Ex Parte Elliott et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 26, 2012

10154038 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/154,038 05/22/2002 Charles Richard Elliott 21573.17 7792
27683 7590 03/27/2012
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
IP Section
2323 Victory Avenue
Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219
EXAMINER
BENSON, WALTER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CHARLES RICHARD ELLIOTT and IAN JORDISON
____________

Appeal 2009-012141
Application 10/154,038
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and THOMAS S.
HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-14, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2009-012141
Application 10/154,038

2
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 21, 2008), the Answer (mailed
November 12, 2008), and the Reply Brief (filed December 23, 2008) for the
respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments
Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed
to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to the excitation of switched reluctance
motors to minimize the supply current drawn for a particular output. After a
first phase of a polyphase switched reluctance motor is energized, a second
phase is subsequently energized. The first phase is freewheeled
coincidentally with at least a portion of the period of energization of the
second phase with the initiation of the freewheeling of the first phase and the
energization of the second phase occurring simultaneously. See generally
Spec. 1:10-12 and 7:11-16.

Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A method of controlling a polyphase switched reluctance motor by
energizing phases of the motor consecutively according to a sequence, the
method including:
(i) energizing one phase of the motor;
(ii) subsequently energizing an adjacent phase in the sequence;
(iii) freewheeling the one phase coincidentally with at least a
portion of the period of energization of the adjacent phase in the
sequence, including initiating freewheeling of the one phase
and energization of the adjacent phase simultaneously, the
freewheeling of the one phase including opening one switch in
Appeal 2009-012141
Application 10/154,038

3
the one phase before opening a second, closed switch in the one
phase, and circulating current around a loop of the one phase
formed by the closed switch, a winding in the one phase, and a
diode in the one phase; and
(iv) repeating (ii) and (iii) for each consecutive pair of adjacent
phases in the sequence.

The Examiner’s Rejection

The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art references:
Saitou US 6,232,741 B1 May 15, 2001
Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) at page 4, lines 5-11 of the
Specification.

Claims 1-14, all of the appealed claims, stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saitou in view of AAPA.

ANALYSIS
Appellants’ arguments, with respect to the obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1, 7, 12, and 13, focus on the contention that neither
Saitou nor AAPA discloses the claimed feature of initiating the freewheeling
of a phase of a motor while simultaneously energizing an adjacent phase of
the motor. According to Appellants, freewheeling, as claimed, of any phase
in Saitou is impossible during a period of time when any other phase is
energized since the two switches for each phase are both forced open when
any other phase is energized (App. Br. 20-25: Reply Br. 5-6).
As noted by Appellants, “freewheeling” is specified in the claims as
including the opening of one switch in a particular phase before opening a
second, closed switch in that particular phase. Appellants further contend
that AAPA (Fig. 2; Spec. 4:5-11), which discloses the freewheeling of a
Appeal 2009-012141
Application 10/154,038

4
single phase of a motor by opening one switch of a power converter in
advance of the other switch, does not make up for the above noted
deficiency of Saitou since there is no disclosure of energizing any other
phases of the motor simultaneously with the freewheeling of the single phase
(App. Br. 15-19; Reply Br. 6-7).1
We do not agree with Appellants as we find that Appellants’
arguments unpersuasively focus on the individual differences between the
limitations of independent claims 1, 7, 12, and 13 and each of the applied
references. It is apparent from the Examiner’s line of reasoning in the
Answer that the basis for the obviousness rejection is, instead, the collective
teachings resulting from the combination of the prior art references. One
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986).
As an initial matter, we find no error in the Examiner’s determination
(Ans. 18) that “freewheeling” of one motor phase does occur in Saitou
simultaneously with the energization of another motor phase. As illustrated
in Figure 6 of Saitou, along with the accompanying description at column 2,
lines 50-54 and column 3, lines 23-29, Saitou discloses that phase “U” of the
motor is energized between 0 and 15 degrees of rotor rotation. Between 15

1 In support of their position, Appellants attached a copy of declaration
under 37 C.F.R. §1.132 by Norman N. Fulton originally submitted August
13, 2007. Although Appellants contend that the Examiner ignored the
evidence submitted in the declaration, the Examiner has previously
addressed the statements in the declaration in the Final Office action mailed
November 1, 2007.

Appeal 2009-012141
Application 10/154,038

5
and 30 degrees of rotor rotation, phase “V” of the motor is energized while
phase “U” is de-energized. Importantly, however, Saitou discloses that
between 15 and 20 degrees of rotor rotation, current continues to flow in the
coil of phase “U” despite the termination of coil energization in that phase.
This circulation of current in a phase winding without the application of
external voltage satisfies the definition of “freewheeling” asserted by
Appellants.2
Although we agree with the Examiner’s determination that
“freewheeling” exists in Saitou, we recognize, as does the Examiner that
Saitou does not disclose the specific “freewheeling” feature appearing in the
appealed claims, i.e., the opening of one power converter switch in advance
of the other. In addressing this deficiency, the Examiner turns to AAPA
which discloses the freewheeling of a phase of a motor with precisely the
switch opening arrangement as claimed. Further, Appellants’ arguments, to
the contrary notwithstanding, we find that the Examiner has provided an
articulated line of reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the
conclusion of obviousness with respect to the modification of Saitou with
AAPA. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). As
explained by the Examiner (Ans. 4), an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
found it obvious to initiate freewheeling of a phase in Saitou by opening one
power converter switch in advance of the other “in order to limit the peak

2 Page 4 of the declaration under 37 C.F.R. §1.132 by Norman N. Fulton
submitted August 13, 2007 states: “[m]ore specifically, in the context of
switched reluctance machines, the term ‘freewheeling’ is used to denote the
circulation of current in a phase winding without the application of a voltage
from an external source.” This definition of “freewheeling” is repeated at
page 15 of Appellants’ Brief.
Appeal 2009-012141
Application 10/154,038

6
current and reduce acoustic noise,” which are the advantages recognized by
AAPA.
Appellants have repeatedly emphasized in their arguments that it
would be impossible for any particular phase in the motor of Saitou to
freewheel, as claimed, since both power converter switches in that particular
phase are forced open while another phase is being energized (App. Br. 23;
Reply Br. 5-6). This argument, however, misapprehends the Examiner’s
position. Even assuming, arguendo, that Appellants are correct that in the
existing disclosure of Saitou, freewheeling, as claimed, could not take place,
it is important to note that the Examiner’s stated position proposes to modify
the switching arrangement of Saitou as taught by AAPA and has provided a
valid line of reasoning as to why it would be obvious to do so.
We further find unpersuasive Appellants’ presentation (App. Br. 16-
17) of a timing diagram (labeled “Fig. A”) which purports to illustrate how
the single phase freewheeling disclosure of AAPA (Fig. 2) would be applied
to a three phase machine. We find that this presentation is mere speculation
on the part of Appellants and does not appear in Appellants’ original
disclosure.
Lastly, we find that Appellants have mischaracterized the principle set
forth in KSR that to establish obviousness, it is insufficient to demonstrate
that each claimed element is independently known in the prior art without
identifying a reason to combine the prior art elements. KSR at 402.
Contrary to Appellants’ contention (App. Br. 25), there is no basis for
concluding that this principle suggests that a necessary prerequisite for
establishing obviousness is that each claimed element must be demonstrated
to be independently known in the prior art. As discussed supra, we find that
Appeal 2009-012141
Application 10/154,038

7
the Examiner has established a proper basis for determining the obviousness
of the claimed invention based on the collective teachings of the
combination of Saitou and AAPA.
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 1, 7, 12, and 13, as well as the rejection of dependent
claims 2-6, 8-11, and 14, not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claims 1-14 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2010).

AFFIRMED

gvw