Ex Parte GÖSSLING et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 26, 2019

13366614 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/366,614
65363 7590
Todd A. VAUGHN
Jordan IP Law, LLC
FILING DATE
02/06/2012
06/28/2019
12501 Prosperity Drive, Suite 401
Silver Spring, MD 20904
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Axel GOSSLING
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.
0537-452 7742
EXAMINER
CARRASQUILLO, JORGE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2019 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):
tvaughn@jordaniplaw.com
admin4@jordaniplaw.com
admin@jordaniplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AXEL GOSSLING, MIRKO KRESS, MAURO RAS, and
VOLKER STEIGERWALD
Appeal2017-007427
Application 13/366,614
Technology Center 2800
Before MARK NAGUMO, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and JEFFREY R. SNAY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 21-35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
1 We cite to the Specification ("Spec.") filed February 6, 2012; Final Office
Action ("Final Act.") dated July 6, 2015; Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Appeal
Br.") filed April 11, 2016; and Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated
November 18, 2016.
Appeal2017-007427
Application 13/366,614
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a control circuit including an
overcurrent fuse in a brushless DC motor. Spec. ,i 2. According to the
Specification, a value for the instantaneous power consumption used to drive
a motor can be determined during operation of the motor , id. at ,i 18, from
an electrical signal based on the current flow through the motor control
circuit and a signal based on the supplied voltage. Id. ,i 15. In this way,
individualized modifications of circuits during manufacture is said to be
avoidable. Id. at ,i 17. The described invention provides a measuring device
for measuring current, such as by measuring voltage drop across an
overcurrent fuse. Id. ,i 16. Claim 21 is illustrative:
21. A motor comprising:
a plurality of electrical windings to receive a voltage
from an external voltage supply;
a control circuit to connect the voltage from the external
voltage supply to the electrical windings in a time-dependent
fashion and with alternating polarity, the control circuit
including;
a plurality of switches configured to apply the voltage
from the external voltage supply, in a time-dependent
manner, to the electrical windings;
an overcurrent fuse to protect the control circuit and the
electrical windings;
a measuring device to measure a voltage across the
overcurrent fuse and then generate an electrical signal;
and
control logic to receive the electrical signal from the
measuring device, store electrically readable data relating
to the voltage across the overcurrent fuse, and drive, in a
time-dependent manner, the electrical windings using a
derived value from the electrical signal and a comparable
signal relating to the voltage supplied by the external
2
Appeal2017-007427
Application 13/366,614
voltage supply, for an instantaneous power consumption
of the motor.
App. Br. (Claims Appendix, filed August 8, 2016) (emphasis added).
REJECTION
Claims 21-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Shinohara2 and Ahuja. 3
OPINION
Claim 21 recites "a measuring device to measure a voltage across the
overcurrent fuse and then generate an electrical signal."
A dispositive issue in this case is whether the Examiner erred in
finding that Shinohara implicitly measures voltage across an overcurrent
fuse as required by claim 21. Compare Ans. 3 (finding that Shinohara's
measurement of voltage drop across resistor Rl at least in part is dependent
upon a voltage drop across Shinohara' s fuse because the fuse melting
process during an overcurrent condition causes voltage fluctuations at other
circuit loads) with, App. Br. 9 ("Shinohara certainly does not expressly or
implicitly teach or suggest measuring 'a voltage across the fuse (F). "')
( emphasis omitted).
Shinohara' s Figure 2, reproduced below, is a schematic depiction of a
three-phase motor drive circuit.
2 US 5,592,353, issued January 7, 1997.
3 US 5,440,441, issued August 8, 1995.
3
Appeal2017-007427
Application 13/366,614
Flg~2
H•moB ~RT1
::'
: <:""\.,.,:.;-,.,.~••••••,nnn,, nn,nH•••••;•• .. ._._ •• ~·-·········'
M
fLr1
'"'-'
[ \;~'
~.". l .... : ::: ....... r···,·:_ ~~~~~~~~ --~-- -~r
According to Shinohara, a current detection circuit 8 monitors a
voltage drop across resistor Rl to determine the motor current, which
current is used by a motor control circuit 7 to drive the motor at a uniform
speed. Shinohara 2: 1-9. Shinohara's depicted circuit includes a fuse F.
The Examiner acknowledges that Shinohara's current detection circuit does
not directly measure voltage across the fuse. Ans. 3. However, the
Examiner reasons that because the fuse may impact voltage at the resistor
Rl when the fuse is in a melting state due to an overcurrent condition,
Shinohara' s measurement at Rl is at least in part affected by the fuse. Id.
( citing Shinohara 2:36-40). On that reasoning, the Examiner finds that
Shinohara' s use of a measured voltage at Rl as a determinant for driving the
motor implicitly uses a voltage drop across the fuse as a determinant for
driving the motor. Final Act. 4.
We are persuaded that the Examiner reversibly erred. Even if a
voltage drop across Shinohara's Rl were, under certain conditions, impacted
by the state of the fuse, the Examiner does not explain why measurement of
a voltage drop across Rl would have served as a measurement of voltage
drop across fuse F. Nor does the Examiner present any other evidence or
reasoning to support a finding that Shinohara's measuring device 8 for
4
Appeal2017-007427
Application 13/366,614
measuring voltage drop at Rt meets the recitation in claim 21 of "a
measuring device to measure a voltage across the overcurrent fuse."
For the foregoing reason, we are persuaded that the Examiner does not
present findings sufficient to support an obviousness determination with
regard to claim 21. The Examiner does not point to anything in Ahuja that
addresses or cures the above-described deficiency with regard to Shinohara.
Claims 26 and 31 also are written in independent form. Neither of
these independent claims appears to expressly require a measuring device to
measure a voltage across the overcurrent fuse, as is recited in claim 21,
though each claim requires that the control logic stores electrically readable
data relating to the voltage across the overcurrent fuse. However, the
Examiner does not separately reject or address either claim 26 or 31, instead
rejecting these claims together with claim 21 and based upon the same
findings and reasoning as applied to claim 21. See Final Act. 2-6. On this
record, we are not presented with factual findings sufficient to support an
obviousness determination against claim 26 or 31, and we decline to
exercise our discretion to consider possible new grounds of rejection.
The rejection is not sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 21-35 is reversed.
REVERSED
5