Ex Parte Sakakibara

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2016

12863974 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/863,974 07/21/2010
127226 7590 04/15/2016
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP
P.O. Box 747
Falls Church, VA 22040-0747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kenichi Sakakibara
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.
2257-0367PUS 1 1303
EXAMINER
JACKSON, LAKAISHA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2838
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/15/2016 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):
mailroom@bskb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENICHI SAKAKIBARA 1
Appeal2014-002839
Application 12/863 ,97 4
Technology Center 2800
Before CHUNG K. PAK, PETERF. KRATZ, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 1, 2, 9-12, 19 and 20. 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Real Party in Interest is said to be Daikin Industries, Ltd. Appeal Brief filed
May 10, 2013 ("App. Br.") at 1.
2 Final Action entered October 17, 2012 ("Final Act.") at 2-9. Claims 3-8 and 13-
18, the other claims pending in the above-identified application, stand objected to
by the Examiner as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but are said to be
allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base
claim and any intervening claims. Final Act. 9.
Appeal2014-002839
Application 12/863,974
fNTRODUCTION
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a voltage detection method and a
power converting apparatus. See, e.g., claims 1 and 11. Details of the appealed
subject matter are recited in representative claims 1 and 11, 3 which are reproduced
below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A state quantity detection method in a power converting
apparatus comprising:
a plurality of input lines to which a multi-phase voltage is
inputted;
first and second DC power supply lines; and
a current-source converter including a plurality of high-arm side
switching elements and a plurality of low-arm side switching
elements, each of said high-arm side switching elements being
connected between each of said input lines and said first DC power
supply line, each of said low-arm side switching elements being
connected between each of said input lines and said second DC power
supply line,
wherein, based on an instantaneous conduction pattern of said
high-arm side switching elements and said low-arm side switching
elements, a voltage between said first and second DC power supply
lines is detected as a line voltage between said input lines.
11. A power converting apparatus comprising:
a plurality of input lines to which a multi-phase voltage is
inputted;
first and second DC power supply lines;
a current-source converter including a plurality of high-arm side
switching elements and a plurality of low-arm side switching
elements, each of said high-arm side switching elements being
connected between each of said input lines and said first DC power
supply line, each of said low-arm side switching elements being
connected between each of said input lines and said second DC power
supply line; and
3 Independent claims 1 and 11 are the broadest claims on this appeal.
2
Appeal2014-002839
Application 12/863,974
a line voltage detection section that detects a voltage between
said first and second DC power supply lines as a line voltage between
said input lines, based on an instantaneous conduction pattern of said
high-arm side switching elements and said low-arm side switching
elements.
App. Br. 9 and 13 (emphasis added).
Appellant seeks review of the following grounds of rejection maintained in
the Examiner's Answer: 4
1. Claims 1and11under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Suzuki; 5
2. Claims 2 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Suzuki and Kalman; 6
3. Claims 9 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Suzuki and Fu; 7 and
4. Claims 10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
the combined disclosures of Suzuki, Kalman, and Sakai. 8 App. Br. 2-3.
DISCUSSION
To properly compare a prior art reference with the claims at issue, the claims
must first be correctly construed to define the scope and meaning of each contested
limitation. Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1997). While
4 Examiner's Answer entered October 2, 2013 ("Ans.")
5 US 2009/0135630 Al published in the name of Suzuki on May 28, 2009
("Suzuki").
6 US 6,839,249 B2 issued to Kalman et al. on January 4, 2005 ("Kalman").
7 US 7,129,677 B2 issued to Fu et al. on October 31, 2006 ("Fu").
8 US 6,556,464 B2 published in the name of Sakai et al. on April 29, 2003
("Sakai"). Both the Examiner and Appellant inadvertently refer to Sakai as "US
6,556,564." See Final Act. 8; see also App. Br. 3; see also Reply Brief filed
December 2, 2013 ("Reply Br.") at 2.
3
Appeal2014-002839
Application 12/863,974
claims under examination are generally given their broadest reasonable
construction, "such construction [must] be 'consistent with the specification, ...
and ... claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art."' In re Suitco Swface, Inc., 603 F .3d
1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir.
1990)). Moreover, when the Specification either expressly or impliedly defines
terms used in the claims or restricts the scope of the meaning of terms in the
claims, such defined or restricted meanings in the Specification are assigned to
such terms. Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
bane) ("the specification 'acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used
in the claims or when it defines term by implication"'); In re ICON Health &
Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("we look to the specification
to see if it provides a definition for claim terms but otherwise apply a broad
interpretation."); SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242
F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)("Where the specification makes clear that the
invention does not include a particular feature, that feature is deemed to be outside
the reach of the claims of the patent, even though the language of the claims, read
without reference to the specification, might be considered broad enough to
encompass the feature in question.") "No claim may be read apart from and
independent of the supporting disclosure on which it is based." In re Cohn, 438
F.2d 989, 993 (CCPA 1971); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
("[I]t would be unreasonable for the PTO to ignore any interpretive guidance
afforded by the applicant's written description."); In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 300
( CCP A 1982) ("Claims must always be read in light of the specification. Here the
specification makes plain what the appellants did and did not invent .... ") ..
Here, the Specification discloses that Appellant's power converting
4
Appeal2014-002839
Application 12/863,974
apparatus and voltage detection method are an improvement over prior art power
converting apparatus and voltage detection method that determine a line voltage by
detecting a voltage across the ends of a smoothing capacitor or condenser. Spec. 3,
i-fi-18-9. The Specification distinguishes Appellant's power converting apparatus
and voltage detection method that detect a voltage between said first and second
DC power supply lines as a line voltage "based on an instantaneous conduction
pattern of said high-arm side switching elements and said low-arm side switching
elements" as recited in claims 1 and 11 over the prior art power converting
apparatus and voltage detection method that employ a smoothing capacitor or
condenser. Spec. 3--4, i-f 10 and 28, i185. In particular, the Specification states (id.)
that:
In a first aspect of a state quantity detection method in a power
converting apparatus according to the present invention, a power
converting apparatus includes: a plurality of input lines (ACLr, ACLs,
ACLt) to which a multi-phase voltage is inputted; first and second DC
power supply lines (LI, L2); and a current-source converter (10)
including a plurality of high-arm side S\vitching elements (Srp, Ssp,
Stp) and a plurality of low-arm side switching elements (Sm, Ssn,
Stn). Each of the high-arm side switching elements (Srp, Ssp, Stp) is
connected between each of the input lines and the first DC power
supply line, and each of the low-arm side switching elements (Sm,
Ssn, Stn) is connected between each of the input lines and the second
DC power supply line. Based on an instantaneous conduction pattern
(I(rs)) of the high-arm side switching elements and the low-arm side
switching elements, a voltage (V de) between the first and second DC
power supply lines is detected as a line voltage (Vrs) between the
input lines .
. . . [I]n order to detect the line voltage, it suffices that the DC voltage
V de between the DC power supply lines L 1, L2 is detected.
Therefore, as compared with the method of obtaining amplitude
information by detecting a voltage between both ends of the
5
Appeal2014-002839
Application I2/863,974
smoothing capacitor to thereby detect a DC voltage [as taught by the
prior art], the amplitude information can be obtained with a high
accuracy, and an instantaneous waveform of the input voltage can be
obtained. Additionally, it is apparent that the line voltage can be
detected with a simple configuration as compared with when at least
two line voltages are directly detected in each of the input lines ACLr,
ACLs, ACLt. [(Emphasis added.)]
The Specification specifically states that a "power storage means such as a
capacitor and a coil is not provided between the DC power supply lines LI, L2."
Spec. I 8, i-f 46. To detect a voltage between first and second DC power supply
lines "[b ]ased on an instantaneous conduction pattern (I(rs)) of the high-arm side
switching elements [(Srp, Ssp, Stp )] and the low-arm side switching elements
[(Sm, Ssn, Stn)]," the Specification reveals that Appellant's power converting
apparatus, for example, employs resistors RI and R2 in series along a power line
between DC power supply lines LI and L2 for detecting a DC voltage between DC
power supply lines LI and L2 as a line voltage. Spec. 4, i-f I 0 and I 7, i-f 43 and Fig.
1. The Specification fi1rther describes that the "conduction patterns in the current-
source converter IO [correspond to] the current vectors I(rs), I(rt), I(st), I(sr), I(tr),
I(ts)," and shows that each of these current vectors is generated by conducting one
of high-arm side switching elements Srp, Ssp, and Stp and one of the low-arm side
switching elements Sm, Ssn, and Stn. Spec. I9-20, i-f 50-52 and Table 1. Thus,
we interpret detecting a voltage between first and second DC power supply lines as
a line voltage between input lines "based on an instantaneous conduction pattern of
said high-arm side switching elements and said low-arm side switching elements"
as recited in claims I and I I to mean detecting a voltage between DC power
supply lines as a line voltage based on current vectors generated by conducting the
high-arm side and low-arm side switching elements of a current source converter,
without using a smoothing capacitor or condenser, coil or any other power storage
6
Appeal2014-002839
Application 12/863,974
means, which inhibit a voltage detection based on an instantaneous conduction
pattern of the high-arm and low-arm side switching elements.
Having interpreted the line voltage detection step of the voltage detection
method recited in claim 1 and the line voltage detection section of the power
converting apparatus recited in claim 11 in the above manner, we concur with
Appellant that the Examiner has not demonstrated that Suzuki teaches such recited
voltage detection step and line voltage detection section. As acknowledged by the
Examiner, Suzuki teaches a power converting apparatus which uses voltage
detector 20 to detect a DC voltage across the ends of a smoothing condenser 10 to
determine a line voltage. Ans. 3; see also App. Br. 4. That teaching falls beyond
the scope of the properly construed claim. Although the Examiner further relies
upon additional prior art references for dependent claim features, the Examiner has
not proffered any explanation or reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the
art would have been led to detect a voltage between first and second DC power
supply lines as a line voltage between input lines "based on an instantaneous
conduction pattern of said high-arm side switching elements and said low-arm side
switching elements" as recited in claims 1 and 11, without the use of a smoothing
capacitor or condenser in the manner taught by Suzuki.
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has identified reversible error in the
Examiner's§§ 102(b) and 103(a) rejections.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given, it is
7
Appeal2014-002839
Application 12/863,974
ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated Suzuki, claims 2 and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Kalman, claims 9 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Fu, and
claims 10 and 20 under and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suzuki
in view of Kalman and Sakai is REVERSED.
REVERSED
8