Ex Parte Jadric et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 5, 201111688456 (B.P.A.I. May. 5, 2011) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation