Ex Parte Won et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 30, 2019

13571681 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/571,681 08/10/2012
24972 7590 05/02/2019
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Seungsik Won
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.
TCHV.POOl lUS/1000355341 7769
EXAMINER
CHOU,JIMMY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2019 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEUNGSIK WON, JUNGKI LEE,
JUNGWON CHO, and YOUNGKEE BAEK1
Appeal2018-003809
Application 13/571,681
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Seungsik Won et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from a non-final rejection of claims 1, 4, and 5. Claims 6-9 are withdrawn
from consideration. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Hanon Systems is identified as the real party-in-interest in this application.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-003809
Application 13/571,681
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to an electric heater apparatus for an
electric vehicle. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention
and reads as follows:
1. An electric heater apparatus for an electric vehicle
compnsmg:
a power supply part;
a switch control part configured to generate a switching control
signal according to a control command of an air-conditioner
controlling part;
a switching part switched according to the switching control
signal of the switch control part, the switching part configured to
supply electric power of the power supply part to a PTC heater;
and
the PTC heater configured to receive the electric power of the
switching part and to generate heat,
wherein the switching part includes a plurality of switching
modules set to control an output load of the PTC heater,
wherein the switch control part is configured to operate the
plurality of switching modules in a particular order according to
a target heating temperature, the particular order consisting of a
serial order,
wherein the switching modules comprise IGBTs (Insulated Gate
Bipolar mode Transistors) which are high-voltage switching
elements, each IGBT with the same maximum allowable current
capacity,
wherein the switch control part divides a temperature control
section of the heating part according to the number of the IGBTs,
2
Appeal2018-003809
Application 13/571,681
wherein the switch control part carries out a duty control of one
IGBT in the case that temperature control is carried out by
electric current which does not exceed the maximum allowable
current capacity of one IGBT, and carries out the duty control of
one IGBT and controls other IGBTs to maintain a full-on
operation state in the case that the temperature control is carried
out by electric current which is in an allowable current capacity
range of two or more I GB Ts, and
wherein the switch control part turns off the IGBT which is in
the duty control and carries out the duty control of one of the
IGBTs which are in the full-on operation state so as to reduce the
temperature, in the case that the IGBT which is in the duty
control reaches the minimum duty control value of the IGBT
during a temperature decrease control.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects:
(i) claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Appellants' Admitted Prior Art (hereafter "AAPA") in view of Jirmann (US
2003/0127448 Al, published July 10, 2003); and
(ii) claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
AAPA in view of Jirmann and Zhu (US 7,154,068 B2, issued Dec. 26,
2006).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 4--§ 103(a)--AAPA/Jirmann
The Examiner finds that the AAP A discloses all limitations appearing
in claim 1, with the exception of the recited switch control being configured
to operate the one or more switching modules in a serial order, as well as the
limitation appearing in the last "wherein" clause of the claim. Non-Final
3
Appeal2018-003809
Application 13/571,681
Act. 3-4. That last "wherein" clause requires the switch control part, during
a temperature decrease control mode, to tum off an IGBT that is in duty
control mode and to carry out a duty control mode of another IGBT
previously operating in a full-on operating state, when the IGBT initially in
duty control mode reaches its minimum duty control value. Appeal Br.,
Claims Appendix.
The Examiner turns to Jirmann as teaching a switch control part
( element 20 in Jirmann) that is configured to operate the one or more
switching modules (elements 14, 15, 16, and 17) in a serial order, according
to a target heating temperature. Non-Final Act. 5, citing Jirmann, paras. 28-
29. The Examiner additionally finds that Jirmann discloses that the switch
control part operates to tum off a switch that is in duty control mode, and to
operate another switch in duty control mode operating in a full-on mode, in
accordance with the requirements found in the last "wherein" clause of
appealed claim 1. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have therefore
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the AAP A
system to include these features in order to obtain optimal efficient heating
of passengers in the vehicle. Id., citing Jirmann, para. 12.
Appellants argue that, "unlike the present invention, Jirmann does not
contain a duty control." Appeal Br. 6. The Examiner responds that
Appellants do not expressly define the term "duty control of one IGBT" in
the Specification, and therefore interprets the term as "tum[ ing] on, tum[ ing]
off, or adjusting power level." Ans. 8. The Examiner avers that the AAPA
teaches IGBT switch modules in general, and that Jirmann teaches that the
switch modules can be turned off, turned on, or be used to adjust power
4
Appeal2018-003809
Application 13/571,681
levels. Id., citing Jinnann, para. 29. The Examiner provides an example,
ostensibly based on the disclosure in paragraph 29 of Jirmann, that:
one of switches 1 can be turned off such that switches 4, 3 and
2 are turned on and at least 4 is in full-on operation state. The
switch 4 can be reduced to minimum duty control value such as
200 watts.
Id. at 9.
Although we agree with the Examiner that there is no explicit
definition of the term "duty control" in Appellants' Specification, we find
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that operation in a
"duty control" mode is a different state of operation from a "full-on"
operating state. See, e.g., Spec., para. 21 ( describing that one of the
switching modules is in duty control mode, and other switching modules are
controlled in a full-on state). This is further evidenced by Appellants'
equating the term "duty" to the term "duty ratio." Id. at para. 1. We also
find that a person of ordinary skill would understand that the term "duty
ratio" has the same meaning as "duty cycle," both connoting that, given a
particular period, a switch is on for a percentage of the period and is off for a
complementary percentage of the period. 2
Appellants' Figure 7 illustrates this concept for both the AAP A
control system and the claimed system. In the AAP A control system, all
three IGBT switches are controlled simultaneously at various duty
percentages. The illustrative example of the claimed control system
evidences that a first IGBT is operated at 100% duty, which corresponds to
the "full-on" state for a given period, a second IGBT is operated at 80%
2 See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty _ cycle, last accessed on April
24, 2019.
5
Appeal2018-003809
Application 13/571,681
duty, which corresponds to the IGBT being operated in "duty control", or in
an "on" state for only 80% of the given period, and a third IGBT that is in an
"off' state for that period. This is achieved, as claimed by Appellants, by
providing a "switch control part [which] carries out a duty control of one
IGBT," which Appellant further characterizes as providing a one-to-one
relationship between a duty control and one IGBT. Reply Br. 2-3.
This understanding of the meaning of "duty control" in the context of
claim 1, when read in light of the Specification, lends credence to
Appellants' argument, set forth above, that Jirmann does not provide a duty
control for its I GB Ts. The Examiner's citation to the turning on or off of
IGBT switches for one or more groups of heating resistors is not a disclosure
of performing duty control on any one of those groups; rather, the disclosure
in Jirmann of either switching on or off any of the groups, without more,
evidences only operating the heating elements in "full-on" mode or not at
all. Jirmann, para. 28 ( disclosing that, as electrical system capacity
increases, one or more groups of heating elements that have been "on" are
switched "off' in favor of another group being switched "on.") Along the
same lines, nowhere do we find support in Jirmann for the Examiner's
position that, "[t]he switch 4 can be reduced to minimum duty control value
such as 200 watts."
The Examiner's findings with respect to Jirmann are thus not
evidenced by that disclosure, and therefore, the proposed reason to combine
the teachings of Jirmann with the AAP A is not supported by rational
underpinnings. The rejection of claim 1, and of claim 4 depending
therefrom, is not sustained.
6
Appeal2018-003809
Application 13/571,681
Claim 5--§ 103(a)--AAPA/Jirmann/Zhu
The rejection of claim 5 is based on the same erroneous findings as to
the Jirmann disclosure discussed above. Zhu is not relied on to remedy the
noted deficiencies in Jirmann. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 5 as being
unpatentable over AAP A, Jirmann, and Zhu is not sustained.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1, 4, and 5 are reversed.
REVERSED
7