Ex Parte Suzuki et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 7, 2012

10902804 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 7, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte KENJI SUZUKI,
HIROMICHI AGATA, and TATSUYUKI UECHI
____________________

Appeal 2010-002330
Application 10/902,804
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and
KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kenji Suzuki et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, and 15. Claims 4, 9,
and 14 have been canceled. An oral hearing was held on February 16, 2012.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2010-002330
Application 10/902,804

2
THE INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is representative of
the subject matter on appeal.
1. A control device for a motor that drives a vehicle and
controls the motor by controlling an inverter device that
converts a direct voltage, supplied from a direct current source,
into an alternating voltage to be supplied to the motor, the
control device comprising:
a refrigerant temperature detector that detects a
refrigerant temperature of a heat exchanger for heat exchange
with the inverter device, and
a torque restrictor that restricts an output torque of the
motor when the inverter device is put in a state of overheat,
wherein the torque restrictor restricts the output torque to a
calculated continuous operation enabling torque so that the
output torque when the refrigerant temperature detected by the
refrigerant temperature detector is high is lower as compared
with the output torque when the refrigerant temperature is low.

THE EVIDENCE AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Makaran US 5,675,464 Oct. 7, 1997
Takeda US 5,923,135 Jul. 13, 1999
Takahashi US 6,465,978 B2 Oct. 15, 2002
Yanagida US 2003/0130772 A1 Jul. 10, 2003

The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takeda and Takahashi;
2. Claims 3, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Takeda, Takahashi, Makaran, and Yanagida; and
Appeal 2010-002330
Application 10/902,804

3
3. Claims 5, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Takeda, Makaran, and Yanagida1.

OPINION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, and 12 as being unpatentable over
Takeda and Takahashi
Independent claim 1 calls for a torque restrictor “wherein the torque
restrictor restricts the output torque ... so that the output torque[,] when the
refrigerant temperature detected by the refrigerant temperature detector is
high[,] is lower as compared with the output torque when the refrigerant
temperature is low.” Independent claim 6 recites a “torque restriction
means” and independent method claim 11 recites the step of “restricting an
output torque,” with each having a clause similar to the “wherein” clause of
claim 1. The remaining claims subject to this rejection depend from one of
these independent claims.
The Examiner initially found that Takahashi discloses a torque
restrictor that restricts the torque “so that the output torque when the
refrigerant temperature detected by the refrigerant temperature detection
means is high is lower as compared with the output torque when the
refrigerant is low (Abstract, lines 5-12 and Col. 2, lines 33-53).” Ans. 5.
Appellants challenge this finding, arguing that Takahashi uses the junction
temperature rather than the refrigerant temperature. App. Br. 19. In

1 Because this appeal is resolved on the basis of the underlying rejection of
the independent claims, we do not reach the issue as to whether the
Examiner’s failure to include Takahashi in the statement of the rejection of
dependent claims 5, 10, and 15 was merely an unintentional and obvious
typographical error. See Ans. 20.
Appeal 2010-002330
Application 10/902,804

4
response, the Examiner sets forth a rationale that appears to concede this
point:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to
simply substitute junction temperature detection, taught by
Takahashi with the coolant (refrigerant) temperature detection,
taught by Takeda to restrict the output torque to a calculated
continuous operation enabling torque to prevent overheating of
the motor and allow the device to cool.
Ans. 17-18 (emphasis added); see also Takahashi, Abst. ll. 5-12; col. 2, ll.
33-53 (the Examiner’s cited portions that refer to the switching device
temperature and the junction temperature). Underlying this rationale is the
Examiner’s finding that:
It is inherent that when the temperature of the inverter devices
is high, the coolant temperature would be high and the coolant
temperature of the motor would be lowered when the torque of
the motor is being restricted.
Ans. 18.
In response to the Examiner’s inherency finding, Appellants
persuasively point out that Takeda’s junction temperature is not purely a
function of coolant temperature, and asserts that there may be situations
where the estimated junction temperature would be low when the coolant
temperature is high, and vice-versa. Reply Br. 5-7; see also App. Br. 19-21.
We cannot find by a preponderance of the evidence that the recited
refrigerant temperature and torque correlation is inherent in the Examiner’s
proposed combination of Takahashi and Takeda. See In re Robertson, 169
F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Inherency may not be established by
probabilities or possibilities.) Because the Examiner’s rejection is premised
on this inherency finding, we cannot sustain the rejection. We reverse the
Appeal 2010-002330
Application 10/902,804

5
rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, and 12 as being obvious over Takeda and
Takahashi.
The rejection of claims 3, 8, and 13 as being unpatentable over Takeda,
Takahashi, Makaran, and Yanagida, and the rejection of claims 5, 10, and
15 as being unpatentable over Takeda, Makaran, and Yanagida
The remaining claims on appeal depend from one of the independent
claims, the rejection of which we reverse for the reasons discussed above.
We acknowledge the Examiner’s findings that Yanagida discloses certain
subject matter regarding refrigerant temperature. See, e.g., Ans. 7 (citing
Yanagida, paras. [0187] & [0188] which refer to tmMI); but see Yanagida,
para. [0076] (identifying tmMI as simply the inverter temperature, not the
inverter refrigerant temperature); Ans. 20 (the Examiner responding to
Appellants’ challenges by making findings regarding the motor temperature
and the motor oil temperature (which is tmMO, see Yanagida, para.
[0077])). However, even if we were to accept as correct the Examiner’s
findings, the articulated rejections of the subject dependent claims are, at
best2, still based on the flawed underlying modification of Takeda discussed
above. See, e.g., Ans. 8. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of
claims 3, 8, and 13, or the rejection of claims 5, 10, and 15.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, and 15
is reversed.

REVERSED

2 As mentioned in footnote 1, supra, the parties dispute whether Takahashi is
properly part of the third rejection. See App. Br. 27; Ans. 20; Reply Br. 7-8.
Appeal 2010-002330
Application 10/902,804

6

mls