Ex Parte Hawker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

12441878 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/441,878 10/19/2009
25227 7590 06/29/2016
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
1650 TYSONS BOULEVARD
SUITE400
MCLEAN, VA 22102
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David John Hawker
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.
424662027600 6021
EXAMINER
AGARED, GABRIEL T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 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 DAVID JOHN HAWKER and
GEORGE FRANCIS PAUL OAKHAM 1
Appeal2014-006987
Application 12/441,878
Technology Center 2800
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 4---6, and 8-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Dyson Technologies Limited as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-006987
Application 12/441,878
Introduction
Appellants state "[t]he invention relates to motor driving apparatus for
a cleaning appliance." Spec. 1 ("Field of the Invention"). By employing a
voltage-controlled drive signal having a variable duty cycle that increases as
power supply (i.e., battery) voltage to the controller decreases, the motor
receives a substantially constant voltage and operates at a substantially
constant speed throughout the useable run time of the battery. Spec. 2.
Appellants explain that this results in more consistent cleaning performance
with improved battery life from a design that is simpler than conventional
switched mode power supplies. Id. Claim 1 is representative:
1. A motor driving apparatus for a cleaning appliance
compnsmg
a battery source and a power controller, the battery
source being configured and connected to supply the power
controller with an output having a first voltage, the first voltage
decreasing as the battery source is discharged, and the power
controller being configured and connected to modulate the
output to produce a drive signal for driving a motor, the drive
signal having a second voltage and a variable duty cycle,
wherein the power controller is configured and connected
to increase the duty cycle of the drive signal as the first voltage
decreases in order to maintain the second voltage at a
substantially constant average value per unit time, and
the power controller is configured and connected to
switch the motor off when the duty cycle reaches a pre-
determined value of 100%.
App. Br. 9 (Claims App'x) (formatting revised).
Rejections
Claims 1, 4---6, and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Phillips (US 2004/0179829 Al; Sept. 16, 2004) and Lindquist
(US 2004/0045124 Al; Mar. 11, 2004). Final Act. 2-5.
2
Appeal2014-006987
Application 12/441,878
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Phillips teaches or
suggests claim 1 's requirement that "the power controller is configured and
connected to switch the motor off when the duty cycle reaches a pre-
determined value of 100%." App. Br. 3-5. Appellants specifically contend
"Phillips continues to power the motor even when the duty cycle reaches
100% as long as its motor current stays below a threshold." App. Br. 4
(citing Phillips Fig. 1 ). The Examiner answers that in Phillips, "[a] pulse
width modulation (PWM) controller reduces the average voltage so that the
stall current of the motor will not exceed the limit of the batteries. Thus,
Phillips teaches the claimed invention." Ans. 4 (citing Phillips Fig. 1, i-fi-1 6,
24, 66, 67). Appellants reply that
in Phillips, the pulse width of the motor signal is adjusted only
in response to the motor current, the fact that the duty cycle has
reached 100% does not itself signal either an under-voltage
condition or an over-current condition. Thus, in Phillips, the
duty cycle reaching 100% does not trigger any action on the
motor operation, much less shutting the motor off, as recited in
claim 1. Accordingly, Phillips fails to disclose shutting off the
motor when the duty cycle of the drive signal reaches 100%, as
required by claim 1.
Reply Br. 18 (citing Phillips Figs. ; i-fi-124, 51---68, 7 4 ).
We find Appellants' explanation persuasive. See Reply Br. 4--18.
Phillips teaches a power control system designed to continue running at a
duty cycle of 100% absent a shut-off trigger due to supply voltage or motor
current threshold limits. Specifically, the only circumstances described in
Phillips for switching off the motor is when motor current exceeds a
threshold or when the battery voltage falls below a threshold. See Phillips
i-fi-151---68, 74. While one of these triggers can occur simultaneously with
3
Appeal2014-006987
Application 12/441,878
duty cycle reaching 100%, such a coincidence does not teach or suggest a
power controller "configured ... to switch the motor off when the duty cycle
reaches ... 100%" as recited by claim 1. Phillips' design is configured to
shut the motor off only when either motor current or battery supply voltage
violates a threshold; it is not configured to shut the motor off when the duty
cycle reaches 100%.
Appellants also argue the Examiner errs in finding Phillips teaches or
suggests claim 1 's requirement that "the power controller is configured and
connected to increase the duty cycle of the drive voltage as the first voltage
decreases in order to maintain the second voltage at a substantially constant
average value per unit time." App. Br. 5. The Examiner answers that
Phillips teaches this requirement because its "Figure 4 discloses the power
controller #440 connected to a booster #490 to increase the duty cycle of the
drive signal as the first voltage decreases in order to maintain the second
voltage across the Mosfet #430 at a substantially constant average value per
unit time." Ans. 4 (citing Phillips i-fi-129, 30). Appellants answer that "[t]he
cited paragraphs contain irrelevant description of the power controller of
Phillips, whose goal is to control the motor current" and "[ t ]he pulse width
of the signal in Phillips has nothing to do with the battery output voltage
[i.e., the claimed first voltage]." Reply Br. 18. We again find Appellants'
explanation persuasive. See Ans. 18-23. In essence, Phillips' current-based
power control disclosure does not teach or suggest the voltage-based power
control requirements of claim 1.
We accordingly do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
We therefore also do not sustain the rejections of claims 4---6, and 8-10,
which depend, directly, or indirectly, from claim 1.
4
Appeal2014-006987
Application 12/441,878
DECISION
For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims
1, 4--6, and 8-10.
REVERSED
5