Ex Parte Stolt et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 6, 201612941517 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/941,517 11/08/2010 127226 7590 09/08/2016 Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP P.O. Box 747 Falls Church, VA 22040-0747 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Lauri STOLT 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. 1381-0443PUS 1 9908 EXAMINER CHAN, KAWING ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2837 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/08/2016 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 LAURI STOLT and TUUKKA KAUPPINEN1 Appeal2015-002445 Application 12/941,517 Technology Center 2800 Before MARK NAGUMO, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to a method for determining the movement of a synchronous machine, and associated systems and apparatuses. E.g., Spec. 1:3-7; Claims 1, 4, 7. Claim 1 is reproduced below from page 10 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief: 1 According to the Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is KONE CORPORATION. Br. 1. Appeal2015-002445 Application 12/941,517 1. Method for determining the movement of a synchronous machine, the method comprising: fitting an incremental sensor to a surface of a moving part of the synchronous machine at a fitting point such that the incremental sensor detects relative motion of the surface of the moving part at the fitting point; reading a movement signal of the incremental sensor, the movement signal of the incremental sensor representing a relative movement of the surface of the moving part at the fitting point; determining at least one electrical magnitude of the synchronous machine; determining a position error of the moving part of the synchronous machine based on said at least one electrical magnitude and a transmission ratio determined by a linear movement range detected by the incremental sensor at the fitting point; and correcting the read movement signal of the incremental sensor based on said position error such that cumulative movement signal errors and errors caused by variations or changes in the linear movement range are accounted for. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL 1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kojima et al. (US 5,796,228, issued Aug. 18, 1998) in view of Hofbauer et al. (US 2005/0246123 Al, published Nov. 3, 2005) and Moench (DE 3843318 Al, published June 28, 1990). 2. Claims 3, 6, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kojima in view of Hofbauer and Moench, further in view of Kugiya et al. (US 2004/0200671 Al, published Oct. 14, 2004). 3. Claims 10, 11, 19, and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kojima in view of Hofbauer and Moench, 2 Appeal2015-002445 Application 12/941,517 further in view of Bhakta et al. (US 2002/0125113 Al, published Sept. 12, 2002). 4. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kojima in view of Hofbauer, Moench, and Kugiya, further in view of Bhakta. 5. Claims 13 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kojima in view of Hofbauer and Moench, further in view of Pojda (US 6,415,208 B 1, issued July 2, 2002). 6. Claims 15, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kojima in view of Hofbauer and Moench, further in view of Bui et al. (US 2004/0036428 Al, published Feb. 26, 2004). ANALYSIS The Appellants' arguments focus on limitations that appear in claim 1. See generally App. Br. 5-21. Therefore, our decision on the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 is dispositive of all claims on appeal. After review of the cited evidence in the appeal record and the opposing positions of the Appellants and the Examiner, we determine that the Appellants have not identified reversible error in the Examiner's rejections. Accordingly, we affirm the rejections for reasons set forth below, in the Final Action, and in the Examiner's Answer. See generally Final Act. 2-21; Ans. 2-7. The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Kojima teaches a method similar to that of claim 1, but that Kojima uses an absolute sensor rather than an incremental sensor. Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that "Hofbauer teaches an incremental sensor ... fitted to a surface of a moving part of [a] synchronous machine at a fitting point ... such that the sensor detects 3 Appeal2015-002445 Application 12/941,517 relative motion of the surface of the moving part at the fitting point, and the movement signal of the signal of the sensor represent[ s] a relative movement of the surface of the moving part at the fitting point." Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to substitute the incremental sensor of Hofbauer for the absolute sensor of Kojima. Id. The Appellants present several arguments in opposition to the Examiner's rejection, which we address in tum below. 1. The Appellants argue that "Hofbauer, like Kojima[,] discloses using an absolute position detector," that Hofbauer does not disclose the use of an incremental sensor, and that Hofbauer's disclosure of "incremental measuring steps" "does not imply or require the use of an incremental sensor." Br. 4. We are not persuaded by those arguments. Paragraph 4 of Hofbauer discloses a rotary transducer in which measurements are taken "in incremental measuring steps." While an absolute sensor may be capable of taking measurements incrementally, ,-r 4 of Hofbauer juxtaposes a sensor that uses incremental measuring steps with an absolute value encoder. Contrary to the Appellants' assertion that "Hofbauer discusses only absolute-value encoders," App. Br. 4 (emphasis in original), i-f 4 expressly describes "incremental encoders." While the drafting of the relevant portions ofi-f 4 is not a model of clarity, we agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood ,-r 4 as disclosing that both absolute value encoders and incremental encoders are "conventional." Moreover, the Appellants concede that "[i]t is well understood in the art that an incremental position sensor is one that only detects relative movement with respect to a previous position." Br. 5. Thus, regardless of whether Hofbauer's system 4 Appeal2015-002445 Application 12/941,517 itself uses an incremental sensor, see Br. 3--4 (citing Hofbauer if 27), the record indicates both that incremental sensors were well known in the art, and that they were known to be used in applications similar to that of Kojima. See Br. 5; Hofbauer if 4. 2. The Appellants argue that, contrary to the Examiner's findings and conclusions, it would not have been a "simple substitution" to replace Kojima's absolute sensor with an incremental sensor because "additional circuitry/processing" would be required "to account for the functional differences between the sensor types." Br. 5. Although we recognize that the proposed substitution may have required some additional effort beyond merely replacing one sensor with the other, this argument does not persuade us of reversible error because the Appellants do not allege, much less demonstrate, that the substitution, more likely than not, would have been beyond the ordinary level of skill in the art. In the Answer, the Examiner explains that "the functions and difficulties of an absolute encoder and an incremental encoder were known in the art," and that "[i]t would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to implement suitable calibration process to replace an absolute encoder with an incremental encoder." Ans. 4. The Appellants do not file a Reply Brief to challenge those findings, which are consistent with the Appellants' statement that the operation of incremental sensors was well understood in the art. See Br. 5. Thus, even if the substitution were not "simple," the combination proposed by the Examiner is, on the present record, the use of a known element according to its established function with predictable results. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-21 (2007) (use of a known element according to its established function typically does not result 5 Appeal2015-002445 Application 12/941,517 in nonobvious subject matter); see also Br. 5 (conceding that "both types of sensors may be used to achieve the same result"). 3. The Appellants argue that the use of an incremental sensor is "directly in conflict with Kojima's rationale for using an absolute position sensor" because, "[i]n order to implement an incremental sensor in Kojima, an entire reference setting or calibration process (and associated hardware and logic) must be added." Br. 6. We are not persuaded by that argument. The fact that Kojima would need to be modified in order to use an incremental sensor does not teach away from the use of an incremental sensor. As explained above, the Examiner finds, and the Appellants do not persuasively dispute, that any known modification/calibration process would have been within the ordinary level of skill in the art. The Appellants have cited nothing persuasive in Kojima that may have discouraged a person of ordinary skill from making the modification proposed by the Examiner. 4. The Appellants argue that, because Kojima does not teach an incremental sensor, it fails to teach or suggest "correcting the read movement signal of the incremental sensor" as recited by claim 1. See Br. 6. The Examiner, however, relies on Hofbauer for the disclosure of an incremental sensor. The Examiner explains that "the concept of cumulative movement signal errors" is a known feature of incremental sensors for which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to account. Ans. 4. That finding is consistent with the Appellants' concession that the operation of incremental sensors was well understood in the art. See Br. 5. The Appellants' argument does not persuade us of reversible error. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) ("[O]ne cannot show non- 6 Appeal2015-002445 Application 12/941,517 obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references."). 5. The Appellants argue that the Examiner's proposed modification would render Kojima "effectively inoperable." Br. 6. The argument appears to be based on the Appellants' assertion that substituting an incremental sensor for an absolute sensor would require a calibration process. See id. As set forth above, the Examiner finds that implementing a calibration process would have been within the ordinary level of skill in the art, and the Appellants do not persuasively dispute that. Thus, we are not persuaded that the proposed modification would have rendered Kojima inoperable. * * * In summary, we have carefully considered the Appellants' arguments and are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We affirm the rejection. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-23. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation