Ex Parte Gerlach

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 28, 2006

10678799 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 28, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte TOBIAS GERLACH
_______________

Appeal No. 2006-0871
Application No. 10/678,799
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before JERRY SMITH, RUGGIERO, and SAADAT, Administrative Patent
Judges.
JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-13 and 16-19,
which constitute all the claims pending in this application.
The disclosed invention pertains to a method for determining
a frequency of current ripples contained in an armature current
signal of a commutated direct current (DC) motor.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A method for determining a frequency of current ripples
contained in an armature current signal of a commutated direct
current (DC) motor, the method comprising:
Appeal No. 2006-0871
Application No. 10/678,799
2
determining a frequency spectral result of the armature
current signal of the motor in which the armature current signal
contains current ripples and interference;
determining a frequency spectral result of a voltage signal
of the motor in which the voltage signal contains the
interference;
determining a frequency spectral result of the current
ripples contained in the armature current signal based on
differences between the frequency spectral result of the armature
current signal and the frequency spectral result of the motor
voltage signal such that the determined frequency spectral result
of the current ripples contained in the armature current signal
is void of frequency components which are superimposed on the
armature current signal as the interference; and
determining the frequency of the current ripples contained
in the armature current signal from the determined frequency
spectral result of the current ripple contained in the armature
current signal.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Falk et al. (Falk) 3,935,512 Jan. 27, 1976
Periou et al. (Periou) 4,952,854 Aug. 28, 1990
Matsumoto 5,977,732 Nov. 02, 1999
Kane et al. (Kane) 6,038,532 Mar. 14, 2000
(filed Jul. 23, 1993)
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-13 and 16-19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of obviousness the examiner offers
Matsumoto in view of Falk and Kane with respect to claims 1-3, 6,
11-13 and 16, and Periou is added to this combination with
respect to claims 7, 9, 10 and 17-19.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answers for the
respective details thereof.
Appeal No. 2006-0871
Application No. 10/678,799
3
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence of
obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the examiner’s answers.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in the
claims on appeal. Accordingly, we reverse.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent
upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the
examiner is expected to make the factual determinations set forth
in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467
(1966), and to provide a reason why one having ordinary skill in
Appeal No. 2006-0871
Application No. 10/678,799
4
the pertinent art would have been led to modify the prior art or
to combine prior art references to arrive at the claimed
invention. Such reason must stem from some teaching, suggestion
or implication in the prior art as a whole or knowledge generally
available to one having ordinary skill in the art. Uniroyal,
Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434,
1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988); Ashland Oil,
Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227
USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017
(1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572,
1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings by the
examiner are an essential part of complying with the burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or
evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the
evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
Appeal No. 2006-0871
Application No. 10/678,799
5
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
[see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 11-13 and
16 based on Matsumoto, Falk and Kane. The examiner finds that
Matsumoto determines current ripples in an armature current
signal, but Matsumoto does not include means for removing
interference from the armature current signal using a voltage
signal that contains the interference. The examiner cites Falk
as teaching a circuit for removing interference using a voltage
signal that contains the interference. The examiner finds that
it would have been obvious to the artisan to modify Matsumoto to
include a means for removing interference as taught by Falk. The
examiner notes that this combination still fails to teach
performing the subtraction digitally using a Fourier transform.
The examiner cites Kane as teaching the determination of
frequency spectral results using the Fourier transform. The
examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the artisan to
modify the invention of Matsumoto and Falk to perform the
Appeal No. 2006-0871
Application No. 10/678,799
6
subtraction digitally using a Fourier transform as taught by Kane
[answer, pages 3-6].
Appellant argues that the claimed invention differs from the
combination of Matsumoto, Falk and Kane in that in the claimed
invention a frequency spectral result of the current ripples
contained in the armature current signal is determined from
differences between (1) a frequency spectral result of the
armature current signal of the motor in which the armature
current signal contains current ripples and interference and (2)
a frequency spectral result of a voltage signal of the motor in
which the motor voltage signal contains the interference such
that the determined frequency spectral result of the current
ripples contained in the armature current signal is void of
frequency components which are superimposed on the armature
current signal as the interference. Appellant asserts that two
different signals are compared in the claimed invention while
Falk teaches using two signals which are based on the same thing.
Appellant argues that there is no suggestion to use a voltage
signal of the motor as the voltage signal which contains the
interference that is common to the interference contained in the
armature current signal while at the same time being essentially
Appeal No. 2006-0871
Application No. 10/678,799
7
void of contributions resulting from the current ripples
contained in the armature current signal [brief, pages 10-12].
The examiner responds that the claims do not require that
the two signals be based on different things, but only that the
armature current signal and the voltage signal be “of the motor”
which is met by Matsumoto and Falk. The examiner also responds
that appellant’s arguments admit that the combination provides a
voltage signal “of the motor” and that Falk teaches removing
interference from the armature current signal using a voltage
signal that includes the interference [answer, pages 7-10].
Appellant responds that the superimposed signal of Falk
includes a residual interference component which implies that the
interference components of the current signal and the voltage
signal are not the same. Thus, appellant argues that Falk does
not teach obtaining a current signal having an interference
component and obtaining a voltage signal having the interference
component. Appellant also asserts that he did not admit that
Falk teaches removing interference from a current signal using a
voltage signal that contains the interference [reply brief, pages
2-4].
Appeal No. 2006-0871
Application No. 10/678,799
8
The examiner responds that appellant did admit that the
voltage signal of Falk contains the interference of the current
signal. The examiner also asserts that in the preferred
embodiment of Falk there would be no residual interference
[supplemental answer, pages 2-4].
Appellant responds that he does not admit that the voltage
signal of Falk contains the interference of the current signal as
recited in the claimed invention. Appellant further asserts that
the comparison in the applied prior art is based on a previous
comparison between a voltage signal containing interference
“approximately proportional” to the interference contained in the
current signal with the current signal which contains the
interference. Appellant argues that the prior art fails to
suggest where to find a voltage signal which meets the
limitations recited in the claimed invention [second reply brief,
pages 1-3].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3,
6, 11-13 and 16. Although we agree with the examiner that the
voltage signal in Falk contains the interference signal of the
current signal, we find, nevertheless, that the operation to
control compensation in Falk fails to teach the claimed
Appeal No. 2006-0871
Application No. 10/678,799
9
invention. Specifically, claim 1 recites that the frequency
spectral result of the current ripples be “such that the
determined frequency spectral result of the current ripples
contained in the armature current signal is void of frequency
components which are superimposed on the armature current signal
as the interference” [emphasis added]. This recitation requires
that no trace of the interference be present in the resulting
signal representative of current ripples. The result described
by Falk includes a residual interference component [column 3,
lines 43-44]. Although the examiner asserts that this residual
component is eliminated in the preferred embodiment of Falk,
there is no support for this position in Falk. To the contrary,
the only operation disclosed by Falk is that an oscillation in
the control loop occurs between an undercompensation and an
overcompensation. Thus, Falk teaches, if anything, that the
resultant signal is not normally void of the interference. Since
the claimed invention specifically recites the feature quoted
above, and since the examiner’s findings are not supported by the
applied prior art, the examiner’s findings fail to support a case
of obviousness.
Appeal No. 2006-0871
Application No. 10/678,799
10
We now consider the rejection of claims 7, 9, 10 and 17-19
based on Matsumoto, Falk, Kane and Periou. Since Periou does not
overcome the deficiencies in the basic combination of references
for reasons discussed above, we also do not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of these claims.
In summary, we have not sustained either of the examiner’s
rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of
the examiner rejecting claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-13 and 16-19 is
reversed.

Appeal No. 2006-0871
Application No. 10/678,799
11
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JS/kis
Appeal No. 2006-0871
Application No. 10/678,799
12
BROOKS & KUSHMAN, P.C.
1000 TOWN CENTER
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075