Ex Parte Butzmann

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 14, 2017

14040880 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 2017)

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.
14/040,880 09/30/2013 Stefan Butzmann 2178-0810 3443
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
AGARED, GABRIEL T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/14/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEFAN BUTZMANN
Appeal 2016-008361
Application 14/040,8801
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1—9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schreiber2 in view of Januschevski.3 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).4
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Robert Bosch GmbH. Appeal
Br. 3.
2 Schreiber, US 2010/0085106 Al, published Apr. 8, 2010 (“Schreiber”).
3 Januschevski et al., US 2012/0229068 Al, published Sept. 13, 2012
(“Januschevski”).
4 Our decision refers to the Appellant’s Specification (Spec.) filed Sept. 30, 2013,
the Final Office Action (Final Act.) dated June 3, 2015, Appellant’s Appeal Brief
Appeal 2016-008361
Application 14/040,880
We AFFIRM.
The subject matter on appeal relates to inverter circuits for an electric motor,
a battery including an inverter circuit, and a motor vehicle including a battery
having an inverter circuit (see, e.g., claims 1, 8, and 9). Appellant discloses that
inverter circuits can be connected to the inputs of an electric motor so the motor
can be driven. Spec. 1:19-2:3. When the motor acts as a generator and energy is
fed back from the motor into a battery system, electrical contacts between the
battery system and the inverter circuit are opened for safety purposes. Id. 2:9-17.
This results in a voltage increase across an intermediate capacitor, which must be
large in size to limit the voltage. Id. 2:17—20. Such a capacitor, however, is
expensive and requires a large amount of space. Id. 2:20-21. Appellant discloses
an inverter circuit that results in a reduced voltage drop across a DC intermediate
circuit, which permits the use of a smaller intermediate circuit capacitor. Id. 3:20—
4:4.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief.* * 5 Limitations at issue are italicized.
1. An inverter circuit for an electric motor, comprising:
a first terminal and a second terminal configured to be connected
to an energy store; and
a parallel circuit including three half-bridge circuits, the parallel
circuit being arranged between the first terminal and the second
terminal, each half-bridge circuit of the three half-bridge circuits
including two switching devices and a half-bridge terminal located
between the two switching devices, each half-bridge circuit being
connectable to an input of an electric motor that is different than another
input of the electric motor connected to the other half-bridge circuits in
the parallel circuit, one of the two switching devices of at least one of
(Appeal Br.) filed Jan. 4, 2016, the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) dated July 13, 2016,
and Appellant’s Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed Sept. 13, 2016.
5 Appeal Br. 10.
2
Appeal 2016-008361
Application 14/040,880
the half-bridge circuits is configured to be operated in a state between
a high resistance state and a low resistance state as a current source,
while the other switching device of the at least one half-bridge circuit
is operated in an on state.
B. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds Schreiber discloses an inverter circuit that includes,
among other things, a first terminal and a second terminal configured to be
connected to an energy store and a parallel circuit including three half-bridge
circuits. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds each half-bridge circuit includes two
switching devices and a half-bridge terminal. Id. The Examiner finds Schreiber
does not disclose that each half-bridge circuit is connectable to an input of an
electric motor that is different than another input of the electric motor, as recited in
claim 1. Id. at 4. The Examiner further finds Schreiber does not explicitly disclose
that one of the switching devices of a half-bridge circuit is configured to be
operated in a state between a high resistance state and a low resistance state as a
current source while the other switching device of the half-bridge circuit is
operated in an on state, as recited in claim 1. Id.
The Examiner finds Januschevski discloses half-bridge circuits connectable
to an electric motor via separate inputs. Id. The Examiner concludes it would
have been obvious to modify Schreiber in view of Januschevski to provide a better
drive arrangement. Id. at 5.
Appellant contends Schreiber discloses that the switches of its half-bridge
circuits are only turned on and off and that Januschevski discloses its switches are
controlled via a control input in a known manner without disclosing a particular
method for operating the switches. Appeal Br. 8—10, 12; Reply Br. 4—6. Appellant
further asserts that “semiconductor transistors may also be operated in an
intermediate region between the low resistance saturation region and the high
3
Appeal 2016-008361
Application 14/040,880
resistance cut off region,” which “is sometimes referred to as the linear or ohmic
region.” Id. at 11. Appellant refers to this intermediate region between low and
high resistance regions as “common knowledge in the art.” Id.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. A prima facie case of obviousness
exists where the prior art and claimed ranges overlap, as well as in those cases
where the claimed range and the prior art range, though not overlapping, are
sufficiently close that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the
same properties. See, e.g., In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
The language, “one of the two switching devices of at least one of the half­
bridge circuits is configured to be operated in a state between a high resistance
state and a low resistance state as a current source,” of claim 1 encompasses a
range of states in between the high and low resistance states of a switching device.
Such a range includes states that occur immediately before or after the high
resistance state (e.g., “off’ state) and the low resistance state (e.g., “on” state) are
attained.
Schreiber discloses turning the switches of its half-circuits either on or off.
Schreiber || 12—15, 31. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
that at least the “on” state disclosed by Schreiber is sufficiently close to states
encompassed by claim 1, such as a state in between the low and high resistance
states but occurring immediately before or after the low resistance (e.g., “on”)
state, such that one skilled in the art would have expected the “on” state of
Schreiber and the in-between state to have the same properties. As stated in
Appellant’s Specification, the in-between state is one in which a switch operates
“as a current source or with linear operation.” Spec. 10:1—12. In other words, a
switch operating in the in-between state would permit the flow of current, like a
switch in the “on” state. Further, there is no evidence in the record demonstrating
4
Appeal 2016-008361
Application 14/040,880
that a state occurring immediately before the low resistance state (e.g., “on” state)
would have different properties than the low resistance state or produce a different
result.
Moreover, Schreiber, as modified by Januschevski, discloses the same
structure as Appellant’s inverter circuit. As our reviewing court stated in In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997):
A patent applicant is free to recite features of an apparatus either
structurally or functionally. See In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212
(CCPA 1971) (“[TJhere is nothing intrinsically wrong with [defining
something by what it does rather than what it is] in drafting patent
claims.”). Yet, choosing to define an element functionally, i.e., by what
it does, carries with it a risk. As our predecessor court stated in
Swinehart, 439 F.2d at 213:
where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a
functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing
novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an
inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the
authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject
matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the
characteristic relied on.
Here, Schreiber discloses a circuit including half bridges 510a—c6 that have
top switches 516a—c, bottom switches 518a—c, and terminals located between the
switches. Schreiber 15 and Fig. 4. Schreiber discloses the switches are insulated
gate bipolar transistors (IGBTs), which is the type of switch used in Appellant’s
preferred embodiment. Schreiber | 5; Spec. 8:22—23. As noted above, the
Examiner modifies Schreiber in view of Januschevski to provide half-bridge circuit
inputs to an electric motor that differ from one another. Final Act. 4—5.
6 Throughout this Decision, for clarity, we present labels to elements in figures in
bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
5
Appeal 2016-008361
Application 14/040,880
In view of the above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the
IGBT switches of Schreiber, as modified by Januschevski, to intrinsically possess
the characteristic of being “configured to be operated in a state between a high
resistance state and a low resistance state as a current source,” as recited in claim 1.
Appellant has not provided any evidence to dispute this. In fact, Appellant admits
“semiconductor transistors may also be operated in an intermediate region between
the low resistance saturation region and the high resistance cut off region,” which
is “common knowledge in the art.” Appeal Br. 11.
In addition, claim 1 does not recite any structure, such as a controller, for
controlling a switching device of a half-bridge circuit to operate in a state between
a high resistance state and a low resistance state as a current source, as indicated by
the Examiner at pages 2—3 of the Examiner’s Answer. Therefore, the inverter
circuit of claim 1 is not patentably distinguishable from the circuit provided by the
combination of Schreiber and Januschevski.
Appellant does not argue independent claims 8 and 9 or dependent claims 2—
7 separately from claim 1. Appeal Br. 8. For the reasons discussed above and
those set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejection of claims 1—9 over Schreiber in view of Januschevski.
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
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).
AFFIRMED
6