Ex Parte Luedtke et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2018

14085920 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/085,920 1112112013
46442 7590 03/21/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford
400 W. MAPLE RD.
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Daniel Richard Luedtke
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.
83399213;67186-053PUS1 4465
EXAMINER
AMAYA, CARLOS DAVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2836
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/2112018 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):
cgolaw@yahoo.com
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL RICHARD LUEDTKE and
FAZAL URRAHMAN SYED
Appeal2017-006192
Application 14/085,920
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JULIA HEANEY, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed Nov 21, 2013 ("Spec."); Final Office Action dated Aug. 30, 2016
("Final Act."); Appeal Brief filed Nov. 5, 2016 ("Appeal Br."); Examiner's
Answer dated Feb. 9, 2017 ("Ans."), and Reply Brief filed Mar. 3, 2017
("Reply Br.")
Appeal2017-006192
Application 14/085,920
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 seeks our review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection3 of claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 14-17, and 19-23 of
Application 14/085,920 as anticipated by Nozawa.4 Final Act. 3-6. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to controlling voltage in a
powertrain of an electric vehicle. Appeal Br. 2. The voltage is adjusted to a
level that can be accommodated by a switching device. Id. Because the
voltage is adjusted to what can be accommodated by the switching device,
the switching device can have a relatively low voltage margin. Id.
Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A voltage control method for a powertrain of electric
vehicle, comprising:
providing a switching device having a voltage margin; and
controlling a power supply system to vary a voltage limit of
a voltage provided to the switching device to be at a level that
can be accommodated by the switching device, wherein the
voltage limit comprises a limit of a maximum bus voltage.
Appeal Br. 7, Claims App. Claim 10 also recites a voltage
control method, as follows:
2 Appellant is the Applicant, Ford Global Technologies, LLC, which
according to the Appeal Brief is also the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
3 The Examiner withdrew separate rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2)
and 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, in the Answer. Ans. 2.
4 Nozawa; US 2010/0193267 Al; Aug. 5, 2010 ("Nozawa").
2
Appeal2017-006192
Application 14/085,920
10. A voltage control method for an electric vehicle,
compnsmg:
adjusting a maximum bus voltage within a power supply
system of an electric vehicle, the adjusting in response to a
voltage margin of a switching device, the voltage margin varying
in response to temperature,
the adjusting including lowering the maximum bus voltage in
response to the temperature being relatively low, and further
including increasing the maximum bus voltage in response to the
temperature being relatively high.
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues only independent claims 1, 10, and 16. Appeal Br.
3--4. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2013), the dependent
claims therefore stand or fall with the claims from which they depend.
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Nozawa discloses a voltage control method
for a powertrain of an electric vehicle. Final Act. 3. The Examiner relies on
Nozawa's teaching of controlling inverters 14 and 14A by measuring the
temperature of I GB Ts (Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistors) and controlling
voltage conversion unit 20 such that voltage VH is lower as the measured
temperature of the inverters 14and14A is lower. Final Act. 6-7, citing
Nozawa iii! 77-78. Appellant argues that Nozawa does not anticipate
because the change to the voltage value VH "is based entirely on the
ambient temperature of the inverter ... [and] is not based on a 'level that
can be accommodated by the switching device, "' as recited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 3. The Examiner responds that Nozawa teaches that the
relationship between temperature and a withstand voltage VLH that can be
accommodated by the switching device is recognized by persons of ordinary
skill in the art. Ans. 3, citing Nozawa iJ 4.
3
Appeal2017-006192
Application 14/085,920
Appellant's argument is not persuasive of reversible error. The
Examiner's finding that Nozawa controls voltage level based on temperature
of the I GB Ts also satisfies the claim requirement of controlling voltage "to
be at a level that can be accommodated" by the IGBTs, because Nozawa
also recognizes a known relationship between withstand voltage of an IGBT
and its temperature, and claim 1 does not restrict "the level that can be
accommodated" to any particular level. Ans. 3 and 4. Further, claim 1 does
not require that the voltage level is based on what a switch can
accommodate, but rather encompasses controlling the voltage based on other
means, such as temperature, to a level "that can be accommodated" by a
switch. Claims App.
Claim 10
The Examiner finds that Nozawa also discloses all of the steps of the
voltage control method of claim 10. Final Act. 4. Appellant argues that
Nozawa's change to voltage value VH is not "in response to a voltage
margin of the inverter" but rather is based on an ambient temperature of the
inverter. Appeal Br. 4. The Examiner responds with a finding that Nozawa
discloses adjusting voltage value VH "based on a margin (withstand voltage
VLM) of the switches at various temperatures, and a sensed temperature."
Ans. 4, citing Nozawa Figs. 3-5, ,-i,-i 67, 84, and 93. Based on this finding,
the Examiner reasons that Nozawa adjusts voltage value VH in response to a
voltage margin of the switching device, as required by claim 10. Id.
Appellant's argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Appellant
does not provide any citation to Nozawa to support its argument (Appeal Br.
4), nor does Appellant respond to the Examiner's specific findings
concerning Nozawa ,-i,-i 67, 84, and 93. Reply Br., generally. Further,
Nozawa supports the Examiner's finding that it discloses adjusting VH
4
Appeal2017-006192
Application 14/085,920
based on withstand voltage VLM. Accordingly, a preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner's conclusion of anticipation by Nozawa.
Claim 16
Appellant's argument concerning independent claim 16 is
substantially the same as the argument concerning rejection of claim 1. We
therefore affirm the rejection of claim 16 for the same reasons as the
rejection of claim 1, discussed above.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 14-17, and 19-23.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5