Ex Parte Hjort et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2016

13103493 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/103,493 05/09/2011 Thomas Enne Hjort
79680 7590 09/22/2016
LANDO & ANASTASI, LLP
A2000
One Main Street, Suite 1100
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.
A2000-702420(APC-0024) 9406
EXAMINER
AMRANY,ADI
Cambridge, MA 02142 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2836
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2016 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):
docketing@LALaw.com
gengelson@LALaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS ENNE HJORT and MICHAEL PEDERSEN
Appeal2014-008812
Application 13/103,493
Technology Center 2800
Before JASON V. MORGAN, HUNG H. BUI, and JOHN F. HORVATH,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Office Action rejecting claims 1, 2, 4---6, 11, 12, 14--16,
21-24, 26, and 27, which are all of the claims pending on appeal. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Schneider Electric IT
Corporation. App. Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed April 14, 2014
("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed August 7, 2014 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's
Answer mailed June 11, 2014 ("Ans."); Final Office Action mailed February
8, 2014 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed May 9, 2011
("Spec.").
Appeal2014-008812
Application 13/103,493
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "an uninterruptible power supply for
providing [uninterruptible] power to a load." Spec. 3:2-3, Abstract.
Claims 1, 11, and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of
Appellants' invention, as reproduced with disputed limitations emphasized
below:
1. An uninterruptible power supply for providing power to a
load, the uninterruptible power supply comprising:
a first input to receive input power from an input power
source;
an output to provide output power;
a bypass input to receive bypass power from a bypass
power source, wherein the bypass input is selectively coupled
to the output to provide output power from the bypass power
source;
an input power circuit coupled to the first input and
having a DC output that provides DC power having a first DC
voltage level;
a back-up power source coupled to the input power
circuit to provide DC power at the DC output in a back-up
mode of operation;
an inverter circuit having an input coupled to the DC
output of the input power circuit and an output coupled to the
output of the uninterruptible power supply to provide the output
power derived from at least one of the input power source and
the back-up power source;
wherein the uninterruptible power supply is constructed
and arranged in a bypass mode of operation to control the
inverter circuit to convert AC power from the bypass power
source at the output of the inverter circuit to DC power at the
input of the inverter circuit; and
a power supply coupled to the input of the inverter circuit
to receive operating DC power from the inverter and
constructed and arranged to provide DC power to components
of the uninterruptible power supply in the bypass mode of
2
Appeal2014-008812
Application 13/103,493
operation, the components including at least one of a fan, a
control board, a contactor coil and a display.
App. Br. 7 (Claims App.).
Examiner's Rejections and References
(1) Claims 1, 4---6, 11, 14--16, and 21 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tracy et al. (US Publication
2005/0201127 Al; published Sept. 15, 2005) ("Tracy"), Gilbreth et al. (US
Patent 6,958,550 B2; issued Oct. 25, 2005) ("Gilbreth"), 3 and Stich et al.
(US Patent 5,315,533; issued May 24, 1994) ("Stich"). Final Act. 3-5.
(2) Claims 2, 12, 22-24, and 26-274 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tracy, Stich, and Gilbreth. Final Act.
5-7.
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1, 11, and 21, the Examiner finds
Tracy teaches an uninterruptible power supply (UPS), shown in Figure 3,
having most of Appellants' claimed features, including: ( 1) "a first input
(311 )"; (2) "an output 301 "; (3) "a bypass input 311" that "is selectively
coupled to the output (360)"; (4) "an input power circuit (310) to provide
3 The preamble of the rejection of claims 1, 4---6, 11, 14--16, and 21 refers to
Gilbreth. See Final Act. 3. However, Gilbreth is not relied upon by the
Examiner. As such, we consider these claims as solely rejected based on
Tracy and Stich.
4 Claims 26-27 are not listed in the heading of the Examiner's rejection, but
are discussed in the body of the Examiner's rejection. See Final Act. 6-7.
As such, we consider claims 26-27 as being rejected based on the same
combination of Tracy, Stich, and Gilbreth.
3
Appeal2014-008812
Application 13/103,493
DC power"; (5) "a backup power source (330) ... to provide DC power at
the DC output in a back-up mode of operation"; and (6) "an inverter circuit
(320) ... to provide the output power derived from at least one of the input
power source and the back-up power source." Final Act. 3 (citing Tracy
iTiT 16-18, Fig. 3).
Tracy's Figure 3 is reproduced below with additional markings for
illustration.
Tracy's Figure 3 shows an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) 300.
As shown in Figure 3, Tracy's UPS 300 includes a first switch 350 coupled
to an AC power source; an auxiliary DC power source (back-up battery) 330
to provide DC power, via DC buses 315a-315b and ouput ports 301, 302;
first and second bidirectional power converters 310, 320 configured to act as
4
Appeal2014-008812
Application 13/103,493
rectifiers to convert AC power into DC power or as inverters to convert DC
power into AC power, depending on certain modes of operation. Tracy i-fi-1
16-18. According to Tracy, these modes of operation include:
(1) a normal "on-line" mode, shown in Figure 4,
where the first bidirectional power converter 410 acts as a
rectifier to convert AC power to DC power to power DC link
420, and the second bidirectional power converter 420 acts as
an inverter to convert DC power to AC power to power a load
on port 401;
(2) an alternate mode when the main AC power
source fails, shown in Figure 5, where the first bidirectional
power converter 410 acts as an inverter to convert DC power
from the auxiliary DC power source (battery) 330 to AC power
to power a load on port 402, and the second bidirectional power
converter 420 also acts as an inverter to provide AC power to a
load on port 401;
(3) a "bypassed mode", shown in Figure 6, in which
the main AC power is used to provide AC power to a load on
ports 40 l and/ or 402; and
( 4) a mixed mode, in the event of a failure of the main
AC power and either the first or second bidirectional power
converter 410, 420, shown in Figures 7-9, where the non-
failing first bidirectional power converter 410 or second
bidirectional power converter 420 may be used to convert DC
power from the auxiliary DC power source (battery) to AC
power to power a load on ports 401 and/or 402.
Tracy i-fi-f 19-22 (emphasis added).
According to the Examiner, Tracy's "inverter is a two-way converter"
and "the benefits" of these two-way converters include (1) "a two-way first
converter (310) ... provide[ s] a discharge path for the battery when the
second converter fails" and (2) "the two-way second converter ...
5
Appeal2014-008812
Application 13/103,493
provide[s] a charge path for the battery when the first converter fails." Ans.
3 (citing Tracy i-f 16).
The Examiner acknowledges Tracy does not expressly teach, but
relies on Stich for expressly teaching that the power supply in the bypass
mode of operation is supplied to a specific type of a load, i.e.,
"[housekeeping] components including at least one of a fan, a control board,
a contactor coil and a display" in order to support a conclusion of
obviousness. Ans. 4 (citing Stich 8:50-54, Fig. 1, items 34, 80).
Appellants present several arguments against the Examiner's
rejection. First, Appellants argue the Examiner "has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness" because Gilbreth was cited but was not
discussed and relied upon by the Examiner. App. Br. 5. Second, Appellants
dispute the Examiner's characterization regarding the operational modes of
Tracy's UPS system. In particular, Appellants argue: "Tracy fails to
disclose or suggest an operational mode in which the two-way second
converter provides a charge path for a battery when the first converter fails."
App. Br. 6. According to Appellants, Tracy's UPS system is not
"constructed and arranged in a bypass mode of operation to control the
inverter circuit to convert AC power from the bypass power source at the
output of the inverter circuit to DC power at the input of the inverter circuit"
as recited in claims 1, 11, and 16. Reply Br. 3.
Third, Appellants further argue the modification of Tracy is based on
impermissible hindsight, but without providing any explanation as to why
the Examiner has engaged in such hindsight reconstruction. App. Br. 6.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Instead, we find
the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants'
6
Appeal2014-008812
Application 13/103,493
arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 2-9. As such,
we adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein. Id.
For example, as explained by the Examiner, "Gilbreth was accidentally left
in the heading of a rejection" and was not relied upon by the Examiner. As
such, we consider the Examiner's inadvertent inclusion of Gilbreth as a
harmless error and the claims as solely rejected based on Tracy and Stich, as
noted in the Examiner's Answer. Ans. 2.
Second, and contrary to Appellants' argument, Tracy teaches or
suggests a "bypass mode of operation" in which the second bidirectional
power converter 320, shown in Figure 3, can be used to convert AC power
to DC power. Ans. 4---6 (citing Tracy i-f 22). In an obviousness analysis, it is
not necessary to find precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter
claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of
ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id.
at 421. Given Tracy's teachings regarding various situations when the UPS
system is a "bypass mode of operation," we agree with the Examiner that a
person skilled in the art would have understood that when the first
bidirectional power converter 310 fails the second bidirectional power
converter 320could be used to convert bypassed AC power at its output to
DC power at its input to recharge the auxiliary DC power source 330 (back-
up battery) if necessary. Ans. 5.
Third, Appellants' argument based on "impermissible hindsight" is
not persuasive because: (1) Appellants have not explained why the
Examiner has engaged in such an impermissible hindsight reconstruction
7
Appeal2014-008812
Application 13/103,493
and (2) the Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with rational
underpinnings sufficient to justify the legal conclusion of obviousness. See
In re Cree, Inc., 818 F.3d 694, 702, n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Appellants'
hindsight argument of no moment where the Examiner provides a sufficient,
non-hindsight reason to combine the references).
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 11, and 21 and their respective dependent claims 2, 4---6, 12, 14--16,
22-24, 26, and 27, which Appellants do not argue separately.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--6, 11, 12, 14--
16, 21-24, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--
6, 11, 12, 14--16, 21-24, 26, and 27.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8