Ex Parte Geissler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2017

11876246 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 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.
11/876,246 10/22/2007 Steven J. Geissler 480805.00019 (ITW 21121) 5861
26710 7590
QUARLES & BRADY LLP
Attn: IP Docket
411 E. WISCONSIN AVENUE
SUITE 2350
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-4426
EXAMINER
VAN, QUANG T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2017 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):
pat-dept@quarles.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN J. GEISSLER, TODD G. BATZLER, and
MICHAEL D. MADSEN
Appeal 2015-007084
Application 11/876,246
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, JILL D. HILL, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Steven J. Geissler et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—6, 9—17, 19, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art
(“AAPA”),2 Zhou (CN 2556848 Y, pub. June 18, 2003),3 and Patterson (US
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Illinois Tool Works, Inc.
Br. 2.
2 The Examiner refers to Figure 1 of the Specification as AAPA. Final Act.
2.
3 All references to the text of Zhou are the machine translation entered into
the record as an attachment to the Non-Final Office Action (mailed Feb. 21,
2014).
Appeal 2015-007084
Application 11/876,246
7,080,226 Bl, iss. July 18, 2006). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1,11, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below
and is illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal.
1. A welding-type power source comprising:
a power conditioner configured to receive power from a
power source and condition the power to have characteristics
within a predefined set of thresholds;
an inverter configured to receive the conditioned power
from the power conditioner and convert the conditioned power
to AC power;
a rectifier configured to convert the AC power to DC
welding-type power to drive a welding-type process; and
a field programmable gate array (FPGA) processor
segregated into at least two functional modules each configured
to perform a. specific task;
wherein a first functional module controls the power
conditioner to condition the power to have characteristics within
the predefined set of thresholds, and a second functional module
controls the inverter to con veil: the conditioned power to AC
power.
OPINION
Independent claims 1 and 11
The Examiner finds that AAPA teaches most of the limitations of
independent claims 1,11, and 17 including a power conditioner, an inverter,
and first and second rectifiers. Final Act. 2. The Examiner also finds that
AAPA teaches controller 40 having first functional module 36 that controls
2
Appeal 2015-007084
Application 11/876,246
the power conditioner, second functional module 30 that controls the
inverter, and third functional module 38 that controls the welding type
process, as well as a port map (i.e., lines 32, 34, etc.) linking at least two of
the first, second, and third functional modules. Id. at 3. The Examiner finds
that the controller of the AAPA, however, “is not a FPGA-based processor.”
Id.
The Examiner finds that Zhou teaches an FPGA-based controller for a
power source that controls a power conditioner, an inverter, and
voltage/current of the power output. Id. (citing Zhou, Fig. 1, Abstr., 3:8—9,
13—15, 5). The Examiner also finds that Patterson teaches that a number of
modules (e.g., block RAM columns) “can be present on one FPGA . . . and
the FPGA configuration data path can enable communication between
modules of the FPGA.” Id. (citing Patterson, 1:10—11, 46-48).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “to replace the micro­
processor based controller 40 [of AAPA] with a[n] FPGA-based processor
so as to increase reliability and to allow programmability of the FPGA for
controlling different components of the power source and to ensure smooth
and reliable operation.” Id. at 3^4 (citing Zhou, 5:3—5).
Appellants argue that “it is unclear how exactly Zhou utilizes FPGA
chips within the electric precipitator system” and that Zhou “is substantially
incoherent with regard to how the FPGA chips are integrated and utilized.”
Br. 6—7. In the absence of additional explanation by the Examiner as to
Zhou’s teachings, we do not discern where the machine translation of Zhou
clearly teaches an FPGA-based controller segregated into functional
modules that control a power conditioner, an inverter, and voltage/current of
3
Appeal 2015-007084
Application 11/876,246
the power output, as found by the Examiner. Final Act. 3 (citing Zhou, Fig.
1; Abstr.; 3:8—9, 13—15; 5).4 The Examiner’s finding appears to be based on
speculation and/or conjecture as to how Zhou’s FPGA chip is integrated and
utilized, rather than being supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) must rest on a factual basis. In
making such a rejection, the Examiner has the initial duty of supplying the
requisite factual basis and may not, because of doubts that the invention is
patentable, “resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions^] or hindsight
reconstruction to supply deficiencies in [the] factual basis.” In re Warner,
379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).
In addition, “it can be important to identify a reason that would have
prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the
elements in the way the claimed new invention does.'’'’ KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (emphasis added). Appellants argue
that although “FPGA processors existed at the time of the invention,” “no
teaching or motivation exists to replace the controller 40 of the AAPA with
a[n] FPGA processor.” Br. 8. More particularly, Appellants maintain that
“[a]t best, Zhou could be said to disclose, in a separate field of endeavor,
utilizing a task-specific FPGA chip under the direction of a host controller in
the form of a dedicated computer.” Id. at 7 (citing Zhou, 5). That is, to the
extent that Zhou’s machine translation can be understood, Appellants argue
it fails to teach or suggest the use of an FPGA-based processor to replace
4 We similarly do not discern where Zhou teaches that an FPGA-based
controller is capable of using separate functional modules to control more
than one system component.
4
Appeal 2015-007084
Application 11/876,246
controller 40 as described in the AAPA,5 but rather may teach or suggest
only an FPGA for one of the individual controllers 30, 36, 38 falling under
the control of controller 40, “which is a system that is very different from,
and does not realize the advantages of the claim[ed] invention” (id. at 5).
Appellants, thus, assert that “the combination of AAPA and Zhou fails to
teach or suggest a field programmable gate array (FPGA) processor
segregated into at least two functional modules each configured to perform a
specific task.” Id. at 7. Appellants further argue that Patterson fails to
provide a teaching or suggestion to replace controller 40 of AAPA with an
FPGA processor. Id. at 8.
The Examiner responds that Patterson shows that “FPGAs are
composed of individual programmable cells” and that Zhou teaches an
FPGA based processor for “power source applications to increase the
reliability of the equipment.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner reasons that the
obviousness analysis “is based on the advantages of FPGA being used as a
power source control, which provides motivation to modify the AAPA.”
Ans. 8. Although the Examiner may have explained how Patterson broadly
teaches a programmable logic device in the form of a field programmable
gate array and how Zhou broadly teaches an FPGA chip in connection with a
power source application, the Examiner fails to adequately explain why one
of ordinary skill in the art would particularly replace controller 40 of the
power source of the AAPA with a single FPGA processor segregated into at
5 AAPA describes “a distributed control system including multiple
individual controllers” in which the multiple individual controllers 30, 36,
38 are “coordinated together by another controller 40.” Br. 4.
5
Appeal 2015-007084
Application 11/876,246
least two functional modules, as opposed to separate FPGAs for one or more
of the multiple individual controllers.
Without adequate articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to
explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the AAPA
specifically to replace controller 40 with an FPGA-based processor
segregated into at least two functional modules, the Examiner appears to
have impermissibly relied on hindsight construction in view of Appellants’
disclosure. See Br. 5, 8, 9, 11.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the Examiner erred in
concluding that AAPA, Zhou, and Patterson render obvious the subject
matter of independent claims 1,11, and 17 and we do not sustain the
rejection of independent claims 1,11, and 17 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over these references. We also do not sustain the
rejection of claims 2—6, 9, 10, 12—16, 19, and 20, which depend therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—6, 9—17, 19, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over AAPA, Zhou, and Patterson is
reversed.
REVERSED
6