Ex Parte Guo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2013

11775588 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2013)

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.
11/775,588 07/10/2007 Sam Yonghong Guo 5744-000049 5266
27572 7590 03/29/2013
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
EXAMINER
AMRANY, ADI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2836
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte SAM YONGHONG GUO and RICHARD P. CUPLIN
____________

Appeal 2010-010224
Application 11/775,588
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 18-371. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Claims 1-17 have been cancelled and are not on appeal.
Appeal 2010-010224
Application 11/775,588

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to methods and systems for controlling
current to mechanical relays. Spec. ¶1.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 18, 24, and 28 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 18
is representative of the subject matter on appeal, and recites:
18. A power distribution system, comprising:
at least two relays;
at least two drivers, one for each of the at least two relays,
that control current flow to the at least two relays based on at
least two pulse signals in equal phase intervals, one for each of
the at least two drivers; and
an equal phase pulse-generator that generates the at least
two pulse signals, the equal phase pulse-generator including:
a frequency divider that outputs a first output;
a shift register that receives the first output; and
at least two edge detectors, one for each of said at
least two relays,
wherein the shift register generates at least two
second outputs, one for each of the at least two edge
detectors, and each of the at least two edge detectors
receives one of the at least two second outputs and
generates one of the at least two pulse signals.

REJECTIONS
Claims 18-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gyori (US 4,214,171, Jul. 22, 1980) and Dinh (US
6,262,566 B1, Jul. 17, 2001). Ans. 3-6.
Appeal 2010-010224
Application 11/775,588

3
Claims 28-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gyori, Dinh, and Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (APA).
Ans. 6-7.

ISSUE
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims
18 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error because the Examiner has (i)
not shown the Dinh reference discloses at least two relays and (ii) provided
only conclusory statements and not a rational explanation to combine Gyori
and Dinh. App. Br. 17-19. Additionally, Appellants argue that the resultant
system would involve using a switch to turn on another switch and,
therefore, the combination would provide no benefits to the system of Gyori.
Reply Br. 3. These arguments present the Board with the issues:
(i) Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Gyori
and Dinh teach or suggest at least two relays; and
(ii) Has the Examiner erred by improperly combining the teachings
of the cited prior art?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusion, App. Br. 19-20. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief, Ans. 7-13. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments regarding independent claims 18 and 24 for
emphasis as follows.
Appeal 2010-010224
Application 11/775,588

4
Appellants maintain the contention that the cited prior art references
do not teach the claimed at least two relays. Reply Br. 2 n. 1. However,
contrary to Appellants’ arguments, App. Br. 16-17, we agree with the
Examiner’s detailed findings, Ans. 4, 7-9, showing that the claimed at least
two relays is met by Dinh. Appellants have not pointed to a function
performed by the claims or provided persuasive argument or evidence
showing that the transistor switch of Dinh is not the claimed at least two
relays.
The Supreme Court has held that in analyzing the obviousness of
combining elements, a court may consider “the background knowledge
possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art” and “the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”
See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Additionally, in
determining whether the subject matter of a claim is obvious, “[c]ommon
sense teaches . . . that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their
primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able
to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id.
at 420. Here, the Examiner is relying on Gyori’s disclosure of a pulsed
power supply system that uses pulse signals to control the brightness of
lamps and Dinh’s disclosure of using a pulse to control a converter, which
includes a transistor switch. Ans. 10, 11. Appellants have presented no
persuasive argument or evidence to demonstrate that replacing the Dinh
pulse generator with the Gyori pulse generator would have been beyond the
skill and ordinary creativity of one with ordinary skill in the art or more than
a simple substitution of techniques for controlling the relays.
Appeal 2010-010224
Application 11/775,588

5
Furthermore, we find that the Examiner has articulated a reason with a
rational underpinning for the combination. Ans. 4, 10-12. With respect to
Appellants’ contention that the resultant system would involve using a
switch to turn on another switch and, therefore, the combination would
provide no benefits to the system of Gyori, Reply Br. 3, we disagree. As
articulated by the Examiner, we find one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to combine the teachings of the references to reduce
stress on the power source and stagger activation of the claimed relays.
Ans.11.
Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner has improperly combined
the cited references’ teachings and suggestions. Further, Appellants have
not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Gyori and Dinh teaches or suggests the invention as recited in independent
claims 18 and 24, and dependent claims 19-23 and 25-27 not separately
argued, as well as independent claim 28 and dependent claims 29-37, also
not separately argued, App. Br. 19-20. Accordingly, we are not persuaded
of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18-37 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) and, therefore, we sustain that rejection.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18-37.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2010-010224
Application 11/775,588

6

tj