Ex parte BABINSKI

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2001

08536232 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte THOMAS E. BABINSKI
_____________
Appeal No. 1998-0403
Application No. 08/536,232
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before URYNOWICZ, JERRY SMITH, and DIXON, Administrative
Patent Judges.
URYNOWICZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal is from the final rejection of claims 1-18,
all the claims pending in the application.
The invention pertains to a power converter. Claim 1 is
illustrative and reads as follows:
1. An inverter circuit for converting direct
current power from a direct current bus to controlled
alternating current power, comprising:
a high side switching device coupled between a high
Appeal No. 1998-0403
Application No. 08/536,232
2
side of the bus and an output line;
Appeal No. 1998-0403
Application No. 08/536,232
3
a low side switching device coupled between a low
side of the bus and the output line;
a first flyback diode electrically coupled in
parallel with the high side switching device and disposed
physically adjacent to the low side switching device; and
a second flyback diode electrically coupled in
parallel with the low side switching device and disposed
physically adjacent to the high side switching device.
The reference relied upon by the examiner is:
Okado 5,123,746 Jun. 23,
1992

Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Okado.
The respective positions of the examiner and the
appellant with regard to the propriety of these rejections are
set forth in the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 12) and the
appellant’s brief (Paper No. 11).
Appellant’s Invention
An adequate description of the invention is set forth
at pages 3 and 4 of the appeal brief. The invention is
apparent from claim 1, above.
Appeal No. 1998-0403
Application No. 08/536,232
4
The Prior Art
In Figure 1, Okado discloses a bridge type power
converter having high side switching devices 51, 53, and 55
and low side switching devices 42, 44, and 46. Diodes are
electrically coupled in parallel with the high and low side
switching devices.
Opinion
After consideration of the positions and arguments
presented by both the examiner and the appellant, we have
concluded that the rejection should not be sustained.
The examiner states “[i]t would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to configure the circuit’s diodes to be physically
adjacent to the switching devices since it was known in the
art that to have diodes coupled in parallel to switching
devices and simply rearranging the physical layout of the
circuit but with the same circuit connections is well within
the abilities of the one of ordinary skill in the art.”
(Answer, page 5). The examiner has given no reason why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have rearranged the structure
of Okado in the manner claimed by appellant. The mere fact
Appeal No. 1998-0403
Application No. 08/536,232
5
that the prior art may be modified in
the manner suggested by the examiner does not make the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir.
1992).

REVERSED
)
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, JR. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF
PATENT
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
SMU:hh
Appeal No. 1998-0403
Application No. 08/536,232
6
Appeal No. 1998-0403
Application No. 08/536,232
7
JOHN J. HORN
ALLEN-BRADLEY COMPANY, INC.
PATENT DEPARTMENT 704P, FLOOR 8 T-29
1201 SOUTH SECOND ST.
MILWAUKEE, WI 53204