General Electric Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 3, 2020

15628774 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2020)

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.
15/628,774 06/21/2017 John Stanley GLASER 271341A-1 (C28.094) 2105
160598 7590 03/03/2020
CURRENT LIGHTING SOLUTIONS, LLC
c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC
50 LOCUST AVENUE
NEW CANAAN, CT 06840
EXAMINER
PHAM, THAI N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2844
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/03/2020 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):
CurrentBMT@bmtpatent.com
peter.dimauro@gecurrent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN STANLEY GLASER and
RAMANUJAM RAMABHADRAN

____________

Appeal 2019-002019
Application 15/628,774
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before DONNA M. PRAISS, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–17. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed June 21, 2017, the
Final Office Action dated Feb. 21, 2018 (“Final Act.”), Appellant’s Appeal
Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed July 16, 2018, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
dated Nov. 15, 2018, and Appellant’s Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed Jan. 8,
2019.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies General Electric Company as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002019
Application 15/628,774

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a power converter system and method for
operating an illumination device. Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1 and 11, reproduced
below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief, are illustrative
(disputed limitations italicized).
1. An illumination device comprising:
a light emitting source; and
a clamped series resonant converter electrically coupled
to the light emitting source, wherein the clamped series
resonant converter comprises:
a first rectifier configured to generate a direct
current (DC) power from an input alternating current
(AC) voltage of the first rectifier;
an inverter coupled to the first rectifier and
configured to receive the DC power from the first
rectifier and generate an intermediate AC power, wherein
the inverter comprises:
a switching leg comprising a plurality of
switches coupled in series;
a diode leg comprising a plurality of diodes
coupled in series, wherein the diode leg is coupled
in parallel with the switching leg, wherein the
plurality of diodes comprises a first diode and a
second diode;
an inductor coupled to the plurality of the
switches;
a capacitor coupled in parallel with the
second diode to facilitate generation of the
intermediate AC power, wherein a voltage across
the capacitor is clamped at a level equivalent to a
level of a DC voltage at an input of the inverter or
zero via the first diode and a second diode; and
a transformer coupled to the inverter, wherein the
Appeal 2019-002019
Application 15/628,774

3
transformer comprises a primary winding and a secondary
winding, wherein the primary winding of the transformer is
connected between the inductor and the capacitor, and wherein
a voltage developed across the primary winding causes
automatic power factor correction by drawing an input current
flowing through the damped series resonant converter that is
proportional to the AC voltage.

11. A method for operating an illumination device
comprising a clamped series resonant converter electrically
coupled between a light emitting source and a power source,
wherein the clamped series resonant converter comprises an
inverter comprising a plurality of switches, the method
comprising:
operating the plurality of switches of the inverter of the
clamped series resonant converter at a fixed switching
frequency for a predetermined time;
drawing an input current by the clamped series resonant
converter from a power source in phase with an input voltage
supplied by the power source to achieve an automatic power
factor correction;
applying a fixed voltage at an output of the clamped
series resonant converter by the light emitting source; and
regulating a load current flowing through the light
emitting source based on the fixed switching frequency.

Claim 14 is also independent and recites an illumination device
“wherein the primary winding of the transformer is connected between the
inductor and the capacitor.”
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Appeal 2019-002019
Application 15/628,774

4
Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering
the positions of both the Examiner and Appellant, we are persuaded the
Examiner reversibly erred for the reasons set forth in Appellant’s briefs and
discussed below.
The Examiner rejects claims 1–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of King3 and Nijhof.4 Final Act. 2–17.
We address each of the claims below.
Claim 1
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection fails to disclose or
suggest three limitations recited in claim 1. First, Appellant contends the
Examiner erred in finding that King discloses or suggests “the primary
winding of the transformer . . . is connected between the inductor and the
capacitor.” Appeal Br. 12. Second, Appellant contends that the Examiner
erred in finding Nijhof discloses the coupling pattern of a series of diodes
connected in parallel with a series of connection of switches. Id. at 15. Third,
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in finding that modification of
King with Nijhof’s circuit would achieve power factor correction. Id. at 16–
17. We need only address the first and third asserted errors to decide this
Appeal.
Regarding King, Appellant directs us to King’s Figures 4 and 5
below.

3 US 2009/0295300 A1, published Dec. 3, 2009.
4 US 2009/0115341 A1, published May 7, 2009.
Appeal 2019-002019
Application 15/628,774

5

Figures 4 and 5 illustrate tank circuits for a lighting ballast using LED 182.
King ¶¶ 19, 20. Figure 4 includes inductor 172, capacitor 170, and
transformer 400, which steps down the relatively higher alternating
Appeal 2019-002019
Application 15/628,774

6
operating voltage in the tank circuit in its primary winding to a lower
alternating operating voltage to diodes 158a–158c connected to its secondary
winding. Id. ¶ 86. Figure 5 also includes capacitor 402, which allows the
voltage across the LED to exceed the threshold faster, creates a voltage
divider between capacitor 170 and 402, and increases a threshold voltage on
the primary winding faster than without capacitor 402. Id. ¶ 88. According
to Appellant, Figure 4 depicts a series combination of capacitor 170 and
inductor 172 that is connected to a primary winding of transformer 400.
Appeal Br. 12. Regarding Figure 5, Appellant asserts that the primary
winding of transformer 400 is connected in parallel with capacitor 402. Id.
Regarding achieving a power factor correction as required by claim 1,
Appellant argues that the inverter inductor current must be in phase with the
rail voltage and follow the shape of the rail voltage, however, the current
flowing through Nijhof’s inverter inductor L1 is not in phase with the rail
voltage and does not follow the shape of the rail voltage to cause the power
factor correction required by the claims. Appeal Br. 17 (citing Nijhof, Figs.
3A, 3B). Nijhof’s Figures 3A and 3B are shown below.
Appeal 2019-002019
Application 15/628,774

7

Nijhof’s Figure 3A depicts a timing diagram of the rail voltage (V), and
Figure 3B depicts a timing diagram of the inverter inductor current flowing
through inverter inductor L1 (solid line). Id.; Nijhof ¶¶ 25, 26, 39.
The Examiner responds that King’s Figure 5 discloses primary
winding of transformer 400 is connected between inductor 172 and capacitor
402. Id. at 9 (citing King, Fig. 5).
Regarding automatic power factor correction by coupling primary
winding 90 of transformer 70 between inductor 69 and capacitor 67 in
Appellant’s disclosure, the Examiner finds this “does not seem to amount
[to] very strong evidence” of unexpected results because an input current
flowing through the clamped series resonant converter 50 is proportional to
the AC voltage at an input of converter 60. Id. at 11.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant maintains that the primary winding of
King’s transformer 400 is merely connected to resonator inductor 172 and
capacitor 402 rather than “between the inductor and the capacitor” as recited
in claim 1. Id. at 4. Regarding the automatic power factor correction required
Appeal 2019-002019
Application 15/628,774

8
by claim 1, Appellant asserts that the completely different circuit
configuration/coupling pattern of the transformer, inductor, and capacitor in
King’s circuit cannot achieve power factor correction. Id. at 5.
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of harmful error. The
Examiner’s rejection does not adequately explain how King’s device
discloses a primary winding that is “between the inductor and the capacitor”
as recited in claim 1. Appellant’s position that the primary winding of
King’s transformer 400 is connected to but not “between” King’s resonator
inductor 172 and capacitor 402 is supported by the record. King, Figs. 4, 5.
Even if claim 1 does not require that the inductor and capacitor are
connected in series (Ans. 8), the Examiner does not adequately explain how
King’s primary winding can be said to be “between the inductor and the
capacitor” as recited in the claim.
Similarly, the Examiner does not adequately explain why the
configuration differences between King’s circuit as modified by Nijhof
would provide the automatic power factor correction required by claim 1.
According to Appellant, the prior art circuit would not cause the power
factor correction required by claim 1 because Nijhof shows the inverter
inductor current is not in phase with the rail voltage and does not follow the
shape of the rail voltage. Appeal Br. 17. The Examiner does not respond to
Appellant’s argument regarding whether Nijhof’s Figures 3A and 3B
suggest that the modified circuit does not receive an input current from the
power source in phase with an input voltage to achieve automatic power
factor correction. Nor does the Examiner direct us to any evidence in the
record to show a reasonable expectation of success in achieving automatic
power factor correction in the absence of an input current being in phase
Appeal 2019-002019
Application 15/628,774

9
with an input voltage. Appellant’s argument that the input voltage must be
in phase with an input voltage to achieve an automatic power factor
correction is supported by the Specification. Spec. ¶ 46; Fig. 4. Therefore,
we are persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 1 based on the
preponderance of the evidence in the cited Appeal record.
In view of the above, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 over King and Nijhof.

Independent Claims 11 and 14
Appellant relies on the same arguments presented with respect to
claim 1 in asserting that independent claims 11 and 14 are patentable over
the combination of King and Nijhof. Appeal Br. 18. Because claim 11
requires an automatic power factor correction as discussed above in
connection with claim 1, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 for
the same reason. Moreover, claim 11 explicitly recites “drawing an input
current by the clamped series resonant converter from a power source in
phase with an input voltage supplied by the power source to achieve an
automatic power correction factor.” Appeal Br. 23 (Claims Appendix)
(emphasis added). Similarly, because claim 14 requires the primary winding
of the transformer to be connected between the inductor and the capacitor as
discussed above in connection with claim 1, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 14 for the same reason.

Dependent Claims
The Examiner’s additional findings regarding the dependent claims do
not cure the deficiencies discussed above with regard to independent claims
Appeal 2019-002019
Application 15/628,774

10
1, 11, and 14. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 2–10, 12, 13, and 15–17 under § 103 over the combination
of King and Nijhof.

CONCLUSION
For these reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–17 103 King, Nijhof 1–17

REVERSED