 1 depicting what is identified as prior art.
4 Choi, US 2005/0258795 Al, published November 24, 2005.
2
Appeal 2015-008078
Application 13/583,961
converting DC power from a charged capacitor into AC power and
supplying it to a motor controller.
Claim 1 is representative.
1. A chiller system including:
a motor;
a motor controller connected to the motor, the motor
controller operative to generate a control signal;
a rectifier connected to an alternating current (AC) power
source, the rectifier operative to receive AC power and output
direct current (DC) power;
a DC bus connected to the rectifier;
a first inverter connected to the DC bus and the motor,
the first inverter operative to receive DC power from the DC
bus and output AC power to the motor;
a variable frequency drive unit controller
communicatively connected to the motor controller and the first
inverter, the variable frequency drive unit controller receiving
the control signal from the motor controller; and
a second inverter separate from the first inverter, the
second inverter connected to the DC bus operative to receive
DC power and output AC power to the motor controller.
Appeal Br. (Claims Appendix) 10.
DISCUSSION
Section 112, Second Paragraph - Indefiniteness
The Examiner sets forth a rejection of claim 8 under 35U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph for indefiniteness. Final Act. 2. Not being explicitly
withdrawn, the ground of rejection is maintained by the Examiner. Ans. 2.
Appellant does not address this ground of rejection. See generally
Appeal Br. We, therefore, are not apprised of any error and affirm pro
forma the rejection of claim 8 for indefiniteness.
3
Appeal 2015-008078
Application 13/583,961
Section 103 - Obviousness over AAPA and Choi
Having considered the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred reversibly in the
rejection of the independent claims, and persists in the error as to all rejected
claims. It follows, therefore, that we reverse the Examiner’s rejection as to
all claims. “[T]he Examiner bears the initial burden ... of presenting a
prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992).
The Examiner relies on AAP A—set forth in De Figure 1—for most
claim elements, but relies on Choi for, inter alia, an inverter operative to
receive DC power and output AC power to the motor controller (Final Act.
3—4, 5-6, and 8-9, each citing Choi Fig. 3, Tflf 66, 68). In each of the
citations to Choi 66 and 68, the Examiner notes that “AC power is a
multiplication of voltage and current” Final Act. 4, 6, 9. The Examiner
further relies on Choi Figure 2 as depicting “the flows of voltage and
current” in the “arrows going from inverter/bus to the drive controller” (Ans.
2) and maintains that Figures 2 and 3 of Choi show load phase current and
voltage—together power—being supplied by the inverter (22, 33) to the
motor controller (24, 42) (Ans. 2-6).
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the Examiner has misapprehended
Choi’s disclosure of signals exchanged between the inverter and drive
controller describing measured currents/voltages as indications of the actual
flow of power. Appeal Br. 4-8 (citing Choi 66, 68). Appellant’s
argument is well-founded. Choi describes “us[ing] the measured values of
the DC link voltage, load phase currents, load phase voltages, and an
optional rotor position of the motor 23, to compute the switching patterns
4
Appeal 2015-008078
Application 13/583,961
and timing sequences.” Choi 1 66. Choi also describes systems with drive
controllers that “monitor[] the DC supply voltage, actual load currents,
actual load voltages, optional rotor’s speed or position, and control the . . .
switching circuits to regulate the current to their respective devices” (168).
It is clear that the arrow in Figure 2 labeled “Rotor Position” depicts a data
signal rather than the flow of power. We discern no reasonable basis for the
similarly depicted data signals relating to other monitored and measured
values to be equated with the actual flow of power.
Having misapprehended the disclosure of Choi, the Examiner fails to
otherwise provide for modifying the cited prior art to include an inverter to
receive DC power and then output AC power to the motor controller. See
generally Final Act.; Ans. The Examiner’s basis for the rejection, thus, falls
short of that necessary for a prima facie case. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d
1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“The Patent Office has the initial duty of
supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not. . . resort to
speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply
deficiencies in its factual basis.”); In re Sporck, 301 F.2d 686, 690 (CCPA
1962); see also Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445. Accordingly, we are unable to
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection.
CONCLUSION
The indefmiteness rejection of claim 8 is AFFIRMED.
The obviousness rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-17 is REVERSED.
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
5