ZABULON, Joel et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 7, 2020

14862227 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 7, 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.
14/862,227 09/23/2015 Joel ZABULON Q222535 1454
23373 7590 01/07/2020
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2000 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 900
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
EXAMINER
ROYSTON, JOHN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2856
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/07/2020 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
USPTO@sughrue.com
sughrue@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOEL ZABULON and DAVID FRANK
____________

Appeal 2019-002969
Application 14/862,227
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision to finally reject claims 1–15.2 We have jurisdiction
over this appeal 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. Appellant identifies MESSIER-BUGATTI-DOWTY as the
real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed September 10, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”)
at 2.
2 Final Office Action entered February 14, 2018 (“Final Act.”) at 1.
Appeal 2019-002969
Application 14/862,227

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant claims a measurement device for measuring the rotational
speed of a vehicle wheel. Appeal Br. 4–6. Claim 1, the sole pending
independent claim, illustrates the subject matter on appeal, and is reproduced
below with contested subject matter italicized:
1. A measurement device for measuring the rotational speed
of a vehicle wheel, the measurement device comprising a body
incorporating:
a rotor which can be rotated by the wheel and on which
at least one permanent magnet is mounted;
a stator comprising a winding generating a measurement
voltage (Vmes) when the wheel and therefore the permanent
magnet tum, the measurement voltage being indicative of the
rotational speed of the wheel;
an electronic board comprising processing means for
processing the measurement voltage;
power supply means designed to generate, from the
measurement voltage, a power supply voltage (Vali) intended to
power the electronic board;
the electronic board comprising first voltage-matching
means intended to drop the power supply voltage when the
latter is above a predetermined first voltage threshold so as not
to damage components of the electronic board and to raise the
power supply voltage when the latter is below a predetermined
second voltage threshold.

Appeal Br. 29 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections in the Examiner’s
Answer entered January 2, 2019 (“Ans.”):
Appeal 2019-002969
Application 14/862,227

3
I. Claims 1, 2, 4, 8–11, and 13–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Windmueller3 in view of Hang4;
II. Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Windmueller in view of Hang and Kirkwood5;
III. Claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Windmueller in view of Hang and Kusch6;
IV. Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Windmueller in view of Hang, Kusch, and Lee7; and
V. Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Windmueller in view of Hang and Lo8.

FACTUAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant’s contentions, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the fact-finding and for the
reasons set forth in the Final Action, the Answer, and below.
We review appealed rejections for reversible error based on the
arguments and evidence the appellant provides for each issue the appellant
identifies. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072,

3 Windmueller et al. (“Windmueller”), US 2011/0018526 A1, published
January 27, 2011.
4 Hang et al. (“Hang”), US 2015/0123631 A1, published May 7, 2015.
5 Kirkwood et al. (“Kirkwood”), US 2006/0199697 A1, published
September 7, 2006.
6 Kusch et al. (“Kusch”), US 2013/0307489 A1, published November 21,
2013.
7 Lee, US 2011/0115288 A1, published May 19, 2011.
8 Lo, US 2012/0080934 A1, published April 5, 2012.
Appeal 2019-002969
Application 14/862,227

4
1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637
F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the Examiner had
failed to make a prima facie case, “it has long been the Board’s practice to
require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s
rejections”)).
Appellant presents arguments for claim 1 (Appeal Br. 8–26), and
although Appellant also separately addresses each of claims 2 and 3,
Appellant asserts only that claims 2 and 3 are unpatentable for the same
reasons as claim 1. Appeal Br. 26–27. We accordingly select claim 1 as
representative, and decide the appeal as to claims 1–15 based on claim 1
alone. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claim 1 requires the recited measurement device for measuring the
rotational speed of a vehicle wheel to comprise a body incorporating a stator
comprising a winding that generates a measurement voltage (Vmes), power
supply means designed to generate, from the measurement voltage, a power
supply voltage (Vali), and an electronic board comprising a voltage-
matching means intended to drop the power supply voltage when the latter is
above a predetermined first voltage threshold, and raise the power supply
voltage when the latter is below a predetermined second voltage threshold.
Windmueller discloses a device for measuring the rotational speed of
a rotor comprising inductive pulse generator 4 including induction coil 6
(winding) wound about a pole pin to which magnet 8 is attached, and in
which an electrical voltage representing a rotational speed measurement
signal (measurement voltage, Vmes) is induced by rotation of the rotor with
respect to a stator. Windmueller ¶¶ 1, 23, 24; Fig. Windmueller discloses
that the device also includes pulse shaper 18 that shapes alternating voltage
Appeal 2019-002969
Application 14/862,227

5
generated by induction coil 6 into direct voltage. Windmueller ¶ 29; Fig.
Windmueller discloses that the direct voltage is used to charge energy store
16 (power supply means that generates power supply voltage Vali from
measurement voltage Vmes), which supplies energy to wireless transmitting
device 10 (electronic board). Id. Windmueller discloses that the voltage
induced in induction coil 6 (measurement voltage Vmes) thus carries out a
dual function: providing a rotational speed measurement signal, and
supplying electrical energy (power supply voltage Vali) for operation of
transmitting device 10 (electronic board). Windmueller ¶ 7.
The Examiner finds that Windmueller does not disclose that
Windmueller’s device includes voltage matching means intended to drop the
power supply voltage when the latter is above a predetermined first voltage
threshold, and raise the power supply voltage when the latter is below a
predetermined second voltage threshold, and the Examiner relies on Hang
for suggesting incorporation of such a voltage matching means into
Windmueller’s device. Final Act. 4.
Hang discloses an over voltage protection control apparatus (voltage
matching means) comprising a buck-boost converter including four
switches, and an over voltage detection circuit. Hang ¶¶ 2, 4, 5. Hang
discloses that the buck-boost converter can operate in a buck mode to
decrease the output voltage when the input voltage Vin is much greater than
the output voltage Vo, and can operate in a boost mode to increase the
output voltage when the input voltage Vin is much less than the output
voltage Vo. ¶¶ 18, 28–32.
Hang discloses that the over voltage detection circuit receives a
voltage feedback signal indicative of an output voltage of the buck-boost
Appeal 2019-002969
Application 14/862,227

6
converter, and generates an over voltage signal if the output voltage is
greater than an over voltage threshold signal. Hang ¶ 22. Hang discloses
controlling the four switches in response to the over voltage signal to
prevent the output voltage “from overshooting” a desired level. Hang
¶¶ 18–20, 38; Fig. 6.
In view of these disclosures in Hang, the Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the present application to incorporate Hang’s over
voltage protection control apparatus (voltage matching means) into
Windmueller’s rotational speed measuring device, downstream of
Windmueller’s energy store 16 (power supply means that generates power
supply voltage Vali from measurement voltage Vmes) and upstream of
Windmueller’s transmitting device 10 (electronic board), so that the output
of energy store 16 would serve as the input of the over voltage protection
control apparatus (voltage matching means), in order to prevent over voltage
from being supplied to transmitting device 10 (electronic board), while also
ensuring supply of sufficient power to transmitting device 10 (electronic
board) by boosting the power supplied to transmitting device 10 (electronic
board) when necessary. Ans. 6–7.
Appellant argues that “one having ordinary skill in the art would not
have [had] a motivation to combine Windmueller and Hang in order to
reproduce the invention” because “Windmueller does not recognize a need
to control the voltage from a power supply, where the power is due to a
recovery of energy,” and does not teach or suggest that “power supplied by
recovered energy should be raised or lowered if the voltage varies in any
way,” while Hang “is not concerned with the regulation of power supplied
Appeal 2019-002969
Application 14/862,227

7
through recovery of energy.” Appeal Br. 16–17, 21. Appellant argues that
“recovered energy” generated from current induced in a stator by the
rotation of a rotor on which a permanent magnet is mounted (as disclosed in
Windmueller) is low, and using “voltage-matching means [as disclosed in
Hang] in an application in which electronic boards are supplied by recovered
energy is not a common, conventional or even obvious solution, because in
such application, since the recovered energy is low, the first objective is to
increase the voltage and not to reduce it.” Appeal Br. 19. Appellant argues
that Hang does not disclose use of a buck-boost converter “in an application
in which electronic boards are supplied with recovered energy, where
the recovered energy necessarily makes the supply current limited,” but
Hang instead discloses “an application in which the supply current is
unlimited.” Appeal Br. 20–21. Appellant argues that “the problem solved
by Hang is to protect electronics board against over voltage,” and “Hang is
not designed to optimize the power consumption of a board supplied through
recovery of energy.” Appeal Br. 21. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s
proposed combination of Windmueller and Hang, therefore, “is driven solely
by hindsight reconstruction based on Appellant’s own teachings.” Appeal
Br. 19.
Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection, for reasons well-expressed by the Examiner in the
Answer, and discussed below.
Appellant’s argument that Windmueller does not recognize a need to
control (by raising or lowering) the voltage from a power supply, where the
power is due to a recovery of energy, is improperly based on Windmueller
alone, and does not take into consideration what the combined disclosures of
Appeal 2019-002969
Application 14/862,227

8
Windmueller and Hang reasonably would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application, as
further discussed below. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.”); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
(The test for obviousness “is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”).
And although Hang does disclose a buck-boost converter that operates
in a buck mode to decrease the output voltage when the input voltage is
much greater than the output voltage, Hang also discloses that the buck-
boost converter operates in a boost mode to increase the output voltage
when the input voltage is much less than the output voltage. Hang’s
disclosures, therefore, are not limited to protecting an electronic board
against over voltage as Appellant’s arguments imply, and Hang also
discloses increasing output voltage supplied to an electronic board. In re
Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A reference
must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply the described
invention or a preferred embodiment.”); see also In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d
747, 750 (CCPA 1976) (“all disclosure of the prior art, including unpreferred
embodiments, must be considered”).
Hang does not explicitly disclose use of the over voltage protection
control apparatus (voltage matching means) described in the reference in an
application in which recovered energy is used to power an electronic board.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art seeking to produce a device as
disclosed in Windmueller, in which voltage induced in induction coil 6
Appeal 2019-002969
Application 14/862,227

9
supplies electrical energy (power supply voltage Vali or “recovered energy”)
for operation of transmitting device 10 (electronic board), reasonably would
have been led to incorporate an over voltage protection control apparatus
(voltage matching means) as disclosed in Hang into Windmueller’s device
downstream of energy store 16 (power supply means that generates power
supply voltage Vali from measurement voltage Vmes), to prevent voltage
above a desired level from being supplied to transmitting device 10
(electronic board), and to allow increased voltage to be supplied to
transmitting device 10 (electronic board) when necessary to provide
sufficient voltage to power transmitting device 10.
The Examiner’s proposed combination of Windmueller and Hang,
therefore, is based on explicit disclosures in Windmueller and Hang, and
what those disclosures reasonably would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art, rather than based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction
as Appellant argues.
Appellant also argues that even if combined, Windmueller and Hang
would not have led to the device of claim 1, because in the claimed device,
the power supply voltage is an input of the first voltage matching means,
which is not disclosed in Hang. Appeal Br. 21–22. Appellant argues that
Hang instead discloses that “the power stage circuit operates according to a
condition related to a comparison between input voltage Vin and output
voltage Vo, but does not (1) compare input voltage Vin from a power supply
with thresholds and (2) control the voltage supplied to the electronic board
based on that comparison.” Appeal Br. 22–23 (emphasis omitted) (citing
Hang ¶ 18); see also Appeal Br. 23–25 (citing Hang ¶¶ 28, 34). Appellant
argues that if one of ordinary skill in the art were to “combine Windmueller
Appeal 2019-002969
Application 14/862,227

10
and Hang, such person would monitor the output of the first voltage-
matching means in order to detect an over voltage,” and “would not monitor
the output of the power supply.” Appeal Br. 25.
Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. Hang discloses that the over voltage detection circuit
in Hang’s apparatus receives a voltage feedback signal indicative of an
output voltage of the buck-boost converter, and generates an over voltage
signal if the output voltage is greater than an over voltage threshold signal.
Hang ¶ 22. In view of this disclosure, the ordinarily skilled artisan would
have recognized that if Hang’s voltage protection control apparatus (voltage
matching means) were incorporated into Windmueller’s device downstream
of Windmueller’s energy store 16 and upstream of Windmueller’s
transmitting device 10 as discussed above, the output of energy store 16
would serve as the input of the over voltage protection control apparatus
(voltage matching means), corresponding to the input voltage Vin disclosed
in Hang, and this voltage would be compared to a threshold to control the
voltage output from the voltage protection control apparatus and supplied to
transmitting device 10 (electronic board), corresponding to the output
voltage Vo disclosed in Hang. Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the
proposed combination of Windmueller and Hang, therefore, would result in
a device that compares input voltage Vin from a power supply with a
threshold, and controls the voltage supplied to an electronic board Vo based
on that comparison.
Appellant argues that “the technical field of Hang is far from the
technical field of the invention.” Appeal Br. 19. Appellant argues that
Appellant’s invention is directed to “a device for measuring the rotational
Appeal 2019-002969
Application 14/862,227

11
speed of a vehicle wheel,” but in contrast, Hang is directed to “power
electronics and over voltage protection.” Appeal Br. 19–20.
Appellant’s argument does not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. Appellant’s Specification explains that the problem
with which the present inventors were concerned was improving the
distribution architecture of data concentrators and processors used for
aircraft wheel braking systems by carrying out as many processing
operations as possible near the wheels (rather than remote from the wheels),
including processing voltage generated by rotation of the wheels to measure
their rotational speed. Spec. 1, l. 34–2, l. 20; 5, ll. 12–17. The Specification
explains that Appellant’s invention involves performing processing
operations on voltage generated by a rotational speed measurement device
by an electronic board incorporated directly into the measurement device,
and powering the electronic board directly from the measurement voltage.
Spec. 3, ll. 1–19.
One of ordinary skill in the art seeking to address the problem with
which the present inventors were concerned, and seeking to develop a device
for processing voltage generated by rotation of wheels to measure their
rotational speed, reasonably would have looked to Hang’s disclosure of an
over voltage protection control apparatus (voltage matching means)
comprising a buck-boost converter and an over voltage detection circuit.
The ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that Hang’s over
voltage protection control apparatus for controlling the level of voltage
supplied to an electronic board (to protect against supplying excessive
voltage, and to increase the voltage supplied when necessary), would be
reasonably pertinent to developing an electronic board that functions to
Appeal 2019-002969
Application 14/862,227

12
process voltage generated by a rotational speed measurement device,
because an apparatus as disclosed in Hang would allow control of the level
of voltage generated by the rotational speed measurement device that is
supplied to the electronic board. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986–87 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (stating that the analogous art test requires that “a reference is
either in the field of the applicant’s endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the
problem with which the inventor was concerned . . . based on the judgment
of a person having ordinary skill in the art”); Medtronic, Inc. v. Cardiac
Pacemakers, Inc., 721 F.2d 1563, 1573–74 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (A claimed
cardiac pacemaker included an inhibitor for preventing application of pulses
at too high a frequency rate. Two references disclosed circuits used in high
power, high frequency devices which inhibited the runaway of pulses from a
pulse source. The court held that one of ordinary skill in the pacemaker art
faced with a rate-limiting problem would look to the solutions of others
faced with rate limiting problems, and therefore the references were in an
analogous art).
Appellant argues that “Hang is the third document combined by the
examiner with Windmueller” during prosecution of the present application,
which indicates “that the invention is not obvious.” Appeal Br. 18–19
(referring to the first, second, and third Office Actions issued for the present
application.).
The rejection of claim 1 before us in the present appeal, however, is
based on a combination of only two prior art references. Any prior art
reference that was applied earlier in prosecution that is not applied in a
rejection of the pending claims contested by Appellant in the present appeal
is not pertinent to this appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Nonetheless, we
Appeal 2019-002969
Application 14/862,227

13
point out that it is well settled that the number of references required to show
obviousness does not, by itself, demonstrate that the claimed subject matter
would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (affirming obviousness
rejection over thirteen references) (“The criterion . . . is not the number of
references, but what they would have meant to a person of ordinary skill in
the field of the invention.”).
We, accordingly, sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION

Claims

35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 8–
11, 13–15
103 Windmueller,
Hang
1, 2, 4,
8–11,
13–15

3 103 Windmueller,
Hang,
Kirkwood
3
5, 6 103 Windmueller,
Hang, Kusch
5, 6
7 103 Windmueller,
Hang, Kusch,
Lee
7
12 103 Windmueller,
Hang, Lo
12
Overall
Outcome
1–15

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