Ex Parte Harper

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2018

14100446 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2018)

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.
14/100,446 12/09/2013 Joseph Lowell HARPER JACB E488U1 2625
127767 7590 01/30/2018
Polster, Lieder, Woodruff & Lucchesi, L.C.
Textron
12412 Powerscourt Drive, Suite 200
St. Louis, MO 63131-3615
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, VIET P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2831
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOSEPH LOWELL HARPER
____________

Appeal 2017-006216
Application 14/100,446
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Primary
Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1–5, 9–12, and 16.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellant is the Applicant, Textron Innovations Inc., which, according to
the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed on October
21, 2016, hereinafter “Appeal Br.,” 2.
2 Appeal Br. 5–11; Reply Brief filed on February 27, 2017, hereinafter
“Reply Br.,” 2–12; Final Office Action (notice emailed on March 2, 2016)
hereinafter “Final Act.,” 2–12; Examiner’s Answer (notice emailed on
January 25, 2017), hereinafter “Ans.,” 2–4.
Appeal 2017-006216
Application 14/100,446

2
A. BACKGROUND
The inventor states that when a DC motor is coupled to an internal
combustion engine and greater power output is needed from the motor, the
speed of the internal combustion engine must be raised to increase the
motor’s power output, but this decreases the fuel efficiency of a utility
vehicle that includes the motor and engine. Specification filed on December
9, 2013, hereinafter “Spec.,” ¶ 4. The inventor also states that conventional
arrangements do not compensate for regeneration power from braking,
which increases the speed of the motor and results in a higher voltage
produced by the motor unless a load is also increased simultaneously. Id.
¶ 5. The inventor states “it is often important to maintain a stable voltage to
ensure proper operation of coupled, on-board electronics.” Id. In view of
this, the inventor states there is a need for a power generation system for a
utility vehicle that varies its power output without requiring a change in the
speed of the engine. Id. ¶ 6.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced from pages 11–12 of the Appeal
Brief (Claims Appendix), as follows (emphasis in bolded italics added):
1. A power generation system for a utility vehicle, said
power generation device comprising:
a battery source capable of storing electrical energy, said
battery source selectively outputting electrical energy and
selectively receiving electrical energy;
a logic/driver module operably coupled to said battery
source, said logic/driver module capable of outputting electrical
energy to a motive drive system of the utility vehicle;
an internal combustion engine capable of outputting a
mechanical driving force, said internal combustion engine being
responsive to a control input from said logic/driver module; and
a brushless DC motor operably coupled to said internal
combustion engine via a coupler and electrically coupled to said
logic/driver module, said brushless DC motor being capable of
Appeal 2017-006216
Application 14/100,446

3
operating as a generator in response to said mechanical driving
force of said internal combustion engine, thereby generating and
outputting electrical energy to said logic/driver module and at
least one voltage drawing component of the vehicle, said
logic/driver module being operable to control operation of said
brushless DC motor such that a voltage of said electrical energy
generated and output by said brushless DC motor is regulated
and maintained within a predetermined voltage range
irrespective of a varying revolutions per unit of time of said
internal combustion engine, thereby preventing damage to said
at least one voltage drawing component due to overvoltage.
B. REJECTION ON APPEAL
On appeal, the Examiner maintains3 the rejection of claims 1–5, 9–12,
and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kruger4 in view
of Ulinski et al. (hereinafter “Ulinski”).5 Ans. 2; Final Act. 4–12.
C. DISCUSSION
Drawing Objection
The Appellant presents arguments against the Examiner’s objection to
the Drawings. Appeal Br. 5. However, as stated by the Examiner, Ans. 3,
this is not an appealable matter because it does not relate to review of
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Because an appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) is generally limited to matters relating to rejections of claims, an
objection to drawings is a petitionable matter. In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975,
984–985 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 1403

3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1 and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement. Ans. 2.
4 US 2012/0244979 A1, published September 27, 2012.
5 US 2002/0051368 A1, published May 2, 2002.
Appeal 2017-006216
Application 14/100,446

4
(CCPA 1971)); see also MPEP § 1201. Thus, this matter should have been
raised by a timely-filed petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.113.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1–5, 9–12, and 16
Claims 1–5, 9–12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kruger in view of Ulinski.
The Examiner finds Kruger discloses a system including a battery
source, a logic/driver module, an internal combustion engine, and a
brushless DC motor. Final Act. 5–6. The Examiner finds Kruger does not
disclose that the logic/driver module is operable to control the motor so that
a voltage generated by the motor is regulated and maintained within a
predetermined voltage range irrespective of varying revolutions of the
engine, thereby preventing damage to at least one voltage drawing
component due to overvoltage, as recited in claim 1. Id. at 6.
The Examiner finds Ulinski discloses a logic/driver module that is
operable to control the operation of a generator so that the voltage generated
and output by the generator is maintained within a predetermined voltage
range irrespective of the varying speed of an internal combustion engine. Id.
The Examiner finds this would prevent damage to at least one voltage
drawing component due to overvoltage, citing paragraph 55 of Ulinski. Id.
The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify Kruger in
view of Ulinski “to control the output voltage of the generator to prevent an
overvoltage.” Id. at 7.
The Appellant contends Kruger does not disclose that its logic/driver
module is operable to control a DC motor, as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br.
6–8. The Appellant further asserts that Ulinski also does not disclose that its
Appeal 2017-006216
Application 14/100,446

5
logic/driver module is operable to control a DC motor, as recited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 8–10; Reply Br. 2–4. Specifically, the Appellant argues Ulinski
discloses maintaining its power bus at a desired voltage by regulating the
flow of power via a bi-directional power supply circuit, not by controlling
the operation of a brushless DC motor, as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 8–
10; Reply Br. 3–4.
The Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Kruger discloses a
system 10 for a vehicle 8 that includes a chargeable energy storage device 12
(e.g., a battery), a dynamo 14, an engine 16, and a torque coupling device 18
that couples the engine 16 with the dynamo 14. Kruger Figure 2, ¶¶ 20, 21,
24. The dynamo 14 can be a permanent magnet direct current motor, a
permanent magnet brushless motor, an electromagnetic type motor, or other
type of electric motor. Id. ¶ 23. The system 10 further includes a controller
24 for controlling the operation of the dynamo 14. Id. ¶¶ 24, 25, 34, 42.
Thus, the disclosure of Kruger supports the Examiner’s findings with respect
to Kruger.
Ulinski discloses a system for maintaining the voltage level of a
power supply bus coupled to a load. Ulinski ¶ 4. The Examiner finds that
paragraphs 40 and 53 of Ulinski disclose operating a generator so that the
voltage provided is maintained within a predetermined range. Final Act. 6;
Ans. 3. Paragraph 40 of Ulinski discloses a generator drive 114 that
“attempts to regulate the electrical power produced by the generator such
that a desired voltage level across the power supply bus 116 is achieved.”
Paragraph 53 of Ulinski discloses that the generator drive 114 varies the
current of the stator coils of the generator to adjust its generated electrical
power so the bus is maintained within a desired voltage range. The
Appeal 2017-006216
Application 14/100,446

6
Examiner further finds paragraph 64 of Ulinski discloses maintaining the
desired voltage without changing the rotational speed of the engine. Id.
Paragraph 64 of Ulinski discloses controlling the power flowing through a
bi-directional power supply circuit 226 so “the voltage level of the power
bus can be maintained within a desired range without changing the rotational
speed of the engine.”
In other words, to the extent Ulinski discloses control of its bi-
directional power supply circuit 226 to control the direction and amount of
power flowing through its power bus, as argued by the Appellant, Ulinski
also discloses controlling the operation of a generator via a generator drive
114 to maintain a desired voltage (Ulinski ¶¶ 40, 53) and that the desired
voltage level can be maintained without changing the speed of the engine
(id. ¶ 64).
We note that the Appellant does not argue that the claimed
logic/driver module is different in terms of its structure or components.
Rather, the Appellant’s arguments focus on the operation of the claimed
module. As discussed above, Ulinski’s disclosure supports the Examiner’s
findings that Ulinski discloses a logic/driver module operable to control the
operation of a motor, as recited in claim 1. As a result, the Appellant’s
arguments do not identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Moreover, the Examiner sets forth a sufficient rationale for modifying
Kruger in view of Ulinski. The Appellant presents no arguments regarding
the Examiner’s rationale to modify Kruger’s system and motor in view of
Ulinski’s teachings or whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have
otherwise lacked a reason to modify Kruger in view of Ulinski.
Appeal 2017-006216
Application 14/100,446

7
The Appellant further contends that Ulinski “describes that by
controlling the direction and the amount of electrical power flowing through
the bi-directional power supply circuit in a continuous manner, the voltage
level of the power bus can be maintained within a desired range without
changing the rotational speed of the engine” and thus “Ulinski describes that
controlled changes in the engine rotation speed is a means for controlling
and maintaining a voltage on a power bus are not needed.” Appeal Br. 9
(emphases omitted). The Appellant further asserts “[e]xtrapolating this out,
Ulinski teaches that the power bus voltage can be directly affected by
varying the rotational speed of the engine.” Reply Br. 4 (emphasis omitted).
The Appellant, however, does not cite any portion of Ulinski’s
disclosure to support their argument that Ulinski changes engine rotation
speed to control and maintain a voltage on a power bus or that Ulinski
otherwise requires the speed of an engine to be at a particular speed to
maintain a desired voltage. As discussed above, the Examiner finds Ulinski
discloses operating a module, as recited in claim 1, and the disclosure of
Ulinski supports the Examiner’s findings. Moreover, the conclusion reached
by the Appellant that Ulinski must vary or change engine speed to maintain
a desired voltage, which is unsupported by citations to Ulinski, does not
flow from the Appellant’s contention that Ulinski discloses maintaining the
engine at a constant speed to maintain the desired voltage, which is also
unsupported by the Appellant. Given that Ulinski discloses maintaining a
desired voltage without changing engine speed (Ulinski ¶ 64), Ulinski would
have suggested that the desired voltage is maintained independent of (i.e.,
irrespective of) engine speed.
In addition, the Appellant argues:
Appeal 2017-006216
Application 14/100,446

8
Ulinski does not describe, show or suggest regulating the voltage
on the power bus irrespective of varying RPUs of the engine that
is driving the generator, thereby preventing an increase in
voltage, resulting from the varying RPUs of the engine, that
exceeds a maximum value of the voltage range and any possible
resultant damage to the at least one voltage drawing component
due to overvoltage.
Appeal Br. 10 (emphases omitted).
The Examiner finds this argument regarding the variation of “RPUs of
the engine” and “thereby preventing an increase in voltage, resulting from
the varying RPUs of the engine, that exceeds a maximum value of the
voltage range” does not relate to limitations in the claims. Ans. 4.
Moreover, to the extent the Appellant is arguing that Ulinski does not
disclose a module to control operation of a motor, as recited in claim 1, the
disclosure of Ulinski supports the Examiner’s findings, as discussed above.
The Appellant does not argue claims 2–5, 9–12, and 16 separately
from claim 1. Appeal Br. 10–11.
For these reasons and those discussed in the Examiner’s Answer, we
uphold the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 1–5, 9–12, and 16.
D. SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 9–12, and 16 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)(1).

AFFIRMED