10907963 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 6, 2012)

Ex Parte Shaya et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 6, 2012

10907963 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 6, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/907,963 04/22/2005 Chadi Shaya LEAR 05765 PUS 4963 34007 7590 08/07/2012 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION 1000 TOWN CENTER TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER THOMAS, LUCY M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2836 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/07/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte CHADI SHAYA and JEFFREY BATTISTELLA ____________ Appeal 2010-003522 Application 10/907,963 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-003522 Application 10/907,963 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-19, and 21-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The claims are directed to relayless and fuseless power distribution. Claims 1 and 17, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A relayless and fuseless junction box configured to distribute power to at least one output as a function of signals received from one or more inputs, the box comprising: at least one switch associated with at least one output, each switch configured to open and close in response to control signals communicated thereto so as to control power distribution to the associated output; a processor in communication with each switch to control switch opening and closing as a function of the signals received from the one or more inputs; a sensor associated with each switch for sensing switch operating conditions, the sensors being separate from the processor and configured for opening the associated switch if the switch operating conditions are above a threshold, the sensors controlling switch opening independently of processor switch controls; and wherein current is one of the operating conditions sensed by the sensors and wherein the sensors are configured to automatically adjust the threshold as a function of the sensed current. 17. A method of operating a relayless and fuseless junction box configured to distribute power to at least one Appeal 2010-003522 Application 10/907,963 3 output as a function of signals received by one or more inputs, the method comprising: controlling at least one switch to distribute power to at least one output as a function of signals received by the one or more inputs; determining a fault condition for at least one switch as a function of operating conditions associated therewith; opening the switch associated with the fault condition, the switch opening overriding control of the switch by the one or more inputs; and testing continued operation of the switch associated with the fault condition, the testing including incrementally reducing power distributed to the faulted switch until persistence of the fault condition ceases. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Sheffield Shindoh Baba Yamane US 3,982,242 US 6,102,000 US 6,335,577 B1 EP 1 245 455 A3 Sept. 21, 1976 Aug. 15, 2000 Jan. 1, 2002 Oct. 3, 2004 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamane and Baba. Appeal 2010-003522 Application 10/907,963 4 Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamane, Baba, and Shindoh. Claims 9-19, 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamane, Baba, and Sheffield. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, 4-16, and 23-25 The Examiner finds that Yamane and Baba collectively disclose all the limitations of claim 1 including “wherein current is one of the operating conditions sensed by the sensors and wherein the sensors are configured to automatically adjust the threshold as a function of the sensed current” (Ans. 3-4). Specifically, the Examiner relies on Baba’s variable resistor RV for disclosing the “automatically adjust the threshold” feature (Ans. 4, 11-13). Appellants contend that Baba does not disclose that the variable resistor is automatically adjustable, let alone adjustable according to sensed current (App. Br. 9-10). We agree with Appellants. Baba discloses: To change the overcurrent determining value, the variable resistor RV connected in parallel to the resistor R2 grounded outside of the chip 110a is adjusted. By reducing the resistance of the variable resistor RV, the overcurrent determining value can be shifted downward. (Baba, col. 14, ll. 2-6). As can be seen, Baba does not disclose how the variable resistor is adjusted, that is, whether it is adjusted manually or automatically. The Examiner interprets this silence as follows: “the reference does not limit adjusting the threshold to automatically or manually, therefore, meets the limitation of ‘automatically’ adjusting the threshold” Appeal 2010-003522 Application 10/907,963 5 (Ans. 4). We disagree with the Examiner's overly broad interpretation and find that Baba’s silence on how the variable resistor is adjusted fails to disclose that the variable resistor can be adjusted automatically, as required by claim 1. As Appellants point out, Baba does not show any communicative connection to the variable resistor that could be used to automatically adjust the resistor (see App. Br. 10). Although the Examiner responds that because “[t]he variable resistor is connected to the IC [integrated circuit], it can be automatically adjustable” (Ans. 12), the Examiner cites no evidence for such a connection. Even if Baba’s system were implemented in an integrated circuit, the Examiner has not pointed to any specific circuitry, for example, in any of Baba’s Figures 2, 3, and 9 through 12 which depict the variable resistor RV, that could be used to automatically adjust the resistor. Given Baba’s lack of disclosure for automatically adjusting the variable resistor, Baba also fails to show that the variable resistor can be adjusted as a function of sensed current, as recited in claim 1 (see App. Br. 10). Therefore, the Examiner's rejection would require us to resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions, or hindsight reconstruction. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). We will not resort to such speculation or assumptions to cure the deficiencies in the factual basis in order to support the Examiner’s rejection. We are therefore constrained by the record to find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2, 4-16, and 23-25 for similar reasons. Appeal 2010-003522 Application 10/907,963 6 Claims 17-19, 21, and 22 The Examiner finds that Yamane and Baba collectively disclose all the limitations of claim 17 including “testing continued operation of the switch associated with the fault condition, the testing including incrementally reducing power distributed to the faulted switch until persistence of the fault condition ceases” (Ans. 7-9).1 Specifically, the Examiner relies on Baba’s Figure 8 and the corresponding disclosure, particularly, column 14, lines 56-64, for the “reducing power” feature (Ans. 7-9, 16-17). Appellants contend that Baba’s system does not stop power to a load by opening a switch and then reduce the power until a fault condition at the switch ceases (App. Br. 16-17). We agree with Appellants. Baba describes Figure 8 as follows: FIG. 8 shows waveforms of current and voltage in the temperature sensor incorporated FET QA in the power supply control unit of this embodiment. FIG. 8 (a) indicates drain current ID (A) and FIG. 8(b) indicates voltage V DS between drain and source. In the same Figure, (1) indicates a complete short-circuit (dead short-circuit), (2) Indicates a case of normal operation and (3) indicates a case of incomplete short-circuit. (Baba, col. 14, ll. 38-45). Regarding the “incomplete short-circuit” case, Baba explains: When an incomplete short-circuit having some extent of short- circuit resistance occurs ((3) of FIG. 3), the ON/OFF control of the temperature sensor incorporated FET QA is repeated as described above so as to change the drain current ID largely. By frequent heat generation of the temperature sensor incorporated FET QA, the overheat shut-off protective function, namely, the 1 Although the statement of rejection for claims 17 and 21 cites Yamane, Baba, and Sheffield, the Examiner only relies on Yamane and Baba for these claims (see Ans. 6-10). Appeal 2010-003522 Application 10/907,963 7 overheat shut-off FET QA is turned to ON state so that overheat shut-off of the temperature sensor incorporated FET QA is accelerated. (Baba, col. 14, ll. 56-64). As described above, Baba’s FET (field effect transistor) QA, which the Examiner finds to be a “switch” as claimed (see Ans. 8-9), cycles between ON and OFF states when there is an “incomplete short-circuit” condition (Baba, col. 14, ll. 56-60). This cycling results in an accelerated “overheat shut-off” of FET QA (Baba, col. 14, ll. 60-64). We find that Baba’s turning FET QA to the OFF state does not disclose “reducing power . . . until persistence of the fault condition ceases” because the ON/OFF cycling results in overheating the switch and causing a fault condition—i.e., an “overheat shut-off”—not eliminating a fault condition. Further, the Examiner has not shown that Baba reduces power to FET QA subsequent to an “overheat shut-off” to eliminate the fault condition. Thus, the Examiner has not shown that Baba discloses “reducing power to the faulted switch until persistence of the fault condition ceases.” We are therefore constrained by the record to find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17, claim 21 which recites commensurate limitations, and claims 18, 19, and 22 for similar reasons. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-19, and 21-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2010-003522 Application 10/907,963 8 DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-19, and 21-25. REVERSED Vsh