Ex Parte Emde et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 4, 2016

12678343 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/678,343 03/16/2010
24972 7590 08/08/2016
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
666 FIFTH A VE
NEW YORK, NY 10103-3198
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christoph Emde
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.
1019116181 7703
EXAMINER
CHAN, KAWING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/08/2016 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOF EMDE,
ANDREAS SCHMIDTLEIN, and RAINER BAUMGAERTNER
Appeal2015-002352
Application 12/678,343
Technology Center 2800
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, GEORGE C. BEST, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 16, 18-23, and 25-32 of
Application 12/678,343 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act.
(January 16, 2014). Appellants 1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
1 Robert Bosch GmbH is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal2015-002352
Application 12/678,343
BACKGROUND
The '343 Application describes a method and device for controlling
an electric motor using post-width modulation (PWM). Spec. 1. In
particular, the pulse spacing is modulated based upon the power
requirements of the electric motor and/or its thermal loading. Id. at 2. The
pulse spacing is further varied to shift the sound emission spectrum of the
electric motor. Id. at 3. The Specification especially states that the goal of
changing the electric motor's sound emission spectrum is to make that sound
emission spectrum similar to the ambient noise present in the environment.
Id.
Claim 16 is representative of the '343 Application's claims and is
reproduced below:
16. A method for controlling an electric motor using post-
width modulation, the method comprising:
generating control pulses having a set point duty factor
and temporally varying pulse widths and pulse spacing;
varying the pulse widths and the pulse spacing so that a
sound emission spectrum generated by the control of the
electric motor using the control pulses is approximated to a
spectrum of ambient noise; and
controlling the electric motor using the control pulses,
wherein the temporarily varying all pulse width and pulse
spacing are generated as a function of at least one of a load of
the electric motor and a thermal loading of a control device of
the electric motor.
Appeal Br. Claims App. 1.
2
Appeal2015-002352
Application 12/678,343
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 16, 18-23, 25-28, 31, and 32 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Berg-
Rothermund2, 3 and Giintner.4 Final Act. 6.
2. Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Berg-Rothermund, Giintner, and
Hera vi. 5 Final Act. 9.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner finally rejected claims 16, 18-23, 25-28,
31, and 32 as unpatentable over the combination ofBerg-Rothermund and
Giintner. Final Act. 6.
Berg-Rothermund describes a method for operating electrical
appliances such as electric motors. Berg-Rothermund i-fi-f l, 8. In this
method, P\V~v1 is used to regulate the power supplied to the appliance. Id.
2 We note that that the first-named inventor of this reference is identified as
Dr. Petr Osipov. Normally, therefore, we would refer to this reference as
"Osipov." In this case, however, we shall call the reference "Berg-
Rothermund," (after the second-named inventor) in an effort to keep the
record clear.
3 DE 10 2007 003 737 Al, published August 23, 2007. We cite the
complete English-language translation of Berg-Rothermund that it was
entered into the '343 Application's prosecution history on October 14, 2014.
4 DE 35 39 558 Al, published May 21, 1987. We cite the complete English-
language translation of Giintner that was entered into the '343 Application's
prosecution history on October 14, 2014.
5 US 2004/0263100 Al, published December 30, 2004.
3
Appeal2015-002352
Application 12/678,343
i-f 8. The appliance's power electronics are configured so that they can be
operated with different PWM frequencies. Id. i-f 24. Berg-Rothermund
further describes the possibility that the portions of the appliance may have
vibration frequencies that are in resonance with the PWM frequency.
Id. i-f 4. In such situations, the resonant vibrations may create "major sound
radiation." Id. Berg-Rothermund also describes how variation of the power
electronics' PWM frequency results in "lower and/or more pleasant noise
emission." Id. i-fi-16, 18, 45--46. Berg-Rothermund further describes altering
the manner in which the PWM frequency is varied as a function of the
appliance's output power or as a function of the controller's thermal burden.
Id. i-fi-f 14, 22-23, 38.
Giintner describes a method for generating a clock frequency the used
to control power supplied to electrical machinery. Giintner 4--5. In
particular Giintner teaches that the clock frequency can be varied so that the
sound radiating from the electrical machinery has approximately the same
spectrum as the ambient noise. Id.
The Examiner found that both Berg-Rothermund and Giintner
describe methods for reducing unwanted sound radiation from electrical
equipment. Answer 5. The Examiner concluded that it would have been
obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to modify Berg-Rothermund in view of Giintner so that the noise
produced by an electrical appliance matches or nearly matches the ambient
noise. Id.
Appellants argue for reversal of this rejection with respect to two
groups of claims. See Appeal Br. 9-11. We shall address each group of
claims separately.
4
Appeal2015-002352
Application 12/678,343
Claims 16, 18-23, and 25-28. Appellants argue for reversal of the
rejection of this group of claims based upon limitations present in
independent claims 16 and 23. See id. at 9-10. Dependent claims 18-22
and 25-28 are said to be allowable for the same reasons as claims 16 and 23.
Appellants argue that the rejection of claims 16 and 23 should be
reversed because ( 1) the combination of prior art does not teach every
limitation of these claims, id.; (2) the Examiner did not identify sufficient
reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have combined Berg-
Rothermund and Giintner, id. at 11-13; and (3) the Examiner did not make
required findings regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art at the
claimed time of the invention, id. at 13-14. We are not persuaded by these
arguments for the reasons set forth in the Final Action and the Examiner's
Answer. We add the following:
First, Appellants argue that the combination of Berg-Rothermund and
Giintner does not describe each limitation in independent claims 16 and 23.
In particular, Appellants argue that the prior art does not describe or suggest
( 1) varying pulse widths and pulse spacing so that a noise emission spectrum
generated by the control of the electric motor is approximated to a spectrum
of ambient noise, id. at 9; (2) generating the temporally varying pulse widths
and pulse spacing as a function of at least one of a load of the electric motor
and a thermal loading of a control device of the electric motor, id.; and
(3) the generated control pulses having a set point duty factor, id. at 10.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner
reversibly erred in finding that the combination of Berg-Rothermund and
Giintner describes or suggests each limitation in independent claims 16 and
23. As discussed above, the Examiner correctly found that Berg-
Rothermund describes generating control pulses that vary in pulse width and
5
Appeal2015-002352
Application 12/678,343
pulse spacing to control the noise emitted from an electrical appliance.
Berg-Rothermund further describes varying the control pulses as a function
of the electric motor's load or the thermal loading of the control device. The
Examiner also found that Giintner describes variation of the sweeping
frequency used to control the power supplied to electronic devices and
machines so that the sound radiating by the electronic device has roughly the
same spectrum as the background noise of the surroundings. Finally, we
agree with the Examiner that Berg-Rothermund inherently describes the use
of a set point duty factor via its description of a PWM-controlled electrical
appliance.
Second, we do not discern reversible error in the Examiner's finding
that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
combine Berg-Rothermund and Giintner two better control the noise
produced by a PWM-controlled electrical appliance.
Third, Appellants argue that the rejection should be reversed because
the examiner has not made an explicit finding regarding the level of ordinary
skill in the art. Appeal Br. 13. In this case, however, the only facts
regarding the level of skill in the art are set forth in Appellants' Specification
and the prior art of record. Thus, the level of ordinary skill in the art must be
inferred from Appellants' disclosure and the prior art. See, e.g., Ex parte
Jud, No. 2006-1061, http://l.usa.gov/lJxVJMz (BPAI Jan. 30, 2007)
(informative) (inferring level of skill in the art from the specification). In
such situations, the Federal Circuit has held that an invention may be held to
have been obvious without a specific finding of a particular level of skill in
the art as long as the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level. Chore-
Time Equip., Inc. v. Cumberland Corp., 713 F.2d 774 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
6
Appeal2015-002352
Application 12/678,343
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the rejection of claims 16 and 23.
Thus, we also affirm the rejection of claims 18-22 and 25-28.
Claims 31 and 32. Appellants argue that the rejection of claims 31
and 32 should be reversed on the basis of their dependence from claims 23
and 16 respectively. Appeal Br. 10. As discussed above, we have affirmed
the rejection of independent claims 16 and 23. Thus, we do not reverse the
rejection of claims 31 and 32 on this basis.
Appellants further argue that the Examiner erred by finding that Berg-
Rothermund discloses an adjustable set point duty factor. Id. at 10-11. We
are not persuaded by this argument. As discussed above, Berg-Rothermund
describes changing the PWM frequency as a function of the electric motor's
output power. See, e.g., Berg-Rothermund i-fi-f 13-14. A person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that that
changes in the motor's output power require alteration of the controller's set
point duty factor. Furthermore, Berg Rothermund's description of a PWM
controller that is capable of altering pulse timing and pulse duration would
have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the controller in
question also is capable of having an adjustable set point duty factor.
Rejection 2. The Examiner finally rejected claims 29 and 30 as
unpatentable over the combination of Berg-Rothermund, Giintner, and
Hera vi. Final Act. 9. Appellants do not do not present separate arguments
for reversal of the rejection of these claims. Rather, Appellants state that
"[ c ]laims 18 to 22 and 25 to 30 dependent from claims 16 and 23 and are
therefore allowable for at least the same reasons as claims 16 and 23." Id. at
10.
Because we have affirmed the rejection of claims 16 and 23, we also
affirm the rejection of claims 29 and 30.
7
Appeal2015-002352
Application 12/678,343
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejection of claims 16,
18-23, and 25-32 as obvious.
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
8