Ex Parte Rozman

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 30, 2009

10881309 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 30, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GREGORY I. ROZMAN
____________

Appeal 2008-5784
Application 10/881,3091
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: January 30, 2009
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and SCOTT R.
BOALICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

BOALICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

1 Application filed June 30, 2004. The real party in interest is Hamilton
Sustrand Corporation.
Appeal 2008-5784
Application 10/881,309

2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-10 and 12-18.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to using low resolution position sensors
in the control of electric motors. (Spec. paragraph [0001].)

Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method of controlling an electric motor using a low
resolution position sensor, comprising:

converting a square wave output signal from a low
resolution position sensor into a sinusoidal motor commutation
signal.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Carr US 5,430,362 Jul. 4, 1995
Kubo US 6,313,601 B1 Nov. 6, 2001
Boules US 6,498,451 B1 Dec. 24, 2002
Yu US 2002/0097021 A1 Jul. 25, 2002

2 Claims 11, 19, and 20 have been indicated to contain allowable subject
matter.
Appeal 2008-5784
Application 10/881,309

3
Claims 1-3, 8, 9, 12, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Boules.
Claims 4-8, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Boules, Carr, and Yu.
Claims 10, 13, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Boules and Kubo.

Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.
Except as noted in this decision, Appellant has not presented any substantive
arguments directed separately to the patentability of the dependent claims or
related claims in each group. In the absence of a separate argument with
respect to those claims, they stand or fall with the representative independent
claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Only those arguments actually
made by Appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments that
Appellant did not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See id.

ISSUES
§ 102 Rejection - Boules
Appellant argues that Boules does not teach converting a square wave
output signal from a low resolution position sensor into a sinusoidal motor
commutation signal. (App. Br. 5-8; Reply Br. 1.) Instead, according to
Appellant, Boules "relies upon generating the sinusoidal signal separately
from the square wave signal." (App. Br. 5; see also App. Br. 6-8.)

Appeal 2008-5784
Application 10/881,309

4
Appellant's arguments present the following issue:

Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3,
8, 9, 12, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)?

The resolution of this issue turns on whether Boules teaches
converting a square wave output signal from a low resolution position sensor
into a sinusoidal motor commutation signal.

§ 103 Rejection - Boules / Carr / Yu
Appellant argues that the proposed combination of Boules, Carr, and
Yu cannot be made. (App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 1-2.) In particular, Appellant
argues that there is no motivation to combine the references because there is
no benefit to the operation of the Boules arrangement realized from the
combination. (Id.)
In addition, Appellant repeats the argument that Boules does not teach
conversion of a square wave sensor output signal into a sinusoidal motor
commutation signal. (App. Br. 9-10.)

Appellant's arguments present the following issue:

Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4-8,
16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)?

The resolution of this issue turns on whether there is a legally
sufficient reason to combine the references in the fashion claimed.
Appeal 2008-5784
Application 10/881,309

5

§ 103 Rejection - Boules / Kubo
Appellant argues that the proposed combination of Boules and Kubo
cannot be made. (App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 1-2.) In particular, Appellant
argues that there is no motivation to combine the references because there is
no benefit to the operation of the Boules arrangement realized from the
combination. (Id.)
Appellant also argues that Kubo "does not teach maintaining a speed
above a selected threshold under specific conditions." (App. Br. 9.)
In addition, Appellant repeats the argument that Boules does not teach
conversion of a square wave sensor output signal into a sinusoidal motor
commutation signal. (App. Br. 9-10.)

Appellant's arguments present the following issue:

Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10,
13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)?

The resolution of this issue turns on whether there is a legally
sufficient reason to combine the references in the fashion claimed and
whether Kubo teaches or suggests maintaining a speed above a selected
threshold under specific conditions.

Appeal 2008-5784
Application 10/881,309

6
FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.

Boules
1. Boules describes a torque ripple free electric power steering system
that includes an electronically controlled motor 12. (Col. 1, ll. 6-8;
col. 2, ll. 48-51.) Figure 9 shows "the all-digital controller hardware
110" that includes a digital signal processor (DSP) 112 connected to a
programmable logic device (PLD) 116. (Col. 15, ll. 23-30; Fig. 9.)
Figures 10A and 10B show "a position sensor signal and the
corresponding position initialization logic." (Col. 2, ll. 27-28.)

2. The PLD is "for absolute position detection." (Col. 15, ll. 27-28.)
Referring to Figures 10A and 10B, the rotor position sensor used in
the system of Boules provides "an incremental high resolution signal
(obtained by combining quadrature signals EA and EB) with 2.5Ëš
resolution (electrical), a direction signal (derived from quadrature
signals EA and EB, from ways known in the art, and not shown) and
three commutation signals (H1, H2, H3) that provide absolute position
information with 60Ëš resolution" (Col. 15, ll. 55-62.) The position
sensor signals are shown in Figure 10A to be square wave signals.
(Figure 10A.) The absolute position is derived using these signals and
"is achieved by deriving an index pulse from the three commutation
signals (H1, H2, H3), and combining it with the incremental signal."
(Col. 15, l. 66 to col. 16, l. 1.) "That is, each time the system
Appeal 2008-5784
Application 10/881,309

7
generates an index pulse, position is reset, then it is adjusted
according to the incremental signal." (Col. 16, ll. 1-3.)

3. "The DSP 112 reads the rotor absolute position from the PLD [116]."
(Col. 15, ll. 44-45.) Appellant admits that DSP 112 "is responsible for
generating the commutation signals" in Boules. (App. Br. 6.) The
DSP 112 generates sinusoidal signals. (Col. 15, ll. 44-54; col. 16,
ll. 40-42.)

4. The Boules "approach enables to start the system as a brushless motor
using currents with square waveforms, and switch over to the more
desirable sinusoidal control as soon as a transition in either H1, H2 or
H3 is sensed, or as soon as a first index pulse is generated." (Col. 16,
ll. 52-56.)

Carr
5. Carr describes an engine starting system that includes an
electromagnetic machine. (Abstract; col. 1, ll. 7-10.) Among other
things, Carr teaches the use of a sawtooth signal in determining motor
position by teaching an electromagnetic machine in a starting mode
with a sawtooth signal 614 as the output of voltage-to-angle converter
624. (Figs. 19-21.)

Yu
6. Yu describes a starting device that eliminates a peak current when a
motor is actuated. (Abstract.) Yu teaches reducing the peak current
Appeal 2008-5784
Application 10/881,309

8
by, among other things, generating a sawtooth control signal from a
periodic square wave signal. (Fig. 2(a, b); paragraphs [0023], [0025].)

Kubo
7. Kubo describes controlling a three-phase motor having Hall-effect
sensors to indicate rotor position and uses the rotor position signals to
detect the actual motor running speed. (Abstract.) Kubo teaches a
target speed generator 7 with an output signal 7a that is compared
with actual motor speed. (Col. 4, ll. 16-23.) The motor speed is
adjusted based on the difference between the target speed and the
actual motor speed. (Col. 4, ll. 16-23.)

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
On appeal, all timely filed evidence and properly presented arguments
are considered by the Board. See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed.
Cir. 1984).
In the examination of a patent application, the Examiner bears the
initial burden of showing a prima facie case of unpatentability. Id. at 1472.
When that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the Applicant to rebut.
Id.; see also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding
rebuttal evidence unpersuasive). If the Applicant produces rebuttal evidence
of adequate weight, the prima facie case of unpatentability is dissipated. In
re Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472. Thereafter, patentability is determined in
view of the entire record. Id. However, on appeal to the Board it is the
Appellant's burden to establish that the Examiner did not sustain the
Appeal 2008-5784
Application 10/881,309

9
necessary burden and to show that the Examiner erred. See In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses
expressly or under the principles of inherency each and every limitation of
the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342,
1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79
(Fed. Cir. 1994).
"Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when 'the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.'" KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,
1734 (2007). In KSR, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that "[t]he combination
of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious
when it does no more than yield predictable results." Id. at 1739. The Court
explained:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill.
Id. at 1740.
"[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
Appeal 2008-5784
Application 10/881,309

10
obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988. "To facilitate review, this
analysis should be made explicit." KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741. However, "the
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject
matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."
Id.
The Supreme Court noted that "[u]nder the correct analysis, any need
or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and
addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in
the manner claimed." Id. at 1742. The Court also noted that "[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.
"A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton." Id.
During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its
broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re
Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969). "[T]he words of a claim 'are
generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.'" Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations
omitted). The "ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the
meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the
patent application." Id. at 1313.

Appeal 2008-5784
Application 10/881,309

11
ANALYSIS
We do not find Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-3, 8, 9, 12, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and
claims 4-8, 10, 13, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) to be meritorious.

Claims 1-3, 8, 9, 12, 14, and 15
Appellant's argument (App. Br. 5-8; Reply Br. 1) that Boules does not
teach converting a square wave output signal from a low resolution position
sensor into a sinusoidal motor commutation signal, as recited by independent
claims 1 and 12, is not persuasive.
The Examiner found that Boules meets the above-noted limitation by
teaching a system that is started using currents with square waveforms and is
later switched over to sinusoidal waveforms by the controller as soon as a
transition in either one of signals H1, H2 or H3 is sensed. (Ans. 3, 6-7; see
also FF 4.) We agree.
Independent claims 1 and 12 are very broad in scope. The plain
language of both of these claims requires a square wave output signal
somehow to be converted into a sinusoidal motor commutation signal. In
addition, claim 12 broadly recites that a "processor" performs this
conversion. Claims 1 and 12 are silent concerning how the conversion is to
be performed, and claim 12 does not further define the term "processor."
The Specification does not attribute any special meaning to the terms
convert and processor. The relevant plain meaning of convert is "to change
from one form or use to another; transform." Webster's New World
Dictionary Third College Edition 304 (1994). Thus, independent claims 1
Appeal 2008-5784
Application 10/881,309

12
and 12 require a square wave output signal somehow to be changed or
transformed into a sinusoidal motor commutation signal.
Boules teaches that controller hardware 110 receives square wave
sensor position signals and outputs sinusoidal commutation signals (FF 1-4).
As found by the Examiner, Figure 10 shows square wave input signals to the
PLD 116 (Ans. 7-8; see also FF 2.) and Figure 9 shows the PLD 116
coupled to the DSP 112 which outputs a sinusoidal control signals for
commutation (Ans. 7; see also FF 1). Both the DSP 112 and PLD 116 are
components of controller 110. (FF 1.) The PLD 116 uses the square wave
signals to derive rotor position and the DSP 112 reads the rotor position
from PLD 116. (FF 2, 3.) Thus, a square wave sensor output signal is used
by controller 110 and changed to produce a sinusoidal motor commutation
signal. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the Specification, controller 110 converts a square wave sensor output signal
into a sinusoidal motor commutation signal, as claimed. The precise manner
by which the controller 110 converts the square wave signal to a sinusoidal
signal is not the same as found in the Specification (see, e.g., Spec.
paragraphs [0024], [0032]). However, independent claims 1 and 12 are
silent as to the techniques required to perform the conversion and we decline
to import limitations from the Specification into the claims. In addition, the
controller 110 of Boules (FF 1-3) meets the processor limitation recited by
claim 12.
Therefore, we conclude that Appellant has not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 12, as well as
dependent claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 14, and 15 which were not separately argued, as
being anticipated by Boules.
Appeal 2008-5784
Application 10/881,309

13

Claims 4-8, 16, and 18
Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4-8,
16, and 18 as being obvious over Boules, Carr, and Yu are not persuasive.
Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner's findings (Ans. 4-5,
8-10) that one of ordinary skill in the art would have used the sawtooth
signal generation teachings of Yu with the teaching of Carr regarding
determining motor position using a sawtooth signal in order to eliminate
undesirable current ripple during motor operation and to eliminate expensive
external absolute Hall position sensors. The Examiner has articulated
reasons with rational underpinnings for combining the teachings of Boules,
Carr, and Yu. Although Appellant complains that the combination cannot be
made (App. Br. 8), Appellant has not presented convincing argument or
evidence that the Examiner erred.
In addition, Appellant's arguments concerning conversion from a
square wave signal to a sinusoidal signal are not persuasive for the reasons
discussed with respect to claims 1 and 12.
Therefore, we conclude that Appellant has not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4-8, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Claims 10, 13, and 17
Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10,
13, and 17 as being obvious over Boules and Kubo are not persuasive.
Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner's findings (Ans. 6,
11-12) that one of ordinary skill in the art would have used the teachings of
Kubo in the system of Boules to control motor operation within certain
Appeal 2008-5784
Application 10/881,309

14
parameters. The Examiner has articulated reasons with rational
underpinnings for combining the teachings of Boules and Kubo. Although
Appellant complains that the combination cannot be made (App. Br. 9),
Appellant has not presented convincing argument or evidence that the
Examiner erred.
Regarding Appellant's arguments concerning the teachings of Kubo,
the Examiner has set forth an explanation of how Kubo teaches maintaining
a speed above a selected threshold under specific conditions. (Ans. 5-6,
11-12; see also FF 7.) Appellant has not presented convincing argument or
evidence that the Examiner erred.
In addition, Appellant's arguments concerning conversion from a
square wave signal to a sinusoidal signal are not persuasive for the reasons
discussed with respect to claims 1 and 12.
Therefore, we conclude that Appellant has not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10, 13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

CONCLUSION
We conclude that:
(1) Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-3, 8, 9, 12, 14, and 15 for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
(2) Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 4-8, 16, and 18 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 10, 13, and 17 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2008-5784
Application 10/881,309

15
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-10 and 12-18 is affirmed.

No time 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

MAT

Carlson Gaskey & Olds, P. C.
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009