Josef Schmidt et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 30, 2019

15033414 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2019)

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.
15/033,414 04/29/2016 Josef SCHMIDT 512604.0246339 (146) 5201
26646 7590 07/30/2019
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP/HAK NY
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166
EXAMINER
IMTIAZ, ZOHEB S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2019 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):
uspto@kenyon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOSEF SCHMIDT, MICHAEL GEISSLER, MAJA SLISKOVIC,
DIETER GROß, and JÜRGEN BÖCKLE
____________

Appeal 2018-007591
Application 15/033,414
Technology Center 2800

____________

Before MARK NAGUMO, N. WHITNEY WILSON,
and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.

McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 6–13 of Application 15/033,414
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Final Act. (Mar. 22, 2017) 2–8. Appellant1 seeks
reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.

1 The Appellant, SEW-EURODRIVE GmbH & Co. KG, is identified as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-007591
Application 15/033,414
2
BACKGROUND
The present application generally relates to a drive system having a
brake mechanism intended to operate in a reliable and trouble-free manner.
Spec. 1:2–11. The brake described in the Application is “able to be supplied
and is therefore controllable from an AC/DC converter, which is powered
via lines from a DC/AC converter that is powered and or controlled by
signal electronics of the power converter.” Id. at 1:17–20. Figure 1 of the
Application is reproduced below.

Figure 1 is an illustration of a drive system having power converter 1, cable
2, electric motor 3, brake 4, DC/AC converter (inverter) 7, and AC/DC
converter (rectifier) 9. Id. at 3:23–4:18.
Claim 6 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with certain language bolded for emphasis:
6. A drive system, comprising:
a power converter;
a motor powered from the power converter via supply leads;
an electromagnetically actuatable brake disposed on the motor;
an AC/DC converter adapted to supply and control the brake;
and
a DC/AC converter powered and/or controlled by signal
electronics of the power converter, the DC/AC converter
adapted to power the AC/DC converter via lines connected
Appeal 2018-007591
Application 15/033,414
3
between the DC/AC converter and the AC/DC converter.
Appeal Br. (Claims App. 1) (emphasis added) (reformatted for
clarity).

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Vilbrandt et al. (US 2012/0009066 A1, published Jan. 12,
2012) in view of Plasz et al. (US 2002/0039010 Al,
published Apr. 4, 2002) and further in view of Ribbens et al.
(US 6,890,041 B1, issued May 10, 2005). Final Act. 2–3.
2. Claims 7, 8, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over Vilbrandt in view of Plasz and further in
view of Ribbens and Schmidt et al. (DE 102011100361 A1,
published Nov. 8, 2012). Id. at 4–5.
3. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Vilbrandt in view of Plasz, and further in view
of Ribbens and Franz et al. (DE 10014183 A1, published
Oct. 4, 2001). Id. at 5–7.
4. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Vilbrandt in view of Ribbens, Plasz, and Harald (DE
102011109537 A1, published Feb. 7, 2013). Id. at 7–8.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claim 6 as obvious over
Vilbrandt in view of Plasz and further in view of Ribbens. Id. at 2–3.
Appeal 2018-007591
Application 15/033,414
4
In support of the rejection, the Examiner finds that Vilbrandt teaches a
drive system comprising a power converter, a motor, and a brake disposed
on the motor. Id. at 2. The Examiner further finds that Vilbrandt fails to
teach “an AC/DC converter adapted to supply and control the brake; and a
DC/AC converter powered and/or controlled by signal electronics of the
power converter, the DC/AC converter adapted to power the AC/DC
converter.” Id.
The Examiner finds that Plasz teaches “an AC/DC converter adapted
to supply and control the brake; signal electronics of the power converter,
the DC/AC converter adapted to power the AC/DC converter via lines
connected between the DC/AC converter and the AC/DC converter.” Id. at
3 (citations omitted). The Examiner additionally finds that one of skill in the
art would have had reason to combine the AC/DC converter adapted to
supply and control the brake, the DC/AC converter powered and/or
controlled by signal electronics of the power converter, and the DC/AC
converter adapted to power the AC/DC converter via lines connected
between the DC/AC converter and the AC/DC converter of Plasz with the
apparatus of Vilbrandt “in order to provide safety measures for the brake
system by providing further control.” Id.
The Examiner further finds that Ribbens teaches “that the brake
controlled is first converte[d] from AC-DC and then converte[d] back to the
analog signal.” Id. The Examiner finds that one of skill in the art would
have incorporated such feature “in order to provide control system for
various types of brakes.” Id. The Examiner regards the findings regarding
Ribbens as redundant of those concerning Plasz. Answer 5.
Appellant asserts error on several bases. Appeal Br. 2–6. First,
Appellant argues that there is “no DC/AC converter present in Plasz et al.’s
Appeal 2018-007591
Application 15/033,414
5
system.” Id. at 3. Appellant argues that Plasz teaches that the output of
inverter 80 is an AC signal and “there is no DC signal output by the inverter
80 and hence no DC/AC converter present in Plasz et al.’s system that
powers a AC/DC converter that, in turn, supplies and controls a brake.” Id.
Figure 1 of Plasz is reproduced below.

Figure 1 of Plasz schematically depicts a material handling system. Plasz
¶ 17.
The Examiner determines that “the inverter 80 (DC output) is
connected to element [lifting apparatus] 40 which includes AC/DC
converter. Therefore, although Plasz et al. is silent on a DC/AC converter, it
can be inferred that the DC output from [i]nverter 80 has to be converted to
AC input going to rectifier 150.” Final Act. 8. In the Answer, the Examiner
cites to textual support for the finding that inverter 80 receives an AC signal,
rectifies such signal to a DC signal, then inverts the signal back to an AC
signal. Answer 4–5. Plasz’s specification provides that “[d]uring operation,
the inverter 80 receives the three-phase power input, rectifies the power
Appeal 2018-007591
Application 15/033,414
6
input to DC power, and inverts the DC power to generate the inverter signal
at a constant voltage-to-frequency ratio.” Plasz ¶ 26.
Given the Examiner’s findings and the teachings cited above, we do
not find persuasive Appellant’s argument that “there is no DC signal output
by the inverter 80 and hence no DC/AC converter present in Plasz et al.’s
system that powers a AC/DC converter that, in turn, supplies and controls a
brake.” Appellant has not shown reversible error in this regard.
For its second argument, Appellant contends that the Examiner has
not set forth an adequate reason to combine the teachings of the cited
references. Appeal Br. 3, 5–6. In the Final Rejection, the Examiner
determines that one of skill in the art would have had reason to combine the
converter circuitry of Plasz with the apparatus of Vilbrandt “in order to
provide safety measures for the brake system by providing further control.”
Final Act. 3.
With regard to Ribbens, the Examiner finds that one of skill in the art
would have had reason to use the DC/AC converter of Ribbens with the
teachings of the other references “in order to provide control system for
various types of brakes.” Id.
In the Answer, the Examiner further determines that “all three of the
references used in the rejection are in the same field of art, where braking
system is provided to brake the motor.” Answer 4. The Examiner
additionally finds that “Plasz et al. does exactly what Vilbrandt et al.
intended to achieve by providing regulations to the braking device.
Therefore, the combination of Plasz et al. and Vilbrandt et al. is valid as they
try to achieve results[.]” Id.
“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
Appeal 2018-007591
Application 15/033,414
7
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, with
regard to the combination of Plasz with Vilbrandt, it is not clear what safety
measure would have been implemented by the proposed combination nor
what “further control” is contemplated. Nor is there adequate explanation
for the stated reason to add the teachings of Ribbens (“in order to provide
control system for various types of brakes”). In the hypothetical
combination, there is no explanation as to why the additional control system
was proposed to be added.
In the Answer, the Examiner further finds that “all three of the
references used in the rejection are in the same field of art . . . . Therefore,
the combination of Plasz et al. and Vilbrandt et al. is valid as they try to
achieve results[.]” Answer 4. Being directed to the same art or same
technique is inadequate to supply a reason to combine. See, e.g., Microsoft
Corp. v. Enfish, LLC, 662 F. App’x 981, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[The] Board
correctly concluded that [the petitioner] did not articulate a sufficient
motivation to combine. With respect to [certain challenged claims], [the
petitioner] gave no reason for the motivation of a person of ordinary skill to
combine [the two references] except that the references were directed to the
same art or same techniques . . . .”). Here, the reasons proffered by the
Examiner fall short of “articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning,” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988. Accordingly, Appellant has
shown reversible error in the Examiner’s stated reason to combine. As a
result, we determine that the Examiner has not set forth an adequate prima
facie case of obviousness.

Appeal 2018-007591
Application 15/033,414
8
Rejections 2–4. The Examiner additionally rejects claims 7, 8, 12,
and 13 (Rejection 2), claims 9 and 10 (Rejection 3), and claim 11 (Rejection
4). Final Act. 4–8. Each of these claims depends, directly or indirectly,
from claim 6. Appeal Br. (Claims App. 1–2). The Examiner relies upon the
combination of Vilbrandt, Plasz, and Ribbens in support of all rejections.
Final Act. 4–8. Appellant seeks reversal of these rejections based, in part,
on the inadequacy of the stated reason to combine. Appeal Br. 7–9. As we
have found that the Examiner has not articulated a sufficient reason to
combine the teachings of these references, we determine that Appellant has
shown error with regard to these rejections.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 6–13 as obvious are reversed.
REVERSED