SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 27, 2020

14473075 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 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.
14/473,075 08/29/2014 Kimberly Richey 2014P11074US 6142
28524 7590 04/27/2020
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, VIET P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2832
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2020 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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KIMBERLY RICHEY and XIAOBIN WANG
Appeal 2019-003659
Application 14/473,075
Technology Center 2800
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
MICHAEL G. MCMANUS Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5–7, and 14–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Donnelly (US 2010/0106343 A1, pub. Apr. 29,
2010) in view of Gray (US 4,045,718, iss. Aug. 30, 1977). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Siemens Industry,
Inc. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed December 14, 2018, 1.
Appeal 2019-003659
Application 14/473,075

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to electric drive systems for a vehicle, such as
a mining haul truck. Spec. ¶ 2. Appellant discloses that mining truck
applications traditionally used a single diesel engine and a single generator
or alternator which may not be capable of producing enough power required
for certain applications. Id. ¶ 4. Appellant discloses an improved electric
drive system comprising first and second generators2 in communication with
respective first and second engines, first and second main rectifiers, and first
and second auxiliary rectifiers, wherein each generator comprises
independently excitable main and auxiliary windings whose AC outputs are
in communication with respective main and auxiliary rectifiers. Id. ¶¶ 6, 8.
In drive mode, the engines drive their respective generator to supply power
to the respective main rectifier coupled to a plurality of inverters which then
supply power to a plurality of electric wheel motors. Id.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. Electric drive system for a vehicle comprising:
a first generator in communication with a first engine;
a second generator in communication with a second
engine;
a primary power system comprising a first main rectifier
and a second main rectifier;

2 Appellant uses the terms “generator” and “alternator” interchangeably in
this application. Spec. ¶¶ 15 (“3-phase AC generator 104, also referred to as
an alternator”); 21 (“two 3-phase AC generators, also referred to as
alternators”). Accordingly, we likewise treat a “generator” as equivalent to
an “alternator” in our opinion below.
Appeal 2019-003659
Application 14/473,075

3
wherein each generator comprises a main field coil, each
main field coil independently excitable, each main field coil
generating an alternating current (AC) output, a main AC
output of the main field coil of the first generator in
communication with the first main rectifier, and a main AC
output of the main field coil of the second generator in
communication with the second main rectifier,
wherein, when in drive mode, the first engine drives the
first generator and the second engine drives the second
generator, and the first and second generators supply power to a
plurality of inverters coupled to the first and second main
rectifiers, the plurality of invert[er]s supplying power to a
plurality of electric wheel motors, and
wherein the first and second main rectifiers each
comprise a direct current (DC) output, both DC outputs of the
first and second main rectifiers being connected to a common
main DC bus; and
an auxiliary power system comprising a first auxiliary
rectifier and a second auxiliary rectifier;
wherein each generator comprises an auxiliary field coil,
each auxiliary field coil independently excitable, each auxiliary
field coil generating an AC output, an auxiliary AC output of
the auxiliary field coil of the first generator connected to the
first auxiliary rectifier, and an auxiliary AC output of the
auxiliary field coil of the second generator connected to the
second auxiliary rectifier, and
wherein the first and second auxiliary rectifiers each
comprise a DC output, both DC outputs of the first and second
auxiliary rectifiers connected to an auxiliary DC bus providing
an auxiliary output for auxiliary devices including cooling
assemblies.
Independent claim 14 similarly recites an electric drive system
comprising first and second engines coupled to respective first and second
alternators each comprising independently excitable main and auxiliary field
Appeal 2019-003659
Application 14/473,075

4
coils whose outputs are operably coupled to respective first and second main
and auxiliary rectifiers.
OPINION
After review of Appellant’s and the Examiner’s opposing positions,
the applied prior art, and Appellant’s claims and Specification disclosures,
we determine that Appellant’s arguments are insufficient to identify
reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection. In re Jung, 637
F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we affirm the stated
obviousness rejection for substantially the fact findings and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer and the Final Office
Action. We offer the following for emphasis only.
The Examiner finds that Donnelly discloses an electric drive system
substantially as recited in claims 1 and 14, except for a single generator
comprising both a main field coil and an auxiliary field coil. Final Act. 3–5,
6–7. For this feature, the Examiner finds that Gray teaches a single generator
comprising both a main field coil and an auxiliary field coil. Id. at 5, 7. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to have provided each
of Donnelly’s main and auxiliary field coil pairs in a single generator to have
their output voltages at a constant ratio and for ease of voltage regulation
due to a single generator. Id.
Appellant argues that an ordinary artisan would not have incorporated
Gray’s single generator into Donnelly’s system “because such a single
generator may need additional configuration (or may not be operated
efficiently) to provide different voltage and power levels for the main and
auxiliary DC buses.” Appeal Br. 6. The Examiner responds that additional
configuration would not be needed “because Gray already teaches this
Appeal 2019-003659
Application 14/473,075

5
configuration of a single generator to provide different voltage levels to
different buses.” Ans. 3. Appellant fails to address the Examiner’s response
or otherwise adequately explain in any detail why configuring Donnelly’s
system with the main and auxiliary field coils in a single generator would
need additional configuration or why such would have been beyond the
ordinary skill in the art.
Appellant next argues that “it may be difficult and cumbersome to
configure the single generator so that the auxiliary winding may be operated
separately from the main winding from a separate energy storage system.”
Appeal Br. 6. The Examiner responds that Donnelly discloses that the
auxiliary DC bus system may be operated from a separate energy storage
system, not the auxiliary winding which is separate from the auxiliary DC
bus. Ans. 4. As such, Donnelly’s electric drive system still permits each of
the main and auxiliary windings to be independently excitable as claims 1
and 14 require. Again, Appellant fails to address the Examiner’s response or
otherwise explain in any detail why configuring Donnelly’s system with the
main and auxiliary field coils in a single generator would have been beyond
the ordinary skill in the art.
Appellant next argues that “a combined solution of Donnelly and
Gray is disadvantageous in view of the existing solution of Donnelly.”
Appeal Br. 6. The Examiner responds that Gray’s single generator having
both main and auxiliary windings provides a constant voltage ratio and
produces a desired voltage regulation therebetween. Ans. 4–5. Here, again,
Appellant fails to explain in any detail why the Examiner’s proposed
modification of Donnelly to provide the main and auxiliary field coil pairs in
Appeal 2019-003659
Application 14/473,075

6
a single generator would have been disadvantageous over Donnelly’s
existing configuration.
Appellant further argues, however, that although Gray discloses a
single alternator with multiple windings and different voltages, these
multiple windings are arranged so that when voltage is induced in one
winding, voltage is induced in the other winding(s). Reply Br. 2. Appellant
contends that neither Donnelly nor Gray disclose, teach, or suggest a single
component generator/alternator with multiple coils that are independently
excitable as required by claims 1 and 14. Id. In this regard, Appellant asserts
that Donnelly fails to disclose such an independently excitable, multiple coil
single generator/alternator because Donnelly discloses separate alternators
comprising a smaller alternator feeding power to an auxiliary DC bus and a
larger alternator feeding power to a main DC bus. Id. at 2–3. Appellant,
therefore, contends that each of Donnelly’s engines is operably coupled to at
least two alternators. Id. at 3.
This argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Initially, we note
that Donnelly discloses a three engine electric drive system as shown in
Figure 36, reproduced below.
Appeal 2019-003659
Application 14/473,075

7

Donnelly, Fig. 36, showing a schematic circuit diagram
for a multi-engine vehicle electric drive system

Donnelly’s Figure 36 is a schematic circuit diagram for a multi-engine
vehicle with multiple engines in parallel with a hybrid auxiliary power
system. Donnelly ¶ 325. Specifically, each engine system 3601 drives a
flywheel starter alternator comprising a large main alternator 3602 feeding
power to a main DC bus and a small auxiliary alternator 3604 feeding power
to an auxiliary DC bus. Id. Thus, Donnelly discloses that each of the main
and auxiliary alternator pairs are part of a single flywheel starter alternator.
In addition, as the Examiner finds and Appellant does not dispute, Donnelly
teaches that the main and auxiliary alternators of each flywheel starter
alternator are independently excitable. See e.g. id. ¶¶ 219 (“The voltage
Appeal 2019-003659
Application 14/473,075

8
levels and power outputs of the engine systems are controlled independently
by their individual electrical (alternator excitation for example) . . . means
incorporated in their engine systems.”). Accordingly, Donnelly suggests that
the main and auxiliary coils may be part of a single generator, in this case, a
single flywheel alternator. In this regard, we note that although claim 1
recites that each generator comprises main and auxiliary field coils, neither
the claims nor the Specification further describe, much less limit, the
specific structure of the generators. As such, we find no distinction between
Donnelly’s flywheel starter alternators, each comprising a main alternator
with a main field coil and an auxiliary alternator comprising an auxiliary
field coil, and the recited generators of claims 1 and 14.
We acknowledge that the Examiner’s reasons for the combination,
i.e., to have their output voltages at a constant ratio and for ease of voltage
regulation due to a single generator, are tied to the dependent excitation of
Gray’s main and auxiliary field coil pairs. However, we determine this to be
harmless error, because we otherwise find no error in the Examiner’s
reliance on Gray to suggest that it would have been obvious to provide
Donnelly’s main and auxiliary alternators as a single generator. Although
Appellant is correct that Gray does not teach that the generator’s main and
auxiliary field coils are independently excitable, we note that the rejection
relies on Donnelly, not Gray, for this feature.
It is well established that the obviousness inquiry does not ask
“whether the references could be physically combined but whether the
claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a
whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc); see also
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (stating “[t]he test for
Appeal 2019-003659
Application 14/473,075

9
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference”); In re
Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of
references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”).
Therefore, to the extent that Appellant’s single generator somehow might
distinguish over Donnelly’s single flywheel starter alternator, we are
persuaded by a preponderance of the evidence that combining Donnelly’s
main and auxiliary alternators into a single generator while maintaining
Donnelly’s independent excitation capability for these alternator coils would
have been obvious in view of Gray.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 1 and 14 over the combination of Donnelly and Gray. Because
Appellant does not separately argue dependent claims 5–7 and 15–20, we
likewise sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of these dependent
claims.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5–7, and 14–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Donnelly in view of Gray is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5–7, 14–
20
103 Donnelly, Gray 1, 5–7, 14–
20

Appeal 2019-003659
Application 14/473,075

10
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED