Ex parte DOHT et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 9, 1998

08210979 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 9, 1998)

Application for patent filed March 21, 1994. 1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte HANS-CHRISTIAN DOHT and GUNTHER BIRK
____________
Appeal No. 97-1408
Application No. 08/210,9791
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, MARTIN and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 18.
The disclosed invention relates to a method and to a
device for controlling the working points of a series-
resonant-circuit inverter.
Appeal No. 97-1408
Application No. 08/210,979
2
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. A method for controlling the working points of a
series-resonant-circuit inverter, comprising the steps of:
(a) determining a phase-angle actual value of a
measurable state variable of a load circuit, said state
variable having a phase-frequency characteristic which is
monotonically decreasing;
(b) setting a value of a phase-angle setpoint in
correspondence to said phase-angle actual value;
(c) defining a phase-angle system deviation based on the
phase-angle actual value and the phase-angle setpoint; and
(d) setting the frequency of an inverter in
correspondence with said defined phase-angle system deviation.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Schutten et al. (Schutten) 4,951,185 Aug. 21,
1990
Oruganti et al. (Oruganti), “Resonant Power Processors: Part
II - Methods of Control,” 1984 Industry Applications Society
Proceedings, pages 868 through 878.
Claims 1 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Schutten in view of Oruganti.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 18.
Appeal No. 97-1408
Application No. 08/210,979
3
According to the examiner (Answer, pages 3 and 4):
2. Claims 1-18 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Schutten et al. (U.S.
Patent 4,951,185) in view of Resonant Power
Processors: Part II - Methods of Control, by
Oruganti et al, 1984 (as cited in PTOL-1449 herein).
The Schutten et al. (U.S. Patent 4,951,185)
reference discloses the general background of the
invention. However, Schutten . . . does not
explicitly show controlling a series resonant
inverter by linear control signal v. frequency
method. Note that Figure 5 of Schutten . . . seems
to implicitly suggest the required monotonically
decreasing phase to frequency aspect as claimed.
Nevertheless, . . . Oruganti . . . show[s]
controlling a series resonant inverter by linear
control signal v. frequency method. It would have
been obvious at the time the invention was made to
control a series resonant inverter by linear control
signal v. frequency method of . . . Oruganti . . . .
into the circuit of Schutten . . . (if not already
part of Schutten et. al’s disclosure), for the well
known reason of frequency control of a series
resonant converter.
See page 869 column 1 at 2.2 et seq. of . . .
Oruganti . . . .
In response to appellants’ arguments in the brief, the
examiner listed (Answer, pages 4 and 5) claim phrases in bold-
faced type followed by equivalents allegedly disclosed by
Schutten as follows:
Table of equivalents
phase angle actual value -- (resonant capacitor
voltage, resonant inductor current, voltage applied
Appeal No. 97-1408
Application No. 08/210,979
4
to the resonant tank circuit, and output load
voltage, see Schutten et al., column 5, lines 1-11)
measurable state variable --- (specific state
trajectory, line 58 of Schutten et al)
phase-frequency characteristic which is
monotonically decreasing: --- (see, e.g., figure 5
of Schutten et al.)
phase-angle setpoint value --- “desired state
trajectory” as set forth in Schutten et al at column
4 lines 58-60.
phase-angle system deviation --- deviation from
the desired value (phase-angle setpoint) this
deviation (phase-angle system deviation) creates a
new setpoint (Schutten et al. column 5 lines 46-50).
Appellants’ response (Repy Brief, pages 1 through 3) to
the examiner’s contentions is reproduced in toto as follows:
In the Answer, the Examiner sets forth, for the
first time, a list of alleged equivalents between
the claimed invention and the disclosure of the
references upon which the Examiner relies.
Among other equivalents, the Examiner contends
that the “measurable state variable” recited in
independent claim 1 corresponds to the “specific
state trajectory” discussed at column 4, lines 57-58
of the Schutten patent. This is simply not the
case. The specific state trajectory discussed in
Schutten relates to optimal trajectory control, a
technique that is fundamentally different than that
of the phase-control method of the claimed
invention. As discussed in the Schutten patent,
optimal trajectory control, which is used in the
Schutten device over an operable frequency range
Appeal No. 97-1408
Application No. 08/210,979
5
(OF), is based on optimal control theory and state
plane analysis. (Schutten, col. 4, lines 48-60.)
The method of the claimed invention has nothing to
do with optimal control theory and state plane
analysis.
The Examiner further argues that the “phase-
angle system deviation” recited in claim 1 is used
to create a new setpoint as discussed in Schutten at
col. 5, lines 46-50. Once again, the cited excerpt
of Schutten relates to the optimal trajectory
control method, which is unrelated to the method of
the claimed invention. In the claimed invention,
the recited “phase-angle system deviation” is not
used to create a new setpoint value (M ). The *
setpoint value is set by a higher-order control and
is not a function of the phase-angle system
deviation (Me). In fact, if anything, the phase-
angle system deviation in the claimed invention is a
function of the setpoint value and not the reverse,
as the Examiner implies.
Likewise, for the above-stated reasons, the
Examiner’s contention that the recited “phase-angle
setpoint value” corresponds to the “desired state
trajectory”, discussed in Schutten at column 4,
lines 58-60, is misguided.
Furthermore, the Examiner’s contention that the
“monotonically decreasing. . .phase-frequency
characteristic” of the recited “measurable state
variable” corresponds to the graph of Figure 5 of
Schutten is also errant. While it is true that Fig.
5 of Schutten shows a monotonically decreasing
relationship between two quantities, that is all it
has in common with the recited monotonically
decreasing phase-frequency characterictic. The
relationship graphed in Fig. 5 of Schutten is simply
not a phase-frequency characteristic. Rather, Fig.
5 of Schutten shows the relationship between the
amplitude of a fundamental harmonic component of a
Appeal No. 97-1408
Application No. 08/210,979
6
rectangular wave signal phase modulated by a series
resonant circuit and the phase modulation angle.
(See col. 6, lines 25-54.) Both quantities are
irrelavant to the claimed invention and the graph of
their relationship suggests nothing about using a
state variable having a monotonically decreasing
phase-frequency characteristic, as in the claimed
invention.
For the above-stated reasons . . . ,
Appellant[s] respectfully asserts [sic, assert] that
the claimed invention is new and non-obvious in
light of the references of record . . . .
We agree. Even if we assume for the sake of argument
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to combine the teachings of the references in the
manner suggested by the examiner, the combined teachings of
the references would still lack all of the claimed method
steps and all of the claimed device elements. Thus, the
obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 18 is reversed.
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED

KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
Appeal No. 97-1408
Application No. 08/210,979
7
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN C. MARTIN ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 97-1408
Application No. 08/210,979
8
KENYON & KENYON
One Broadway
New York, NY 10004
Appeal No. 97-1408
Application No. 08/210,979
9
JENINE GILLIS
Appeal No. 97-1408
Serial No. 08/210,979
Judge HAIRTSON
Judge MARTIN

Judge FLEMING
Received: 02 Dec 98
Typed: 02 Dec 98

DECISION: REVERSED

Send Reference(s): Yes No
or Translation(s)
Panel Change: Yes No
3-Person Conf. Yes No
Remanded: Yes No
Brief or Heard
Group Art Unit: 2838
Index Sheet-2901 Rejection(s): ___________
Acts 2: ____
Palm: ____
Mailed:
Updated Monthly Disk (FOIA): ____
Updated Monthly Report: ___
Appeal No. 97-1408
Application No. 08/210,979
11