Ex Parte SunDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 31, 201814502508 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/502,508 09/30/2014 28395 7590 08/02/2018 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L 1000 TOWN CENTER 22NDFLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR XuemeiSun 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. 83477634 1076 EXAMINER NGUYEN, CUONG H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3663 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2018 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): docketing@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte XUEMEI SUN Appeal2017-010123 Application 14/502,508 Technology Center 3600 Before KEVINF. TURNER, BRETT C. MARTIN, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2017-010123 Application 14/502,508 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-20. Claims 6 and 9 were withdrawn. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Appellant's claims are directed generally "to leakage current detection for vehicles including a high-voltage bus." Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A vehicle comprising: a voltage bus including a positive-side conductor and a negative-side conductor; an inverter configured to selectively couple the voltage bus to each phase of a three-phase electric machine; a switching element arranged within a circuit including the voltage bus and a chassis of the vehicle; and at least one controller programmed to, while the switching element is closed, operate the inverter to simultaneously couple terminals of each phase of the three-phase electric machine to a common conductor of the voltage bus to detect a leakage path to the chassis. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Wild Otake US 2005/0146335 Al Jul. 7, 2005 US 2010/0033140 Al Feb. 11, 2010 2 Appeal2017-010123 Application 14/502,508 REJECTION The Examiner made the following rejection: Claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wild and Otake. Ans. 5. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Wild teaches all of the elements of the claims, but fails to disclose a three-phase machine. Ans. 5. The Examiner then finds that Otake discloses leak testing of a three-phase machine. Ans. 6. The Examiner concludes obviousness, stating that the combination results in "very fundamental steps in electrical/electronic designs ... that are used with a three-phase electric machine on a vehicle to know a specific location of a leakage." Ans. 8. Appellant argues that while "[t]he references may teach or suggest various structural elements of the claim, ... the combination does not teach operating the structural elements in the manner claimed." App. Br. 7. Namely, neither Wild nor Otake teaches "simultaneously coupl[ing] terminals of each phase of the three-phase electric machine to a common conductor." Id. ( emphasis removed). The Examiner all but admits that this is so in stating "there is no need to 'simultaneously couple' because an outcome is similar to a connection not requiring 'simultaneously couple'." Ans. 3 ( emphasis removed). Regardless of outcome, the Examiner must find each and every element in the claim and, here, Appellant is correct that the Examiner has not found simultaneous coupling the terminals of each phase as claimed. 3 Appeal2017-010123 Application 14/502,508 We further note that the Examiner originally rejected the claims for failing the written description requirement over this specific limitation, but ultimately withdrew the rejection. See Ans. 3. In responding to the obviousness rejection, the Examiner states "there is no support for this claimed 'simultaneously' in the specification." Ans. 4 (emphasis removed). Having withdrawn the written description rejection, the Examiner cannot bolster an obviousness rejection by stating that there is no support for the term "simultaneously." The Examiner also appears to confuse something being "simultaneous" with the automation of a manual action. See Ans. 6. This simply is not true. If a process is performed manually, but sequentially, automating the process still results in a sequential process. In sum, the Examiner has failed to show how the combination is configured to "operate the inverter to simultaneously couple terminals of each phase of the three- phase electric machine to a common conductor of the voltage bus to detect a leakage path to the chassis." Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 or its dependent claims. Claims 10 and 15 contain a similar limitation in method form and so we likewise do not sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 15 or their dependent claims. DECISION For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-20. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation