Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2014

12212021 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2014)

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.
12/212,021 09/17/2008 Hongrae Kim 81164762 9563
28395 7590 07/30/2014
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
CHAN, KAWING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2014 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte HONGRAE KIM, MICHAEL W. DEGNER, and
WILLIAM REYNOLDS
________________

Appeal 2012-007715
Application 12/212,021
Technology Center 2800
________________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, PETER F. KRATZ, and MARK NAGUMO,
Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
Appellants claim a method and system for controlling an electric
motor. Claims 1 and 14 are illustrative:
1. A method for controlling an electric motor, the method comprising:
receiving a first control command indicative of a desired motor control;
determining a current operating condition for the motor;
determining whether the first control command meets at least one
predetermined criterion at the current operating condition;
generating a second control command different from the first control
command when the first control command meets the at least one
Appeal 2012-007715
Application 12/212,021

2
predetermined criterion, generating the second control command
including:
determining a current value of a parameter of the motor,
changing the value of the motor parameter, and
using the changed motor parameter value to generate the second
control command; and
using the second control command to control the motor.

14. A control system including at least one controller and configured to
control an electric motor, the control system comprising:
a check module configured to determine if the motor is in a
field-weakened state, at a first value of a motor parameter, in response to
a first control signal;
an adjustment module configured to generate an adjusted motor
parameter value if the motor is in the field-weakened state; and
a lookup module configured to receive the adjusted motor parameter
value and generate a second control signal to control the motor.

The References
Patel et al. (Patel) US 2006/0055363 A1 Mar. 16, 2006
Rahman et al. (Rahman) US 7,592,765 B2 Sep. 22, 2009
The Rejections
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1-4, 6-10, 12 and 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Rahman, claims 5 and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Rahman and claims 14-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Rahman in view of Patel.
OPINION
We affirm the rejections.
Appellants argue the claims in two groups: 1) claims 1-13, and
2) claims 14-19 (Br. 5-10). We therefore limit our discussion to one claim
in each group, i.e., claims 1 and 14. The other claims in each group stand or
fall with the claim we address. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).
Appeal 2012-007715
Application 12/212,021

3
Claim 1
Appellants’ claim 1 requires “receiving a first control command
indicative of a desired motor control” and “determining whether the first
control command meets at least one predetermined criterion at the current
operating condition”.
Rahman discloses a modulation index command (M*index) calculated
from the supply voltage (Vdc)1 and d-axis and q-axis voltage commands (V*d,
V*q) (col. 7, ll. 17-37). A field weakening voltage loop (loop including
module 46) is active only if the modulation index command (M*index) is
greater than a lower modulation index limit (Mlower) (col. 1, ll. 61-63; col. 7,
ll. 56-63; Fig. 3).
Examiner relies upon Rahman’s determination of whether (M*index) is
greater than a lower modulation index limit (Mlower) as corresponding to
Appellants’ determination of whether the first control command meets at
least one predetermined criterion (Ans. 5). Appellants point out that “the
modulation index command (M*index) is determined before modules 58
and 60, not using their output” (App. Br. 7), but pointing out that fact does
not establish that the modulation index command (M*index) is not a first
control command indicative of a desired motor control. When the
modulation index command (M*index) meets the predetermined criterion, i.e.,
is greater than Mlower, the field weakening voltage loop (loop including
module 46) is active (col. 7, ll. 57-63) and generates a feedback current
command (∆I*q)2 which is added to the q-axis current command (I*q) (which

1 In Rahman’s calculation of M*index, Vds should be Vdc (col. 7, l. 35).
2 In Rahman’s Figure 3, (∆I*d) should be (∆I*q).
Appeal 2012-007715
Application 12/212,021

4
corresponds to Appellants’ current value of a parameter of the motor) to
generate a second control command (modified q-axis current command
(I**q)) which, after being converted to a voltage (output from summing block
60), is used with a d-axis voltage command (output from summing block
58), to control the motor (16) (col. 5, ll. 33-38; col. 6, ll. 47-62).
Thus, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of
claim 1.
Claim 14
Appellants’ claim 14 requires “a check module configured to
determine if the motor is in a field-weakened state, at a first value of a motor
parameter, in response to a first control signal” and “an adjustment module
configured to generate an adjusted motor parameter value if the motor is in
the field-weakened state”.
Examiner relies upon Rahman’s static flux table (68) and commanded
modulation index calculation module (70) (which calculates the modulation
index command (M*index) which is compared to the lower modulation index
limit (Mlower) to determine when to activate the field weakening voltage
loop (loop including module 46)) (col. 7, ll. 13-63)) as corresponding to
Appellants’ check module, and relies upon Rahman’s field weakening
module (46) (which generates the feedback current command (∆I*q) added to
the q-axis current command (I*q) to generate a modified q-axis current
command (I**q)) (col. 5, ll. 33-39)) as corresponding to Appellants’
adjustment module (Ans. 9).
Appeal 2012-007715
Application 12/212,021

5
Appellants argue that Examiner improperly relies upon d-q current
commands as corresponding to both a first value of a motor parameter and a
first control signal (Br. 9).
“‘[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.’” In re
Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re
Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Appellants do not point out
any disclosure in Appellants’ Specification that limits Appellants’ claim
term “motor parameter” such that it excludes Rahman’s q-axis current
command (I*q) or limits Appellants’ claim term “first control signal” such
that it excludes Rahman’s modified q-axis current command (I**q) sent to the
field weakening module (46) (Fig. 3).
Hence, we are not convinced of reversible error in the rejection of
claim 14.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections of claims 1-4, 6-10, 12 and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Rahman, claims 5 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Rahman and claims 14-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Rahman in view
of Patel are affirmed.
It is ordered that Examiner’s decision 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).
AFFIRMED

Appeal 2012-007715
Application 12/212,021

6
tc