Ex Parte Liske et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 5, 201512532653 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2015) 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. 12/532,653 09/23/2009 Kevin R. Liske DKT06160A (BWI-00246-US2) 9548 68945 7590 02/05/2015 WARN, HOFFMANN, P.C. P.O. BOX 70098 ROCHESTER HILLS, MI 48307 EXAMINER BOBISH, CHRISTOPHER S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3746 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/05/2015 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 KEVIN R. LISKE, DAVID KAITSCHUCK, and TODD R. PETERSON ____________ Appeal 2013-0016851 Application 12/532,653 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1–5, 7–12, 15–17, 19, and 21.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. According to the Specification, Appellants’ invention “relates to a current limiting arrangement for a vehicle secondary air supply system.” 1 Appellants identify BorgWarner Inc. as the real party in interest. See Appeal Br. 5. 2 Our decision references Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed Sept. 23, 2009), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed July 16, 2012), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Nov. 5, 2012), as well as the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Sept. 11, 2012). Appeal 2013-001685 Application 12/532,653 2 Spec. 1, ll. 9–10. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are the only independent claims under appeal. We reproduce below claim 1 as representative of the appealed claims. 1. A secondary air supply arrangement for a vehicle comprising: an air pump for said secondary air supply arrangement operable to create air flow between an inlet and an outlet of said air pump; an actuator operable to energize said air pump; a pulse width modulated controller integrated to said actuator for applying a pulse width modulated voltage to said actuator, wherein an initial in-rush electric current is controlled when said actuator is activated; and an electronic control unit configured to send signals to the pulse width modulated controller. Appeal Br., Claims App. REJECTION AND PRIOR ART Appellants appeal the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 7–12, 15– 17, 19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tsuzuki (US 2005/0217267 A1, pub. Oct. 6, 2005) and Schnetzka (US 2006/0018764 A1, pub. Jan. 26, 2006). ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 requires, “a pulse width modulated controller integrated to said actuator for applying a pulse width modulated voltage to said actuator.” Appeal Br., Claims App. Appellants argue that the claim term “integrated” requires “[a] type of design in which two or more basic components or functions are physically, as well as electrically combine [sic] Appeal 2013-001685 Application 12/532,653 3 – usually on one chassis, such as an integrated amplifier.” Id. at 9, citations omitted. Even assuming arguendo Appellants are correct, we nevertheless agree with the Examiner that Tsuzuki discloses, “[t]he PWM [pulse width modulated controller] 35 is mounted on the same compressor housing 21-22 that the actuator 30 is mounted on[,] and thus shares a common chassis (see paragraph 30 of Tsuzuki)” (fourth page of Answer after coversheet, incorrectly numbered as page 1), and we find that such an arrangement meets Appellants’ proffered definition of “integrated,” irrespective of whether PWM 35 is also integrated with the air pump (see Reply Br. 2), which is not precluded by claim 1. Thus, we are not persuaded of error by this argument. Inasmuch as we find that Tsuzuki discloses the claimed limitation of the pulse width modulated controller integrated to the actuator, Appellants’ argument “that the specification of Schnetzka teaches away from combining the alleged pulse width modulated controller with the actuator because the specification and drawings teach or suggest a single VSD 112 for controlling multiple motors” (emphases added) is unpersuasive, as we find Schnetzka to be cumulative with respect to the issue of a controller integrated with an actuator. Appeal Br. 10. Further, the Examiner indicates that the portion of Schnetzka Appellants reference “is only a single suggested embodiment, and that paragraph 24 of Schnetzka also teaches that ‘[a]lternately, for a single compressor refrigerant system, only a single inverter 206 is required.’[] Therefore[,] Schnetzka [] clearly teaches a device that is operable with a single motor system.” Fifth page of Answer after coversheet, incorrectly numbered as page 1. Appeal 2013-001685 Application 12/532,653 4 Appellants further argue that Tsuzuki and Schnetzka are non- analogous art, because the Examiner admits the references are not in the same field of endeavor, and because the Examiner is incorrect in determining the references are reasonably pertinent to Appellants’ particular problem. See Appeal Br. 11–12; see also Reply Br. 3–6. In response, the Examiner determines the following: [I]n-rush current is a common problem in compressor motors, particularly at start-up, and . . . one of ordinary skill would be motivated to alleviate this problem regardless of the pumps use. Schnetzka states in paragraph 30 that the compressor control of his invention can be used in any application that requires a compressor, such as the air pumps that are used in both Tsuzuki and the appellant’s arrangement. (Fifth page of Answer after coversheet, incorrectly numbered as page 1.) We do not agree with Appellants’ argument that Schnetzka is irrelevant because it is not concerned with a secondary air supply arrangement for a vehicle. See, for example, Reply Br. 3–6. We note that, “it is necessary to consider ‘the reality of the circumstances,’ – in other words, common sense – in deciding in which fields a person of ordinary skill would reasonably be expected to look for a solution to the problem facing the inventor.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). The Examiner’s determination that “in-rush current is a common problem in compressor motors” such as Tsuzuki’s, and that thus one of ordinary skill would have looked to Schnetzka to overcome that problem, is reasonable. Thus, we are unpersuaded of error by this argument. Based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Because Appellants do not separately argue claims 2–5, 7–12, 15–17, 19, Appeal 2013-001685 Application 12/532,653 5 and 21 (see Appeal Br. 10), we also sustain the rejection of claims 2–5, 7–12, 15–17, 19, and 21. DECISION For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 7–12, 15–17, 19, and 21. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation