Ex Parte Katsumata et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 19, 2009

10816890 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 19, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte KENICHI KATSUMATA, YASUYUKI MOCHIZUKI,
YUICHI NAKAZAWA, and SUSUMU YAMAMOTO
_____________

Appeal 2008-005280
Application 10/816,890
Technology Center 2800
______________

Decided:1 June 19, 2009
_______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MARC S. HOFF, and KARL D. EASTHOM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 CFR § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-005280
Application 10/816,890

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) of the final
rejection of claims 1 through 4.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed towards a method for control of motor
driven windows. The method operates to suppress the heat generated by the
semiconductor devices that control the motor when the motor is being
supplied with a lock current. See pages 5 through 7 of Appellants’
Specification. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced
below:
1. A motor drive apparatus comprising:
a motor current detecting section operable to detect a motor
current when a movable member driven by a motor is moved in a first
direction;
a lock current judging section operable to monitor the motor
current detected by the motor current detecting section to make a
judgment on a lock current that flows when motion of the movable
member is set to a locked state;
a switch operation invalidation setting section operable to
invalidate a switch operation when the motor current is the lock
current, the switch operation corresponding to moving the movable
member in the first direction; and
a switch operation invalidation setting canceling section
operable to cancel the invalidation by the switch operation
invalidation setting section, said canceling being done when a second
switch operation of moving the movable member in a second direction
is conducted under a state where said invalidation is done.

REFERENCE
Hammer US 3,581,174 May 25, 1971

2

Appeal 2008-005280
Application 10/816,890

REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1 through 4 are rejected by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Hammer. The Examiner’s rejection is on
pages 3 and 4 of the Answer.2
ISSUE
Appellants argue, on pages 10 through 13 of the Brief and page 4 of
the Reply Brief3 that the rejection of claims 1 through 44 is in error.
Appellants argue that Hammer teaches conventional technology and does
not identify or solve the problems identified in Appellants’ invention.
Appellants assert that Hammer does not disclose canceling the invalidation
as claimed. Brief 11, Reply Brief 4. Appellants state that:
The invalidation canceling section cancels the invalidation when the
window moves in the opposite direction, thereby preventing the
problems that are mentioned in the present Specification. In fact,
Hammer merely teaches reversing the direction of motion and not the
subsequent cancellation of the reversing, as in the present invention.

Brief 12.

Thus, Appellants’ contention present us with the issue: have
Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Hammer teaches
canceling the switch operation invalidation as recited in claim 3?

2 Throughout the opinion, we make reference to the Answer, mailed October
2, 2007 for the respective details thereof.
3 Throughout the opinion, we make reference to the Brief, received May 22,
2007 and Reply Brief, received December 3, 2007, for the respective details
thereof.
4 Appellants’ arguments group claims 1 through 4 together. Accordingly,
we select claim 3 as representative.
3

Appeal 2008-005280
Application 10/816,890

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In analyzing the scope of the claim, Office personnel must rely on
Appellants’ disclosure to properly determine the meaning of the terms used
in the claims. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980
(Fed. Cir. 1995). “[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim is not to
be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the
specification, which is improper.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301
F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original; citations and
quotations omitted).

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Hammer teaches a window actuator control circuit that incorporates
an overload current relay and a reversing relay to reverse the motor in
response to an overload condition. Abstract.
2. Hammer teaches that the opening or closing of a motor actuated
window is controlled by switch item 22. Col. 2, ll. 9-13.
3. Hammer teaches that during a close operation, the current to the motor
is observed by an overload relay item 58. When the current actuates
this overload relay, it in turn actuates a reversing circuit, item 52,
which includes a reversing relay item 62. Col. 2, ll. 40-49.
4. The reversing relay, item 52, when energized, actuates contact arm 72
to connect contacts items 68 with 76. As see in Figure 2, connecting
these contacts bypasses and therefore makes ineffective switch item
22. Col. 2, ll. 55-65, col. 3, ll. 16-20, col. 4, ll. 69-75, Fig. 2.
5. The reversing circuit also includes a limit switch, item 104, which
open circuits the reversing relay when the window is within ½ inch of
4

Appeal 2008-005280
Application 10/816,890

either the fully open or fully closed position. When this limit switch
opens up it de-energizes the reversing relay thus removing the bypass
of switch item 22. Col. 3, ll. 44-47, col. 5, ll. 1-39.

ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Hammer
teaches canceling the switch operation invalidation as recited in claim 3.
Claim 3 recites “invalidating a switch operation of a moving member in a
first direction.” The Examiner has found that this limitation is taught by
Hammer’s automatic reverse mode in which switch (item 22) is bypassed by
contact 76 and lead 94. Answer 3. Appellants have not contested these
findings by the Examiner and we find ample evidence to support the
Examiner’s finding that when current flowing through contact arm 72
connects contacts 68 to 76, to the window motor via lead 94, current will
bypass the window switch 22. Fact 4. This has the effect of invalidating
any operation by switch 22.
Claim 3 further recites “canceling the switch operation invalidation
setting state by conducting a second switch operation of a moving the
second moving member in a second direction during said invalidation.”
Thus, the scope of this limitation is that the switch operation invalidation is
canceled when a second switching operation is performed. However, the
claim does not identify what device performs the second switching
operation. Thus, any device which performs a second switching operation
will meet the claim.
The Examiner has found that the operation of the limit switch in
Hammer’s circuit meets the claimed “cancelling the switch operation
5

Appeal 2008-005280
Application 10/816,890

invalidation setting state.” Answer 3, 4, and 5. We concur with this finding.
As discussed above, Hammer teaches that switch item 22 is inoperative
when contact arm 72 connects contacts 68 to 76. Further, Hammer teaches
that when limit switch item 104 opens up, relay coil 78 is de-energized and
contact arm 72 again connects contacts 68 to 74, thereby placing the switch
item 22 back into the circuit to control the window motor. Facts 4 and 5.
Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that “Hammer merely
discloses that the automatic reversing circuit 52 is disconnected and
inoperative when the window is either in the open or closed position. There
is no reactivation as construed by the Examiner.” Brief 12.
Appellants have not shown that the cancellation of the automatic
reversing circuit, which invalidates the operation of the window switch as
disclosed by Hammer, differs from the claimed cancellation of the switch
operation invalidation. Further, we note that while Appellants’ disclosure
identifies a different problem to be solved (reduce the generation of heat in
the semiconductor device that operates the motor) than discussed by the
disclosure of Hammer, Appellants have not identified any claim limitations
which bear out a distinction between the claims and the prior art.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 4.

SUMMARY
In summary, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through
4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 4 is affirmed.
6

Appeal 2008-005280
Application 10/816,890

No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20037-3213
7