Ex Parte King et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2017

13406241 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 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.
13/406,241 02/27/2012 Robert Dean King 235150-11 9907
131278 7590 11/01/2017
GE GLOBAL PATENT OPERATION
GE VENTURES-LICENSING (ME 131278)
901 MAIN AVENUE
NORWALK, CT 06851
EXAMINER
ZHOU, ZIXUAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2017 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):
gpo.mail@ge.com
gedocket@meagheremanuel.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT DEAN KING
and ROBERT L. STEIGERWALD
Appeal 2015-005390
Application 13/406,241
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, TERRY J. OWENS, and
AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an
Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 21—40. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Representative claim 21 is reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief dated November 26, 2014 (“App. Br.”).
21. A motor drive circuit comprising:
a energy storage device configured to supply electrical
energy;
a bi-directional DC-to-DC voltage converter configured
to convert a first voltage to a second voltage;
Appeal 2015-005390
Application 13/406,241
a voltage inverter configured to invert a DC voltage to an
AC voltage;
an input device coupled to the bi-directional DC-to-DC
voltage converter and configured to receive electrical energy
from an external energy source;
a first coupling device separate from the bi-directional
DC-to-DC voltage converter and configured to selectively
couple the energy storage device to the bi-directional DC-to-DC
voltage converter;
a second coupling device separate from the bi-directional
DC-to-DC voltage converter and configured to selectively
couple the energy storage device to the bi-directional DC-to-DC
voltage converter;
a third coupling device separate from the bi-directional
DC-to-DC voltage converter and configured to selectively
couple the bi-directional DC-to-DC voltage converter to the
voltage inverter.
App. Br. 17.
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:
(1) claims 21—27 and 29-341 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee et al.2 in view of Fujita et al.;3 and
(2) claims 28 and 35—40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lee in view of Fujita, and further in view of Schulte et al.4
1 Claim 27 is omitted from the statement of the rejection in the Final Office
Action dated May 22, 2014 (“Final Act.), at 3. The Examiner, however,
addresses claim 27 in the body of the rejection. Final Act. 8—9. The
statement of the rejection has been corrected to include claim 27.
2 US 2009/0103341 Al, published April 23, 2009 (“Lee”).
3 US 5,283,513, issued February 1, 1994 (“Fujita”).
4 US 7,109,686 B2, issued September 19, 2006 (“Schulte”).
2
Appeal 2015-005390
Application 13/406,241
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds Lee discloses a motor drive circuit comprising an
energy storage device (BATT), a bi-directional DC-to-DC voltage converter
(16), a voltage inverter (3), and an input device (18) coupled to the bi­
directional DC-to-DC voltage converter. Final Act. 3^4. The Examiner
finds the motor drive circuit also comprises a first coupling device (Q5), a
second coupling device (Q3), and a third coupling device (Q4) which
correspond to the claimed first, second, and third coupling devices,
respectively. Final Act. 4, 6—7; see also Final Act. 10, 14. The Examiner,
however, finds Lee’s coupling devices are not separate from the bi­
directional DC-to-DC voltage converter as recited in the claims on appeal.
Final Act. 4; see also Final Act. 11, 15.
The Examiner turns to Fujita and finds Fujita discloses first, second,
and third coupling devices (i.e., 24a, 24c, and 24b, respectively) separate
from bi-directional DC-to-DC voltage converter 34. Final Act. 4—5. The
Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Lee’s
motor drive circuit to further include Fujita’s coupling devices
[24a, 24c, and 24b] for the advantage of providing switching
means for making selection between the first and second
connectors [32 and 36, respectively] and for connecting the
battery with a selected power source; and a . . . DC — DC
converter for converting the low-voltage supplied through the
second connector [36] to a voltage corresponding to the high-
voltage.
Final Act. 5 (citations and emphasis omitted).
The Appellants recognize that “the coupling device of Fujita satisfies
the limitation of being separate from the bi-directional DC-to-DC voltage
3
Appeal 2015-005390
Application 13/406,241
converter.” App. Br. 12. Nonetheless, the Appellants argue that Fujita’s
coupling device, i.e., switch 24, does not comprise a first coupling device, a
second coupling device, and a third coupling device as recited in the claims
on appeal. App. Br. 5. In particular, the Appellants argue that “one skilled
in the art would readily see that switch 24 merely connects terminals 24a
with terminals 24b in one position and terminals 24a with terminals 24c in
another position.” App. Br. 5 (citing Fujita Fig. 2). The Appellants also
argue that terminals b+ and b', which the Examiner finds correspond to the
claimed third coupling device, do not couple bi-directional DC-to-DC
voltage converter 34 to a voltage inverter as claimed but rather selectively
couple first connector 325 with battery 30. App. Br. 6 (citing Fujita, col. 3,
11. 18-31, Fig. 2).
The Appellants argue that Fujita’s switch 24 “determines whether an
external high-voltage power source or an external low-voltage power source
is being used during the plug-in charging mode.” App. Br. 9. Thus,
according to the Appellants,
[T]he addition of the teachings of Fujita to Lee allow for Lee to
choose between two different external power sources during the
plug-in charging mode. However, this combination would still
fail to teach a coupling system [comprising first, second, and
third coupling devices] separate from the bi-directional DC-to-
DC converter [as recited in the claims on appeal].
App. Br. 9.
The Appellants’ arguments are persuasive of reversible error. In the
§ 103(a) rejections on appeal, it is unclear on this record whether the
5 Fujita discloses that first connector 32 is selectively connected with a high-
voltage power source outside the electric vehicle. Fujita, col. 3,11. 27—31.
4
Appeal 2015-005390
Application 13/406,241
Examiner is proposing to add Fujita’s switch 24 to Lee’s motor drive circuit
or separate Lee’s three coupling devices (Q5, Q3, and Q4) from the bi­
directional DC-to-DC voltage converter based on the teachings in Fujita.
See Final Act. 5 (modifying Lee’s motor drive circuit to further include
Fujita’s coupling devices); Ans. 3^4 (modifying Lee’s bi-directional DC-to-
DC voltage converter to separate the coupling functions from the bi­
directional DC-to-DC voltage converter based on the teachings in Fujita).6
To the extent that the Examiner is proposing to add Fujita’s switch 24
to Lee’s motor drive circuit, Fujita does not teach a third coupling device
configured to selectively couple the bi-directional DC-to-DC voltage
converter to the voltage inverter as recited in the claims on appeal. Thus, the
addition of Fujita’s switch to Lee’s motor drive circuit does not result in the
claimed invention.
In the alternative, if the Examiner is proposing to separate Lee’s
coupling system (i.e., Q5, Q3, and Q4) from the bi-directional DC-to-DC
voltage converter based on the teachings of Fujita, Fujita’s switch performs
a different function from Lee’s coupling system. See Reply Br. 4 (arguing
that Lee’s coupling system Q3—Q5 determines whether an electric vehicle is
operating in a plug-in charging mode, a boost function mode, or a buck
function mode whereas Fujita’s switch 24 determines whether an external
high-voltage power source or an external low-voltage power source is being
used during the plug-in charging mode).7 Thus, it is not readily apparent on
this record why the teachings of Fujita would have led one of ordinary skill
6 Examiner’s Answer dated February 27, 2015.
7 Reply Brief dated April 27, 2015.
5
Appeal 2015-005390
Application 13/406,241
in the art to separate Lee’s coupling system from the bi-directional DC-to-
DC voltage converter.
For the reasons set forth above, the § 103(a) rejections are not
sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
6