Ex Parte Jadric et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 5, 2011

11688456 (B.P.A.I. May. 5, 2011)

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.
11/688,456 03/20/2007 Ivan Jadric 26425-0012 1083
65885 7590 05/06/2011
MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC
100 PINE STREET
P.O. BOX 1166
HARRISBURG, PA 17108-1166
EXAMINER
BENSON, WALTER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/06/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte IVAN JADRIC, HAROLD ROBERT SCHNETZKA and
STEPHEN HAROLD SMITH

___________

Appeal 2009-013628
Application 11/688,456
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, KEVIN F. TURNER, and ERIC B. CHEN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-013628
Application 11/688,456

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-20, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a variable speed drive with a boost
converter for a chiller system driven by a switched reluctance motor. (Spec.
Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A drive system for a compressor of a chiller system, the drive
system comprising:
a variable speed drive, the variable speed drive being configured to
receive an input AC power at a fixed input AC voltage and a fixed input
frequency and provide an output power at a variable voltage and variable
frequency, the variable voltage having a maximum voltage greater in
magnitude than the fixed input AC voltage and the variable frequency
having a maximum frequency greater than the fixed input frequency, the
variable speed drive comprising:
a converter stage connected to an AC power source providing the
input AC power, the converter stage being configured to convert the fixed
input AC voltage to a boosted DC voltage;
a DC link connected to the converter stage, the DC link being
configured to filter the boosted DC voltage and store energy from the
converter stage; and
an inverter stage connected to the DC link, the inverter stage being
configured to convert the boosted DC voltage from the DC link into the
output power having the variable voltage and the variable frequency, the
inverter stage including a pair of insulated gate bipolar transistors [IGBT]
and a pair of diodes for each output phase of a plurality of output phases of
the inverter, wherein the pair of diodes in the respective output phase of the
inverter assure positive current having a flow path when the respective
insulated gate bipolar transistor is switched to the off state; and
a switched reluctance motor having a plurality of stator windings,
each stator winding of the plurality of stator windings connected in series
Appeal 2009-013628
Application 11/688,456

3
between the inverter leg first and second IGBT power switches of the
inverter stage and powered by the output power from the inverter stage, the
switched reluctance motor being connectable to a compressor of the chiller
system to power the compressor.
Claims 1, 2, 6-12 and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over Kawashima (U.S. Patent No. 5,793,623), Hongo (U.S.
Patent No. 5,723,967) and Shah (U.S. Patent No. 5,492,273).
Claims 3 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Kawashima, Hongo, Shah and Brown (U.S. Patent No.
4,761,726).
Claims 4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Kawashima, Hongo, Shah and Inaniwa (U.S. Patent No.
5,731,681).
Claims 5 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Kawashima, Hongo, Shah and Ligman (U.S. Patent No.
5,828,200).
ISSUES
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants argue that the
combination of Kawashima, Hongo and Shah does not teach or suggest “an
inverter stage that includes a pair of insulated gate bipolar transistors and a
pair of diodes for each output phase of a plurality of output phases of the
inverter . . . ” (Br. 9), “converting a DC voltage into an AC voltage whose
voltage and frequency varies . . . [and] that the output voltage from the
inverter is greater than the input voltage” (Br. 10-11) and “a switched
reluctance (SR) motor in a chiller system” (Br. 11).
Appellants’ arguments present the following issues:
Appeal 2009-013628
Application 11/688,456

4
1. Does the combination of Kawashima, Hongo and Shah teach or
suggest an “inverter stage including a pair of insulated gate bipolar
transistors and a pair of diodes for each output phase of a plurality of output
phases of the inverter, wherein the pair of diodes in the respective output
phase of the inverter assure positive current having a flow path when the
respective insulated gate bipolar transistor is switched to the off state”?
2. Does the combination of Kawashima, Hongo and Shah teach or
suggest a “variable voltage having a maximum voltage greater in magnitude
than the fixed input AC voltage and the variable frequency having a
maximum frequency greater than the fixed input frequency”?
3. Does the combination of Kawashima, Hongo and Shah teach or
suggest “a switched reluctance motor”?
FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”)
Kawashima
1. Kawashima describes “an air conditioning device including an
inverter circuit that changes the frequency of a power compressor in
an outdoor device to yield an optimal power for a load.” (Col. 1, ll. 4-
8.) In the “Background of the Invention” section, Kawashima
describes a conventional air conditioner that changes operating
frequency of a power compressor 505 from 10 Hz to 120 Hz or
180 Hz depending on a load of air conditioning. (Col. 5, ll. 54-56.)
Kawashima describes another prior art air conditioner that is powered
by a 100 V alternating current commercial power source 501. (Col. 8,
ll. 15-17; fig. 63.) The voltage of the commercial power source 501
can be boosted to yield a direct current of 280 V through a smoothing
Appeal 2009-013628
Application 11/688,456

5
coil 561 using a voltage doubler rectifier circuit 571. (Col. 8, ll. 17-
21.)
2. In a first embodiment (col. 19, ll. 53-56), an air conditioning device
includes a bridge rectifying circuit 2, a smoothing condenser 3, an
inverter circuit 4 and an active filter 5 (col. 19, ll. 58-61; fig. 1).
Power is provided to the air conditioning device from a commercial
power source 1. (Col. 20, ll. 1-3.) A DC voltage is generated by
rectifying an output from the commercial power source 1 with a
bridge rectifying circuit 2 and smoothing it with the smoothing
condenser 3. (Col. 20, ll. 1-4.) The DC voltage supplied to a power
compressor 6 is based on an AC voltage of three phases generated by
the inverter circuit 4. (Col. 20, ll. 4-6.) The inverter circuit 4 includes
six transistors 21-26 and six diodes 31-36. (Col. 20, ll. 7-8.)
3. The AC voltage from the commercial power source 1 is rectified by
the bridge rectifying circuit 2 and inputted to the active filter 5.
(Col. 22, ll. 45-47.) The active filter 5 includes a choke coil 41 and a
power transistor 43. (Col. 20, ll. 22-23.) When the power
transistor 43 is turned “off,” current flowing through the choke coil 41
is at a predetermined value, storing power in the choke coil 41.
(Col. 22, ll. 53-56.) When the power transistor 43 is turned “on,”
power stored in the choke coil 41 is released. (Col. 22, ll. 56-59.)
“As a result, the input current waveform becomes a sine wave in
phase with the input voltage waveform, and the output voltage from
the active filter 5 is raised to a predetermined value.” (Col. 22, ll. 60-
63.)
Appeal 2009-013628
Application 11/688,456

6
Hongo
4. Hongo relates to “a method of controlling start of a compressor driven
by a brushless motor at variable speed in a refrigerating cycle.”
(Col. 1, ll. 9-11.) Hongo describes a prior art circuit configuration of
an inverter 10 (col. 2, ll. 7-8; fig. 10) corresponding to a motor 6
(col. 2, ll. 1-3). The inverter 10 is a three-phase bridge-type inverter
with three-phase arms U, V and W from a dc positive polarity side
and three-phase arms X, Y and Z from a dc negative polarity side.
(Col. 2, ll. 8-12; fig. 10.)
The junction point between the arms U and X is
connected to a U-phase terminal of the motor 6; the
junction point between the arms V and Y is connected to
a V-phase terminal of the motor 6; and the junction point
between the arms W and Z is connected to a W-phase
terminal of the motor 6, respectively.
(Col. 2, ll. 12-18.) Furthermore, “[t]he arms of the inverter 10 are
formed of a power transistor including an antiparallel connected
diode, respectively.” (Col. 2, ll. 19-21.)
Shah
5. Shah relates “to electronically controlled motors and to systems, such
as heating, ventilating and/or air conditioning systems having motors
therein for driving indoor blowers.” (Col. 1, ll. 17-20.) In a preferred
embodiment, a system 100 for heating, ventilating or air conditioning
(HVAC) (col. 5, ll. 3-7; fig. 1) includes “a motor such as a variable
speed induction motor, a switched reluctance motor or an
electronically commutated motor (ECM) 114” (col. 5, ll. 24-27).
Appeal 2009-013628
Application 11/688,456

7
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 6-12 and 16-20
With respect to the first issue, we are not convinced by Appellants’
argument (Br. 9-10) that the combination of Kawashima, Hongo and Shah
does not teach or suggest an “inverter stage including a pair of insulated gate
bipolar transistors and a pair of diodes for each output phase of a plurality of
output phases of the inverter, wherein the pair of diodes in the respective
output phase of the inverter assure positive current having a flow path when
the respective insulated gate bipolar transistor is switched to the off state.”
The Examiner acknowledged that Kawashima does not teach an
“inverter stage including a pair of insulated gate bipolar transistors and a
pair of diodes for each output phase of a plurality of output phases of the
inverter, wherein the pair of diodes in the respective output phase of the
inverter assure positive current having a flow path when the respective
insulated gate bipolar transistor is switched to the off state” and cited Hongo
for the disclosure of an inverter 10. (Ans. 4; FF 4.) The Examiner
concluded that this claim limitation would have been obvious. (Ans. 4.) We
agree with the Examiner.
Kawashima teaches an air conditioning device (FF 1) including a
bridge rectifying circuit 2, a smoothing condenser 3, an inverter circuit 4 and
an active filter 5 (FF 2). Hongo teaches a prior art inverter 10 corresponding
to a motor 6 for a refrigeration cycle. (FF 4.) The inverter 10 includes
three-phase arms U, V and W from a dc positive polarity side and three-
phase arms X, Y and Z from a dc negative polarity side. (FF 4.) Arms U
and X, arms V and Y, and arms W and Z are joined to the motor at a U-
phase terminal, a V-phase terminal and a W-phase terminal, respectively.
Appeal 2009-013628
Application 11/688,456

8
(FF 4.) The arms of the inverter 10 are formed of a power transistor
including an antiparallel connected diode. (FF 4.) Combining Kawashima
and Hongo is no more than the simple substitution of Hongo’s known
inverter 10 for Kawashima’s known inverter circuit 4, with no unexpected
results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Appellants argue that Kawashima does not disclose the disputed
limitation of “an inverter stage including a pair of insulated gate bipolar
transistors and a pair of diodes for each output phase of a plurality of output
phases of the inverter . . .” and that “[t]hese deficiencies of Kawashima are
not cured by the secondary references.” (Br. 9.) However, as discussed
previously, the Examiner cites to Hongo rather than Kawashima for the
disclosure of this disputed limitation. (Ans. 4; FF 4.) Appellants have not
presented any convincing arguments that Hongo does not disclose this
disputed limitation.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Kawashima, Hongo and Shah teaches or suggests an “inverter stage
including a pair of insulated gate bipolar transistors and a pair of diodes for
each output phase of a plurality of output phases of the inverter, wherein the
pair of diodes in the respective output phase of the inverter assure positive
current having a flow path when the respective insulated gate bipolar
transistor is switched to the off state.”
With respect to the second issue, we are not convinced by Appellants’
argument (Br. 10-11) that the combination of Kawashima, Hongo and Shah
does not teach or suggest a “variable voltage having a maximum voltage
greater in magnitude than the fixed input AC voltage and the variable
Appeal 2009-013628
Application 11/688,456

9
frequency having a maximum frequency greater than the fixed input
frequency.”
The Examiner found that the choke coil 41 of Kawashima, which
increases an output voltage of the active filter 5 by a predetermined value,
teaches or suggests a “variable voltage having a maximum voltage greater in
magnitude than the fixed input AC voltage and the variable frequency
having a maximum frequency greater than the fixed input frequency.”
(Ans. 3-4, 15; FF 1, 3.) We agree with the Examiner.
Kawashima teaches an active filter 5 that includes a choke coil 41 and
a power transistor 43. (FF 3.) When the power transistor 43 is turned “on,”
power stored in the choke coil 41 is released and an output voltage from the
active filter 5 is raised to a predetermined value. (FF 3.) Kawashima
teaches a prior art air conditioner in which the operating frequency of a
power compressor varies from 10 Hz to 180 Hz. (FF 1.) Kawashima
teaches another prior art air conditioner powered by a 100 V alternating
current commercial power source 501 in which voltage can be boosted to a
280 V direct current. (FF 1.) In other words, Kawashima teaches or
suggests a “variable voltage having a maximum voltage greater in
magnitude than the fixed input AC voltage and the variable frequency
having a maximum frequency greater than the fixed input frequency.”
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Kawashima, Hongo and Shah teaches or suggests a “variable voltage having
a maximum voltage greater in magnitude than the fixed input AC voltage
and the variable frequency having a maximum frequency greater than the
fixed input frequency.”
Appeal 2009-013628
Application 11/688,456

10
With respect to the third issue, we are not convinced by Appellants’
argument (Br. 11-13) that the combination of Kawashima, Hongo and Shah
does not teach or suggest “a switched reluctance motor.”
The Examiner acknowledged that Kawashima does not teach “a
switched reluctance motor” and cited Shah for the disclosure of a switched
reluctance motor 114. (Ans. 4; FF 5.) The Examiner concluded that this
claim limitation would have been obvious. (Ans. 4.) We agree with the
Examiner.
Kawashima teaches an air conditioning device (FF 1) including a
power compressor 6 (FF 2). Shah teaches a heating, ventilating or air
conditioning system including a switched reluctance motor 114. (FF 5.)
Combining Kawashima and Shah is no more than the simple substitution of
Shah’s switched reluctance motor 114 for Kawashima’s known power
compressor 6, with no unexpected results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Appellants argue that “Hongo does not disclose a switched reluctance
(SR) motor in a chiller system.” (Br. 11.) However, as discussed
previously, the Examiner cites to Shah rather than Hongo for the disclosure
of “a switched reluctance motor.” (Ans. 4; FF 5.)
Next, Appellants argue that “[s]ince Kawashima and Shah disclose
standard three wire motor configurations for the inverter, any combination of
the two references would not provide the six motor lead inverter
configuration recited in claim 1.” (Br. 12.) Although Appellants are
attempting to distinguish over Kawashima and Shah by arguing that claim 1
requires a six-motor lead inverter configuration, this feature is not claimed.
Last, Appellants argue that:
Appeal 2009-013628
Application 11/688,456

11
a switched reluctance motor cannot be applied to a standard
inverter configuration such as disclosed in Kawashima and
Shah . . . because it would not be possible to connect all of the
inverter leads to the single- or three-wire motors without
combining multiple output wires on the same motor terminal,
thus potentially short-circuiting the inverter output bridge and
possibly damaging the inverter or the motor.

(Br. 12.) However, Appellants have not provided any convincing evidence
that the switched reluctance motor cannot be connected with the standard
inverter configuration of Kawashima. Arguments of counsel cannot take the
place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang,
100 F.3d 135, 139-140 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Kawashima, Hongo and Shah teaches or suggests “a switched reluctance
motor.”
We affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 2 and 6-10 depend from independent claim 1 and, because
Appellants have not presented any further arguments with respect to these
claims, we affirm the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
the reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claim 11 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to independent claim 1. We affirm the rejection of claim 11, as
well as claims 12 and 16-20, which depend from claim 11, for the reasons
discussed with respect to claim 1.
Claims 3 and 13
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 3 and 13 separately (Br. 13-14), the arguments presented do not point
Appeal 2009-013628
Application 11/688,456

12
out with particularity or explain why the limitations of the dependent claims
are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue that “Brown does not
disclose converting the fixed AC voltage to a boosted DC voltage, nor does
Brown disclose the inverter stage configured to convert the boosted DC
voltage into an output power.” (Br. 14.) However, as discussed previously,
the Examiner cites to Kawashima rather than Brown for the disclosure of
this limitation. (Ans. 4, 15; FF 1, 3.) We are not persuaded by these
arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 11, from
which claims 3 and 13 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
Claims 4 and 14
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 4 and 14 separately (Br. 15), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of the dependent claims are
separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue that “Inaniwa et al. does not
disclose the use of an SR motor or an SR inverter topology applied to an SR
motor” and “does not boost the DC voltage.” (Br. 15.) However, as
discussed previously, the Examiner cites to Kawashima and Shah rather than
Inaniwa for the disclosure of these limitations. (Ans. 4, 15; FF 1, 3, 5.) We
are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect
to claims 1 and 11, from which claims 4 and 14 depend. Accordingly, we
sustain this rejection.
Claims 5 and 15
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 5 and 15 separately (Br. 16-17), the arguments presented do not point
out with particularity or explain why the limitations of the dependent claims
Appeal 2009-013628
Application 11/688,456

13
are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue that “it would not be
possible for Ligman to generate the boosted DC link voltage of the present
invention using the semi-converter rectifier disclosed in Ligman.” (Br. 16.)
However, as discussed previously, the Examiner cites to Kawashima rather
than Ligman for the disclosure of this limitation. (Ans. 4, 15; FF 1, 3.) We
are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect
to claims 1 and 11, from which claims 5 and 15 depend. Accordingly, we
sustain this rejection.

DECISION
The decision to reject claims 1-20 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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

bim