Ex parte Heglund

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 16, 2001

08629700 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 16, 2001)

An amendment after the final rejection was filed as1
Paper No. 18, however, the Examiner did not approve its entry
into the record, see Paper No. 19.
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte WILLIAM HEGLUND
____________
Appeal No. 1999-1941
Application No. 08/629,700
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before FLEMING, LALL, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
LALL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1 to 14, which1
constitute all the claims in the application.
The disclosed invention is directed to a control for a
switched reluctance motor (srm) and includes means for detecting
magnitude of current flowing in the machine winding and means
responsive to the detecting means for controlling commutation of
Appeal No. 1999-1941
Application No. 08/629,700
2
the switched reluctance machine in four finite states in
dependence upon the detected current magnitude flowing in the
machine winding during each of the four finite states without
determining machine rotor position. Claim 1 is reproduced below
for further understanding of the invention.
1. A control for a switched reluctance machine having a
machine rotor and a machine winding coupled to a power
converter, comprising:
means for detecting a magnitude of current flowing in the
machine winding; and
means responsive to the detecting means for controlling
commutation of the switched reluctance machine in four
finite states in dependence upon the detected current
magnitude flowing in the machine winding during
each of said four finite states without determining
machine rotor position.
The Examiner relies on the following references:
MacMinn et al. (MacMinn) 4,739,240 Apr. 19,
1988
Lyons et al. (Lyons) 5,140,244 Aug. 18, 1992
Claims 1 to 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Lyons in view of MacMinn.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
their respective details thereof.
Appeal No. 1999-1941
Application No. 08/629,700
3
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the Examiner
and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise, reviewed the
Appellant's arguments set forth in the brief.
We reverse.
In our analysis, we are guided by the general proposition
that in an appeal involving a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
an examiner is under a burden to make out a prima facie case of
obviousness. If that burden is met, the burden of going forward
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 In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); 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 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976). We are further guided by the precedent of our
reviewing court that the limitations from the disclosure are not
to be imported into the claims. In re Lundberg, 244 F.2d 543,
113 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1957); In re Queener, 796 F.2d 461, 230 USPQ
Appeal No. 1999-1941
Application No. 08/629,700
4
438 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We also note that the arguments not made
separately for any individual claim or claims are considered
waived. See 37 CFR § 1.192(a) and (c). In re Baxter Travenol
Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
(“It is not the function of that court to examine the claims in
greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for
nonobviousness distinctions over the prior art.”); In re
Wiechert, 370 F.2d 927, 936, 152 USPQ 247, 254 (CCPA 1967)(“This
court has uniformly followed the sound rule that an issue raised
below which is not argued in that court, even if it has been
properly brought here by reason of appeal is regarded as
abandoned and will not be considered. It is our function as a
court to decide disputed issues, not to create them.”).
ANALYSIS
At the outset, we note that Appellant elects to have all
the claims stand or fall together, see brief at page 3.
We consider independent claim 1 first. On page 4 of the
Examiner's answer, the Examiner asserts that "Lyons et al '244
states that the system of control is that of well known systems
including MacMinn et al. '240 which illustrates a four quadrant
Appeal No. 1999-1941
Application No. 08/629,700
5
commutation controller for a switched reluctance motor 10.
Thus, it would have been obvious ... to utilize Lyons et al
within a four quadrant srm as it is stated as known in the art."
Appellant argues, brief at page 5, that "an indication of rotor
position is obtained in each of the systems disclosed in the
Lyons et al. and the MacMinn et al. patents." Furthermore,
Appellant argues, id.,
that "neither Lyons et al. nor MacMinn et al. discloses or
suggests that it would be desirable or even possible to control
a switched reluctance machine without determining machine rotor
position."
In response, the Examiner analyzes Lyons and MacMinn on pages 5
and 6 of the Examiner answer and concludes, id. at page 6, that
"[a]s with the instant invention, a current detection is
provided to commutate the motor." Examiner further asserts,
id., that "[t]he instant invention detects the bus voltage 54
which compares this value with reference levels 76, 78, 80, 82
to determine current values I1-I5 which are provided to the
Finite State Machine 74 (see figure 4). Phase currents (not
labelled in figure 4) are also provided. The finite state
machine determines the state or quadrant of operation (see
Appeal No. 1999-1941
Application No. 08/629,700
6
figure 5) and controls the communtation switching based on the
detection."
However, we disagree with the Examiner's position. Like
Appellant, we note in MacMinn, item 38 as the resolver or the
rotation position sensor which is necessary for the control of
the SRM 10. Thus, the estimate or the sensing of the rotational
position of the rotor is necessary for the control operation of
the srm in MacMinn. Lyons, on the other hand, deals with a lock
detector for a switched reluctance motor position estimator. It
monitors the rotor angle estimates from an srm estimator to make
sure that the estimator is accurately tracking rotor position,
see abstract. Lyons shows the state of the prior art in figure
1B where the machine control means is shown at 50. It is the
rotor angle 2 going to the control means 50 which Lyons is
directed to improve. Lyons does not show that its control means
operates without an angle sensor. Figure 4 shows the manner in
which Lyons improves on the machine control signal going to
control means 50. Note that to obtain the output from item 100
in figure 4 of Lyons, a rotational position sensor signal is
necessary at control logic 90. Therefore, it is clear that
Lyons also utilizes a rotational position sensor output for
Appeal No. 1999-1941
Application No. 08/629,700
7
providing an improved signal to the control means 50 of the
prior art as shown by Lyons in Figures 1A and 1B. Thus, we
agree with Appellant that both MacMinn and Lyons each utilize
the output of a rotational position sensor to provide control
means for the srm. Therefore, we cannot sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 1 and its independent claims 2 to 5.
With respect to the other two independent claims, 6 and 11,
we find that they too each contain the same limitation as claim
1.
Appeal No. 1999-1941
Application No. 08/629,700
8
Therefore, for the same rationale we cannot sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 6 and 11 and the dependent
claims 7 to 10 and 12 to 14, respectively.
In conclusion, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 1 to 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, over Lyons in view of
MacMinn is reversed.
REVERSED
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
PARSHOTAM S. LALL ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1999-1941
Application No. 08/629,700
9
jg
Appeal No. 1999-1941
Application No. 08/629,700
10
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW DEPARTMENT
SUNDSTRAND CORPORATION
4949 HARRISON AVENUE BOX 7003
ROCKFORD, IL 61125-7003
Jenine Gillis
Appeal No. 1999-1941
Application No. 08/629,700
Copies:
______ APJ LALL
______ APJ FLEMING

______ APJ DIXON
DECISION: REVERSED
Panel Change: Yes No
Prepared: May 3, 2002
3 MEM. CONF. Y N
OB/HD
GAU: 2800
PALM: ___
ACTS 2 ___

BOOK ___
DISK (FOIA) ___
MONTHLY REPORT ___