Ex Parte Asao et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 27, 2006

09813348 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 27, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not w
for publication and is
ritten
not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte YOSHIHITO ASAO, HIROFUMI WATANABE,
KATSUMI ADACHI, SHIROU IWATANI,
KYOJI MATSUMURA and TUNEJI GODA
____________

Appeal No. 2006-2220
Application No. 09/813,348
____________

ON BRIEF
____________

Before KRASS, JERRY SMITH, and SAADAT, Administrative Patent
Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-10, which are all of the
claims pending in this application.
We reverse.

BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention is directed to an electrical power
supply system for use in an automotive vehicle for supplying power
to a high power load and a battery. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary independent
claim 1 which is reproduced as follows:
1. An electrical power supply system for an automotive vehicle
comprising:

an alternator having an armature winding and a field coil for
supplying a power to both a high power load and a battery,

a stepping-up DC/DC converter for stepping up a voltage of
said battery and applying a stepped-up voltage to said field coil,

a voltage control means for controlling an output voltage of
said alternator by controlling a current of said field coil, and

a control means for increasing power of said alternator by
changing said output voltage of said alternator in response to a
rotating speed of said alternator when said alternator supplies
power to said high power load, and for controlling said output
voltage of said alternator to a battery charging voltage by
regulating said voltage control means when said alternator supplies
power to said battery.

The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting
the claims:
Kaneyuki 5,418,401 May 23, 1995

Taniguchi et al. 5,719,484 Feb. 17, 1998
(Taniguchi ‘484)

Taniguchi et al. 5,726,559 Mar. 10, 1998
(Taniguchi ‘559)

Glennon 5,930,134 Jul. 27, 1999
Appeal No. 2006-2220
Application No. 09/813,348

3
Claims 1, 3 and 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kaneyuki and Glennon.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kaneyuki, Glennon and Taniguchi ‘484.
Claims 4-6 and 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kaneyuki, Glennon and Taniguchi ‘559.1
We make reference to the briefs and answer for the respective
positions of Appellants and the Examiner.
OPINION
The main point of contention is based on whether the claimed
stepping-up DC/DC converter for stepping up a voltage of said
battery and applying a stepped-up voltage to said field coil is the
same as Glennon’s stepped-up voltage supplied to the armature
winding. While acknowledging that Kaneyuki does not use a
stepping-up DC/DC converter (answer, page 4), The Examiner opines
that applying a desired voltage to the field coil of an alternator
is well known in the art (answer, page 6). The Examiner further

1 The rejection of claims 5, 6 and 10 under the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112 is withdrawn in the answer.
Appeal No. 2006-2220
Application No. 09/813,348

4

argues that since the claims do not distinguish between a field
coil and an armature coil, the voltage controller may apply the
stepping-up voltage to either one (id.).
Appellants argue that in Kaneyuki the field coil 3 is
connected to the battery 12 (brief, page 6) while Glennon’s
stepped-up voltage is applied to the armature winding 54 of the
generator, instead of its field winding (brief, page 8). Appellants
further assert that an armature winding and a field coil are
positively recited in the claims, each requiring a specific
connection to the power supply (reply brief, page 2). Appellants
further challenge the Examiner’s characterization of the armature
windings in Figure 2 of Glennon as the claimed field coil and point
out that neither of the main armature winding 54 or the exciter
armature 52 may be taken as the claimed field coil (reply brief,
page 2).
After a review of Glennon, we disagree with the Examiner that
the stepped-up voltage is in any way applied to the field coil of
the alternator. Glennon, in fact, applies the stepped-up voltage
to the armature coil 54 of Figure 4 (col. 5, lines 1-5), which has
no link with the main field coil winding. Therefore, we agree with

Appeal No. 2006-2220
Application No. 09/813,348

5

Appellants (brief, page 8) that the absence of the specific parts
of the claimed process steps in the reference indicates that the
combination of Kaneyuki and Glennon cannot support a prima facie
case of obviousness. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 8 and 9 over Kaneyuki and
Glennon.
With respect to the rejection of the remaining claims, we
note that the Examiner relies on Taniguchi ‘484 and Taniguchi ‘559
for additional features claimed in the other dependent claims.
However, the Examiner has not pointed to any convincing rationale
in modifying Kaneyuki and Glennon with the teachings of Taniguchi
references that would have overcome the deficiencies of the applied
prior art as discussed above with respect to claims 1, 3 and 7-9.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 2, 4-6 and 10
over Kaneyuki and Glennon in combination with Taniguchi ‘484 or
‘559 cannot be sustained.
Appeal No. 2006-2220
Application No. 09/813,348

6
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.

REVERSED

ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )

MDS/ce
Appeal No. 2006-2220
Application No. 09/813,348

7

SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK & SEAS, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTION, DC 20037-3213