Ex Parte Anderson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2018

13973359 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/973,359 08/22/2013
34082 7590 06/01/2018
ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C.
CAPITAL SQUARE
400 LOCUST, SUITE 200
DES MOINES, IA 50309-2350
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Douglas P. Anderson
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.
P07674USO 4273
EXAMINER
MIKAILOFF, STEFAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2831
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2018 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):
kconrad@zarleylaw.com
crasmussen@zarleylaw.com
emarty@zarleylaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DOUGLAS P. ANDERSON and MICHAEL J. STOL TEN OW
Appeal2017-004134
Application 13/973,359
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's April
5, 2016 decision finally rejecting claims 1--4 ("Final Act."). We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants do not specifically identify the real party in interest in their Appeal
Brief. However, the assignment records of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
show that the inventors assigned the application to Sauer-Danfoss Inc. of Ames,
Iowa (Reel/Frame No. 031063/0313), which later changed its name to Danfoss
Power Solutions Inc. (Reel/Frame No. 032641/0351).
Appeal2017-004134
Application 13/973,359
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' disclosure is directed to a system for a hydraulically powered
electric generator having a hydraulic motor coupled to an electric generator
(Abstract). The electric generator has a field coil that provides field excitation in
the rotor, where the rotor also has a permanent magnet that provides initial field
excitation (id.). A voltage regulator is connected to the rotor to adjust current in
the field coil to maintain a constant output voltage as generator speed and load
varies (id.). Details of the claimed invention may be found in independent claim
1, which is reproduced below from the claims appendix of the Appeal Brief
(argued claim limitations shown in italics):
1. A system for a hydraulically powered electric generator,
compnsmg:
a hydraulic pump in fluid communication with a
hydraulic motor;
a brushed rotating field generator having a field coil that
provides field excitation in a rotor
wherein the generator is coupled to the hydraulic
motor;
a permanent magnet disposed within the rotor; and
a voltage regulator attached to the rotor to adjust current
in the field coil to maintain a constant output voltage as the
generator speed and load vary.
Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis added).
2
Appeal2017-004134
Application 13/973,359
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fasola2 in view of Syverson. 3
II. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Fasola in view of Syverson, and further in view of Torres. 4
DISCUSSION
Appellants do not advance separate arguments in support of the
patentability of any of dependent claims 2--4 (see, Appeal Br. 2--4).
Accordingly, we focus our analysis on the rejection of claim 1 over Fasola in
view of Syverson.
The Examiner finds that Fasola discloses a hydraulic pump 7 in fluid
communication with a hydraulic motor 5, a rotating field generator with a
permanent magnet excitation coupled to the hydraulic motor, and a voltage
regulator to control the output voltage as the generator speed and load vary
(Final Act. 2, citing Fasola 1 :21-26). The Examiner further finds that
Syverson discloses a brushed field rotating generator having a
field coil providing field excitation in a rotor, a permanent
magnet disposed within the rotor and a voltage regulator to
adjust current in the field coil and to maintain a constant output
voltage as the generator speed and load vary, for the purpose of
maintaining high electrical load demands of a motor vehicle
systems.
(Final Act. 2-3, citing Syverson, Abstract, FIG. 4, 3:58---64) (citations and
reference numerals omitted). The Examiner determines that:
2 Fasola, EP 0 570 754 Al, published November 24, 1993.
3 Syverson, US 5,397,975, issued March 14, 1995.
4 Torres et al., US 2009/0230688 Al, published September 17, 2009.
3
Appeal2017-004134
Application 13/973,359
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to design the
system as taught by Fasola and to provide the brushed field
rotating generator having a field coil providing field excitation
in a rotor, a permanent magnet disposed within the rotor and a
voltage regulator to adjust current in the field coil as taught by
Syverson, for the purpose of maintaining high electrical load
demands of a motor vehicle systems while maintaining constant
voltage output.
(Final Act. 3).
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness based on an inherent or explicit disclosure of the claimed
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the
prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prim a f acie case of
unpatentability."). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the
Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described
or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the
knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 83 7 F .2d 1071,
1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Appellants argue that the cited art does not teach or suggest a "voltage
regulator attached to the rotor" to adjust the field coil "to maintain a
constant output voltage as the generator speed and load vary" (Appeal
Br. 2). In particular, Appellants argue that because Syverson teaches that it
maintains a constant voltage output with changing engine speeds, instead of
changing alternator speeds, the cited art does not teach or suggest
"maintain[ing] a constant output voltage as the generator speed and load
vary" (Appeal Br. 3--4). In this regard, the Examiner finds that the alternator
speeds will necessarily vary up and down with the speed of the engine and,
4
Appeal2017-004134
Application 13/973,359
therefore, that Syverson's disclosure of maintaining output voltage with
varying engine RPM's will necessarily also maintain output voltage with
varying alternator speed5 (Ans. 3--4). Appellants do not challenge this
finding (see, Reply Br. 2--4), but instead argue that the teachings of Faso la
and Syverson cannot properly be combined because they teach away from
each other (Reply Br. 2).
According to Appellants, Fasola is directed to an electrical generator
system which permits the rate of rotation of the alternator rotor to be
independent of the rate of rotation of a vehicle's engine (Reply Br. 2, citing
Fasola 1 :28-34), although Syverson is directed to a system where the rate of
rotation of the alternator depends on the speed of the engine (Reply Br. 2).
Therefore, according to Appellants, the references teach away from each
other and cannot be combined in an obviousness rejection (id).
Whether a reference teaches away from a claimed invention is a
question of fact. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
"'A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill,
upon reading the reference, ... would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant."' In re Haruna, 249 F.3d 1327,
1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Tee Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich., Inc., 192
F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). In this instance, as explained by the
Examiner (Ans. 5), Fasola is generally directed to controlling the generator
output voltage independently of the rotation rate of the engine (Faso la 1 :28-
35). Syverson is directed to improvement of conventionally used generators
5 The Examiner finds that Syverson discloses that rotation of the generator
shaft is accomplished with a belt or pulley or a gear drive, which would be
understood to be connected to the engine.
5
Appeal2017-004134
Application 13/973,359
and in particular to the generators furnished solely with permanent magnets
excitation system, although a rotor excitation circuit applies a forward
polarity to the wound field rotor portion to increase output in a boosting
mode at low RPMs and a reverse polarity to decrease output at high RPMs
in a bucking mode to maintain a constant voltage output (Syverson,
Abstract).
Neither reference teaches away from the other for purposes of
determining that they can be combined in an obviousness rejection. The
teachings of Syverson that are combined with Fasola in order to make the
rejection are not in opposition to Fasola's purpose of permitting the rate of
rotation of the alternator rotor to be independent of the rate of rotation of a
vehicle's engine.
Moreover, as explained by the Examiner (Ans. 5), a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of combining the
hydraulically powered generator as taught by Fasola with the voltage
maintaining property of Syverson's system, as both features offer
advantages to a person of skill in the art. Such a combination would not
have changed the principle of operation for Fasola, which would continue to
operate as a hydraulically powered generator.
Accordingly, upon consideration of all of the arguments and evidence
set forth by Appellants, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection over Fasola in view of Syverson.
6
Appeal2017-004134
Application 13/973,359
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Fasola in view of Syverson.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Faso la in view of Syverson, and further in view of Torres.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
7