Ex Parte Gallegos-Lopez et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

13197629 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/197,629 08/03/2011 GABRIEL GALLEGOS-LOPEZ
70422 7590 07/05/2016
INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (GM)
7010 E. COCHISE ROAD
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85253
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.
P0016838-ATC-CD
003.0871
CONFIRMATION NO.
6170
EXAMINER
LEYKIN, RITA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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):
docketing@ifllaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GABRIEL GALLEGOS-LOPEZ, MILUN PERISIC,
and MICHAEL H. KINOSHITA
Appeal2015-000898
Application 13/197,629
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JULIA HEANEY, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision2 finally rejecting claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
The claims are directed to a method for adjusting voltage command
signals from a current regulator in an electric motor drive system
(independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-7), an electric motor drive
system (independent claim 8, and claims 9-15), and a method for controlling
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as GM Global Technology
Operations, Inc. Appeal Brief filed February 28, 2014 ("Br."), 3.
2 Final Office Action mailed October 21, 2013 ("Final Act.").
Appeal2015-000898
Application 13/197,629
a multi-phase electric machine (independent claim 16, and dependent claims
17-19). Independent claims 1and8, reproduced below, are illustrative of
the claims on appeal.
1. A method for adjusting voltage command signals from a
current regulator in an electric motor drive system, the
method comprising:
computing a modulation index based on the voltage command
signals;
generating an adjusted modulation index based on the
modulation index; and
computing adjusted voltage command signals usmg the
adjusted modulation index.
8. An electric motor drive system, comprising:
a current regulator; and
a voltage command adjustment processor that is designed to
receive voltage command signals from the current regulator, and to
generate an adjusted modulation index that is directly used to
compute adjusted voltage command signals.
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1--4, 6-12, and 14--19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as unpatentable over Gallegos-Lopez et al. (US 8,115,430 B2,
issued Feb. 14, 2012) ("US '430"); and
2. Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over US '430 in view of Gallegos-Lopez et al.
(US 8,446, 117 B2, issued May 21, 2013) ("US '117").
2
Appeal2015-000898
Application I3/197,629
Claims 1--4
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that US '430 fails to disclose an adjusted
modulation index and a step of "computing adjusted voltage
command signals using the adjusted modulation index," as recited in
claim I. See Br. I 0. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments.
Giving the claim terms their broadest reasonable interpretation, the
Examiner has determined that US '430's modulation index error
signal I 8 I is an adjusted modulation index. See Ans. 5 (referring to
US '430 Fig. ID). Appellants have not proffered persuasive argument
based on sufficient objective evidence to rebut the Examiner's
interpretation.
The Examiner finds that the adjusted voltage command signals
(sinusoidal voltage command signals I03-AI, I03-A2, and I03-A3)
are computed using the modulation index error signal 181 via
adjustment module I06 and first control loop block I04 (via
blocks I 70-A and I02-A). See Ans. 3, 5---6 (citing US '430 Figs. IA,
IB, ID; col. 8, 11. I-I6). The weight of the evidence supports the
Examiner's finding.
Appellants do not present separate arguments regarding the
patentability of claim 2. See Br. I3. Appellants argue that US '430 fails to
disclose the features recited in claims 3 and 4 without presenting any
substantive arguments explaining why the Examiner's fact finding is in
error. Br. I3-I4. "A statement which merely points out what a claim recites
will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim."
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d I349, I357
3
Appeal2015-000898
Application 13/197,629
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that "the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37
to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art"). Accordingly, dependent
claims 2--4 stand or fall with independent claim 1.
Claims 8-15
Appellants argue that US '430 fails to disclose the "adjusted
modulation index," which the Examiner asserts is the modulation error
signal 181, is "directly used to compute" the sinusoidal voltage
commands (103-Al, 103-A2, and 103-A3). Br. 15-16. We are not
persuaded by Appellants' argument. Claim 8 is directed to an electric motor
drive system. The recitation "to generate an adjusted modulation index that
is directly used to compute adjusted voltage command signals" is not a
structural limitation of the system itself, but instead describes how the
voltage command adjustment processor is intended to operate. Boehringer
Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345
(Fed. Cir. 2003) ("An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the
scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a
context in which the invention operates.").
Appellants do not present any substantive arguments regarding the
patentability of claim 10. See Br. 16. Appellants' arguments that US '430
fails to disclose the features of claims 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 (Br. 16-17) are
not arguments for separate patentability and therefore fail to demonstrate
reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of those claims. See In re Lovin,
652 F.3d at 1356-57. Accordingly, dependent claims 9-12, 14, and 15 stand
or fall with independent claim 8.
4
Appeal2015-000898
Application 13/197,629
Claims 5 and 13
Claims 5 depends from claim 1 and claim 13 depends from claim 8.
Appellants argue that claims 5 and 13 are patentable over US '430 for the
same reasons as claims 1 and 8, respectively. See Br. 19. In addition,
Appellants argue that US ' 11 7 does not cure the deficiencies of US '4 3 0. Id.
Because we find no deficiencies in the Examiner's findings and analysis
based on US '430's disclosure, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 5 and 13 for the same reasons we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1 and 8, respectively.
Claim 6
Appellants argue that although US '430's FIGS. lB and 3B
disclose a first d-axis voltage command signal 172-A and a first q-axis
voltage command signal 174-A that are used to control or regulate
current, US '430 fails to disclose that "the adjusted voltage command
signals comprise an adjusted synchronous reference framed-axis
voltage command signal and an adjusted synchronous reference frame
q-axis voltage command signal," as recited in claim 6. Br. 14.
On the record before us, the Examiner did not address Appellants'
argument in this regard, and, based on Appellants' argument, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner has shown unpatentability of claim 6 by a
preponderance of the evidence. See MPEP § 1207.02(A)(2) (The
examiner's answer should include a statement of whether the examiner
disagrees with each of the arguments in the brief with respect to the issues
presented and an explanation of the reasons for disagreement with any such
argument.). Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 6.
5
Appeal2015-000898
Application 13/197,629
Claim 7
Appellants argue that "the Examiner has not provided any reasoning
as to how the recitations of dependent claim 7 are disclosed by [US '430"]."
Br. 14. Appellants' argument is persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection. Here, the Examiner has not provided sufficient
explanation to present a prima facie case of anticipation as to dependent
claim 7. The Final Office Action mailed October 21, 2013, does not appear
to specifically address claim 7. See Final Act. 4---6. In addition, in the
Answer (see Ans. 5---6), the Examiner does not make sufficiently specific
findings as to the teachings in US '430 that satisfy the limitations of claim 7
(e.g., wherein "the applied machine terminal voltages VAN, VBN, VcN
substantially match the phase voltage command signals."). Thus, on the
current record, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 7.
Claims 16--19
Appellants argue that independent claim 16 is patentable over
US '430 for the same reasons as claims 1-3 and 5. As discussed above, we
are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner's anticipation rejection
of claims 1-3 over US '430 or in the obviousness rejection of claim 5 over
US '430 in view of US '117. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
independent claim 16.
Appellants argue that claims 17-19 are patentable over US '430 by
virtue of their dependency from claim 16. Br. 18. Because we find no
deficiencies in the Examiner's findings and analysis based on US '430's
disclosure with respect to claim 16, we sustain the rejection of claims 17-19
for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 16.
6
Appeal2015-000898
Application 13/197,629
Appellants' additional arguments that claims 17-19 are separately
patentable over US '430 because those claims describe additional novel
elements and features that are not described by US '430 (Br. 18-19) are not
arguments for separate patentability and therefore fail to demonstrate
reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of those claims. See In re Lovin,
652 F.3d at 1356-57.
DECISION
The anticipation rejection of claims 1--4, 8-12, and 14--19 is affirmed.
The anticipation rejection of claims 6 and 7 is reversed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 5 and 13 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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7