Ex Parte Humphrey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2017

12433421 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2017)

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.
12/433,421 04/30/2009 Daniel Humphrey 82248563 9044
56436 7590 06/02/2017
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
AMRANY, ADI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2836
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2017 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
chris. mania @ hpe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL HUMPHREY, MOHAMED AMIN BEMAT,
REYNALDO P. DOMINGO, and DAVID P. MOHR
Appeal 2016-005343
Application 12/433,4211
Technology Center 2800
Before PETER F. KRATZ, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—20.2 We have jurisdiction pursuant to
35 U.S.C. §6.
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a power supply system
including a plurality of electric power supplies connected in parallel to an
output bus, wherein at least one redundant switching power supply is
1 The real party in interest is identified as Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Development LP (App. Br. 1).
2 This is the second appeal involving this Application (see Decision on
Appeal No. 2012-001031 rendered February 04, 2014).
Appeal 2016-005343
Application 12/433,421
configured to remain online while not providing output current to a load and
a method of operating a plurality of power supplies.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A system, comprising:
a plurality of electric power supplies connected in parallel to an
output bus, the plurality including at least one primary power
supply and at least one redundant switching power supply;
wherein the primary power supply is configured to provide
output current to a load when the primary power supply is
operating normally; and
wherein the redundant switching power supply is configured to
remain online while not providing output current to the load
when the primary power supply is operating normally, but to
begin providing output current to the load when the primary
power supply is not operating normally.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:3
Claims 1—3, 5—10, 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Bobry in view of Canter. Claims 4, 11—14, and
18—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bobry in
3 No other grounds of rejection are before us. In this regard, the Examiner’s
comments concerning the claims not providing a “clear warning” to the
public fails to articulate a stated ground of rejection (Final Act. 3—4).
Bobry
Canter
Randall
Oto
5,994,793
6,370,048 B1
2008/0185914 A1
2009/0243390 A1
Nov. 30, 1999
Apr. 9, 2002
Aug. 7, 2008
Oct. 1, 2009
2
Appeal 2016-005343
Application 12/433,421
view of Canter and Randall. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Bobry in view of Canter and Otto.
We reverse the stated rejections.
The first stated rejection, as maintained by the Examiner in the Final
Rejection, is premised on a modification of Bobry in view of Canter,
wherein the Examiner finds that Bobry does not disclose DC output current
and the Examiner relies on Canter for teaching a system comprising a
plurality of power supplies “wherein the output current is DC (via rectifiers
56, 62, 96, 104)”, and which DC output current rectifiers of Canter the
Examiner finds would have been obvious to apply to Bobry (Final Act. 6).
As argued by Appellants and contrary to the Examiner’s
determination, however, Canter does not output DC power but rather
describes a system that converts DC to AC and outputs the AC to a load
(App. Br. 6—7; Canter, col. 3,11. 1—3, 35^40; col. 5,11. 10-17).
In particular, the Examiner urges that Canter’s diodes 56, 62, 96, and
102 each provide for unidirectional current flow; hence, Canter provides for
DC output (Ans. 3). Contrarily, Appellants urge that, by focusing on
individual diodes employed by Canter in isolation rather than considering
Canter’s AC power supply setup as a whole which provides for a redundant
AC power system and outputs AC current via a center-tap transformer 40
that outputs current in alternating fashion in output lines 60 and 66, the
Examiner appears to err in asserting that Canter’s system outputs DC
current, (Reply Br. 2—3; Canter, Fig. 1).
In light of Appellants’ argument based on the cited disclosures of
Canter, which argument and disclosures remain incompletely addressed and
refuted by the Examiner, we concur with Appellants that the Examiner has
3
Appeal 2016-005343
Application 12/433,421
not established how Canter’s disclosure, as a whole, weighs in favor of the
Examiner’s interpretation of Canter as providing for DC current output from
its AC power system.
Thus, we concur with Appellants that the Examiner fails to establish
that Canter provides for a redundant power supply providing DC output
current. Consequently, the Examiner has not reasonably articulated how
Canter would have suggested adding a DC output rectifier to Bobry, as
proposed by the Examiner.
In the alternative, the Examiner advances a new
obviousness/anticipation theory for the first stated rejection in the
Examiner’s Answer, which theory is based on Bobry, by itself,
teaching/suggesting an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) system (or
method) that outputs direct current and which UPS system corresponds to
Appellants’ redundant switching power supply system and method (Ans. 3—
6). In this regard and in contrast to the Examiner’s rejection statement that
“Bobry does not expressly disclose the output current is DC” (Final Act. 6),
the Examiner now maintains that Bobry “explicitly states ‘with the addition
of a bridge rectifier across the output terminal 98, as is well known, a d.c.
output may be obtained’ (col. 12, lines 4-6).” (Ans. 3—4).
As argued by Appellants however, the Examiner’s application of
Bobry to Appellants’ claimed subject matter includes the Examiner’s
reliance on the rectifier circuit 42 of Bobry as corresponding to the input
converter of the redundant power supply that includes inverter B (Reply Br.
4—5; Final Act. 5; Bobry, Fig. 1). Representative claim 1 requires that “the
redundant switching power supply is configured to remain online while not
4
Appeal 2016-005343
Application 12/433,421
providing output current to the load” (claim 1; also see claim 15).4
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not established that the Bobry
teaches that its backup inverter B, which the Examiner mapped as
corresponding to part of Bobry’s redundant switching power supply receives
internal power when the primary inverter is operating normally; hence,
Bobry does not disclose that its redundant switching power supply (rectifier
circuit 42 and inverter B) is configured to remain online (“input converter of
the power supply is on and is acting to keep the internal DC supply within
the power supply at its nominal level”) (Reply Br. 4—6; Spec. 114; Bobry,
col. 7,11. 35—45).The Examiner seems to acknowledge that Bobry’s inverter
B has no power input to invert when the primary inverter is providing
current (Final Act. 5, 8).
Thus, we concur with Appellants that the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness based on the combined
teachings of Bobry and Canter as set forth in the Final Rejection and/or
based on the teachings of Bobry alone, as advanced by the Examiner in the
Answer.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s first stated obviousness
rejection.
The Examiner’s separate obviousness rejections pertaining to certain
dependent claims are built on the Examiner’s first stated obviousness
rejection and, consequently, lack adequate foundational support.
4 In this regard, the term “online” as used with reference to a redundant
switching power supply in claim 1 and claim 15 is defined in the subject
Specification as meaning that “the input converter of the power supply is on
and is acting to keep the internal DC supply within the power supply at its
nominal level” (Spec. 114).
5
Appeal 2016-005343
Application 12/433,421
It follows that we shall likewise reverse the latter rejections.
CONCLUSION/ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims is reversed.
REVERSED
6