Ex parte MCCARTNEY

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 18, 1998

08046127 (B.P.A.I. May. 18, 1998)

Application for patent filed April 12, 1993. According to1
the appellant, the application is a continuation of Application
No. 07/578,952, filed September 7, 1990, now abandoned.
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 30
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte THOMAS McCARTNEY
____________
Appeal No. 95-1188
Application No. 08/046,1271
____________
HEARD: May 5, 1998
____________
Before HAIRSTON, TORCZON and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 24.
The disclosed invention relates to an external DC power
supply for supplying DC power to a supported device that has an
AC input connector adapted for connecting the supported device to
Appeal No. 95-1188
Application No. 08/046,127
2
an AC voltage source. The supported device includes an internal
voltage rectifier that is connected to the AC input connector.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. An external DC (direct current) power supply for
supplying DC power to a supported device having an AC input
connector adapted for connecting the supported device to an AC
voltage source and the supported device including an internal
voltage rectifier connected to the AC input connector,
comprising:
an AC (alternating current) voltage source;
voltage rectifier means coupled to said AC voltage source
for rectifying said AC voltage source;
energy storage means coupled in parallel with an output of
said voltage rectifier means for providing a predetermined DC
voltage threshold level;
connector means for applying a DC power output of said
parallel combination of said rectifier means and said energy
storage means to the voltage rectifier of the supported device,
said connector means being connected to the AC input connector of
the supported device;
said energy storage means supplying current only when said
voltage rectifying means provides a rectified voltage level below
said predetermined DC voltage threshold level thereby providing
backup DC power to the supported device; and
said AC input connector of the supported device being
connected only to said external DC power supply.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Wright 3,745,453 July 10, 1973
Hosaka 3,784,841 Jan. 8, 1974
Burgin 4,327,298 Apr. 27, 1982
Miyazawa 4,340,823 July 20, 1982
Appeal No. 95-1188
Application No. 08/046,127
3
Petkovsek 4,401,895 Aug. 30, 1983
Heavey et al. (Heavey) 4,468,571 Aug. 28, 1984
Schneider 4,560,887 Dec. 24, 1985
Donze 4,837,672 June 6, 1989
Jackson et al. (Jackson) 4,884,013 Nov. 28, 1989
Claims 1, 2, 9, 14 through 18 and 20 through 24 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Petkovsek in view of Heavey, the alleged prior art on page 5 of
the specification, and Jackson. Burgin is added to the
combination of references for claims 3 and 5, Miyazawa is added
to the combination of references for claim 6, Schneider is added
to the combination of references for claims 4, 10, 11 and 19,
Schneider and Hosaka are added to the combination of references
for claims 12 and 13, and Donze and Wright are added to the
combination of references for claims 7 and 8.
Reference is made to the briefs, the answers, and the Office
Action (paper number 16) for the positions of the appellant and
the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before
us, and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 24.
Petkovsek discloses (Figure 1) a system for applying
uninterruptible DC power to a load at output terminals 10c and
Appeal No. 95-1188
Application No. 08/046,127
4
10d. An input 60 Hz AC line voltage at input terminals 10a and
10b is rectified to produce a high DC voltage of 300 volts. In a
parallel circuit connected across the output from the rectifier
is a DC to DC down converter 16, a backup battery 18, and a DC to
DC up converter 20. The down converter reduces the 300 volt
output from the rectifier down to a level sufficient to recharge
the battery to 24 volts, and the output from the battery is
converted by the up converter to a high voltage of 240 volts. If
the output from the rectifier 12 remains at a value higher than
the 240 volts output from the up converter 20, then diode D1 at
the output of the up converter 20 will not become forward biased.
If the output voltage from the rectifier falls below the output
voltage value from the up converter, then the diode D1 will
become forward biased. Thus, the power switch 14 will always
have a voltage input. The power switch 14 is a DC to DC
converter that converts the high voltage input to a voltage low
enough for the load.
The alleged prior art on page 5 of the specification makes
clear that a bridge rectifier 36 (Figure 2) is typically included
in the supported device 20.
Figure 1B of Heavey discloses a standby power system housing
12 that has an AC input plug 16, and several grounded sockets 18.
Appeal No. 95-1188
Application No. 08/046,127
5
Figure 2-1 of Jackson discloses a rectifier 72 for
rectifying the AC input voltage to a motor unit for a fluid pump.
The motor unit operates under the control of microcomputer 64
(column 3, lines 33 though 35). The rectified output from
rectifier 72 is used to charge battery 74 (column 3, lines 49
through 53).
The examiner is of the opinion that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to house the system
disclosed by Petkovsek in a housing such as the one disclosed by
Heavey (paper number 16, pages 4 and 5). The examiner recognizes
(paper number 16, pages 5 and 6) that “neither Petkovsek nor
Heavey et al disclose specifically what is included by the
supported electrical device which is suggested to be a mpu or
computer, namely that it now include a voltage rectifier means.”
The examiner concludes (paper number 16, page 6) that:
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to recognize that voltage rectifier means are
commonly coupled at the AC input connector of a
supported device as acknowledged by applicant on page 5
lines 5-10 as “typically” the supported device includes
a rectifier as the conventional AC line voltage source
is rectified, although various different arrangements
can be used with the supported device. Thus applicant
admits that typical supported devices such as those of
Petkovsek and Heavey et al include rectifiers in
addition to other different arrangements. It would
have been further obvious in view of the teachings of
Jackson et al that the supported device connected to
Appeal No. 95-1188
Application No. 08/046,127
6
the output terminals 10c, 10d of the Petkovsek device
[be] modified by Heavey et al to include AC output
receptacle means as such output terminals include an
internal voltage rectifier coupled to its input AC
connector.
The alleged prior art on page 5 of appellant’s specification
is merely a statement that the supported device 20 (Figure 2)
typically includes a rectifier. Appellant’s statement does not
mention “typical supported devices such as those of Petkovsek and
Heavey.” Thus, appellant has not admitted that typical supported
devices include rectifiers.
We agree with the examiner (paper number 16, page 5) that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
place the Petkovsek system in a housing as taught by Heavey “to
reduce the electrical shock hazard created by exposed circuitry.”
We do not, however, agree with the examiner’s conclusion (paper
number 16, page 6) that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the output terminals 10c and
10d of Petkovsek in keeping with the teachings of Heavey to
provide an AC output from terminals 10c and 10d. The examiner
has failed to present a convincing line of reasoning as to why
the skilled artisan would have wanted to change the DC output on
terminals 10c and 10d of Petkovsek to an AC output so that the AC
output could be rectified to produce a DC voltage which already
Appeal No. 95-1188
Application No. 08/046,127
7
existed at the output terminals. Such an unnecessary
modification would only have been made to reach the limitations
of appellant’s claimed invention, and not for any other reason.
Appellant correctly argues (Reply Brief, page 5) that “the
Examiner can only be relying on Applicant’s teaching to achieve
the claimed subject matter of the invention.”
In view of the foregoing, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claims 1, 2, 9, 14 through 18 and 20 through 24 is reversed. The
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 3 through 8, 10 through 13
and 19 is likewise reversed because the teachings of Burgin,
Miyazawa, Schneider, Hosaka, Donze and Wright do not cure the
shortcomings in the teachings of Petkovsek, Heavey and Jackson.
Appeal No. 95-1188
Application No. 08/046,127
8
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
RICHARD TORCZON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-1188
Application No. 08/046,127
9
Joan Pennington
Mason, Kolehmainen, Rathburn & Wyss
Suite 2400
300 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
KWH/jrg
APPEAL NO. 95-1188 - JUDGE HAIRSTON
APPLICATION NO. 08/046,127
APJ HAIRSTON
APJ TORCZON
APJ CARMICHAEL
DECISION: REVERSED
Typed By: Jenine Gillis
DRAFT TYPED: 11 May 98
FINAL TYPED:
3 Member Conf. Yes No