Ex Parte Magyar

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2018

13830756 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2018)

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.
13/830,756 03/14/2013 Justin M. Magyar 028460-7028-US00 4942
104408 7590 01/31/2018
Michael Best & Friedrich LLP (Regal-Beloit)
100 East Wisconsin Avenue
Suite 3300
Milwaukee, WI 53202
EXAMINER
BOBISH, CHRISTOPHER S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2018 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUSTIN M. MAGYAR
Appeal 2017-001998
Application 13/830,756
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-15. App. Br. 4. In the Examiner’s Answer, the
Examiner withdrew the rejection of claim 11 stating, “[cjlaim 11 is
allowable over the prior art.” Ans. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-10 and 12-15.
Appeal 2017-001998
Application 13/830,756
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates to systems and method for
controlling the speed of a pump motor.” Spec. ^ 1. Claims 1 and 12 are
independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is
reproduced below (with designations (a)-(e) added):
1. A pump system comprising:
a pump configured to move a liquid through the pump
system, the pump including a pump motor; and
a pump controller configured to:
(a) determine a difference between an actual motor speed
and a target motor speed,
(b) control the actual motor speed by adjusting a current of
the pump motor based on the difference between the
actual motor speed and the target motor speed and
according to a gain setting,
(c) compare the difference between the actual motor speed
and the target motor speed with a first threshold for
delineating a first gain value from a second gain value,
(d) apply the first gain value as the gain setting when the
difference between the actual motor speed and the
target motor speed does not exceed the first threshold,
and
(e) apply the second gain value as the gain setting when
the difference between the actual motor speed and the
target motor speed exceeds the first threshold, the
second gain value being greater than the first gain
value.
REFERENCES
Nishizawa
Yamaguchi
US 5,213,077
US 2012/0291754 A1
US 2013/0319021 A1
May 25, 1993
Nov. 22, 2012
Dec. 5,2013Ball
2
Appeal 2017-001998
Application 13/830,756
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Yamaguchi and Ball.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Yamaguchi, Ball, and Nishizawa.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues claims 1-4 and 9 together (App. Br. 9-13), claim 5
separately (App. Br. 13-15), claims 6-8 together (App. Br. 15-17), claim 10
separately (App. Br. 17-18), claims 12-14 together (App. Br. 20-24), and
claim 15 separately (App. Br. 24-26). We select claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 12, and
15 for review, with the remaining claims standing or falling with their
respectively selected claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 1
The Examiner relies on the combination of Yamaguchi and Ball to
reject claim 1. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner references Paragraph 94 of
Ball as teaching that which is lacking in Yamaguchi. Final Act. 3; see also
Ans. 4. Appellant disputes the Examiner’s reliance on Ball’s Paragraph 94
contending that this paragraph “fails to disclose or suggest the features of’
limitation (c). App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 3.
The pertinent part of Paragraph 94 of Ball is replicated below.
Controller 484 may also include one or more
predetermined controller gain schedules to facilitate
adjustments to fan speed (or valve or manifold position,
for example) in connection with the operation of device
10. For example, the gain schedules may be indexed
according to a difference between desired fan speed and
actual fan speed (e.g., +/-50, +/-100 RPM, etc.).
3
Appeal 2017-001998
Application 13/830,756
See also App. Br. 11. Hence, Ball teaches fan adjustments based on gain
schedules that are indexed according to different speed differences (e.g., -
100, -50, +50, +100 RPM).1 Ball also teaches that each gain schedule may
comprise data structures “such as arrays[,] matrices, tables, etc.” Ball ^ 93.
Hence, as per Ball, a gain schedule can be a table that associates a speed
difference with a gain value, i.e., a fan adjustment value.2
Appellant contends, “Ball does not disclose comparing the differences
to a threshold or that the example differences are thresholds.” App. Br. 11.
The Examiner disagrees stating “Ball teaches (in paragraph 94) that various
speed differences (in this case four, +-50 and +-100) are utilized to delineate
gain schedules used in adjusting a fan speed.”3 Ans. 4. The Examiner
further states, “the controller must perform a comparison of the measured
speed difference to the indexed speed differences.” Ans. 4. We agree with
the Examiner that the identified values, (i.e., -100, -50, +50, +100) are
thresholds and that these thresholds are different, such that, upon a speed
1 Ball’s express teaching of multiple gain schedules that “facilitate
adjustments to fan speed” based on different speed thresholds undercuts
Appellant’s contention that Ball fails to teach “delineating a first gain value
from a second gain value” as recited by claim 1. See Reply Br. 3.
2 Appellant contends, “[a] gain schedule is not a disclosure or suggestion of
a first gain value or a second gain value.” Reply Br. 3. However, to assume
Ball’s “gain schedules” lack a “gain value” is nonsensical and also contrary
to Ball’s teaching of using these “gain schedules” “to facilitate adjustments
to fan speed,” with such “adjustments” being “indexed” to fan speed
differences. Ball ^ 94. Unsupported attorney argument is not persuasive. In
re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
3 The Examiner summarizes, “[i]n other words[,] Ball teaches a controller
484 that determines a speed difference, and based upon said difference and
various levels of indexed differences [i.e., +/-50, +/-100], the controller
selects a gain to apply to the fan motor.” Ans. 4.
4
Appeal 2017-001998
Application 13/830,756
difference attaining a certain threshold, its associated gain value is
identified. Appellant is not persuasive that Ball fails to teach or suggest the
recited comparison.
Appellant also contends that the Examiner has not provided sufficient
reasoning to support a conclusion of obviousness because the cited
combination “would render the fuel pump of Yamaguchi unsatisfactory for
its intended purpose.” Reply Br. 4; see also App. Br. 12. Appellant
contends that Yamaguchi’s use of an “interpolation calculation” (see
Yamaguchi 45) has a particular purpose and that the Examiner’s
modification (which does not employ such a calculation) is improper
because a “proposed modification cannot render the prior art unsatisfactory
for its intended purpose.” App. Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 4-5. Thus,
according to Appellant, one skilled in the art “would have consciously
avoided modifying the compressor as described by Yamaguchi with the gain
schedules described by Ball.” App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 5.
However, the purpose of Yamaguchi is to control a fuel pump.
Yamaguchi 2, Title. As acknowledged above by Appellant, Yamaguchi
employs an “interpolation calculation” to render such control. App. Br. 12;
Reply Br. 4-5; Yamaguchi 45. The Examiner, however, addresses Ball’s
method of control and reasons that it would have been obvious to utilize
Ball’s method “in order to reduce the need for complicated interpolation
calculations and to provide a simpler look-up map.” Final Act. 3. Appellant
is not persuasive that Yamaguchi’s purpose of controlling a fuel pump is
hampered by employing Ball’s method rather than relying on the stated
“interpolation calculation.” Accordingly, and based on the record presented,
5
Appeal 2017-001998
Application 13/830,756
we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—4 and 9 as
being obvious over Yamaguchi and Ball.
Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 1. Appellant contends that Ball does not
“disclose or suggest one or more thresholds, much less choosing thresholds.”
As indicated above, Ball explicitly discloses four thresholds regarding Ball’s
“gain schedules.” Ball ^ 94; see also Ans. 6 (“Ball further teaches that the
thresholds can be both positive and negative values”). Accordingly,
Appellant’s contention that Ball does not disclose “one or more thresholds,”
or choosing between them, is not persuasive.
Appellant also presents an argument assuming the Examiner to have
taken “official notice.” App. Br. 14. Appellant’s presumption is not
persuasive. Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s arguments and, as such, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 5 as being obvious over Yamaguchi and Ball.
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and further recites “a third gain value.”
Appellant contends the Examiner “has failed to address” the limitations of
claim 6. App. Br. 15-16. The Examiner, however, in addressing claim 6,
states that it would have been obvious “to provide a desired number of
thresholds in order to more precisely and quickly control the pump over a
wider range of deviations.” Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 7 (“Ball teaches (in
paragraph 94) that various speed differences (in this case four +-50 and +-
100) are utilized to delineate gain schedules”). Appellant does not explain
how Ball’s disclosure of four thresholds (each having an associated gain
values) fails to disclose or suggest this limitation addressing only three gain
6
Appeal 2017-001998
Application 13/830,756
values. The Examiner further states, “the controller must perform a
comparison” and that Ball’s “indexed speed differences read on the
limitations of gain delineating thresholds.” Ans. 8. Accordingly, in addition
to the reasons addressed above with respect to parent claim 1, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6-8 as being obvious over
Yamaguchi and Ball.
Claim 10
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 “is
erroneous because the Examiner has erroneously resolved at least the first
two Graham factual inquiries,” and also because it is presumed that the
Examiner took “official notice.” App. Br. 18. Regarding the former
assertion, Appellant provides no explanation as to how the Examiner might
have failed the Graham inquiries, only that such occurred. The Examiner
stated, “[gjiven a pump motor supplied with some form of constant drive
power, a reduction of a load on the motor will result in a reduction of
resistance in the motor.” Ans. 8. Hence, as per the Examiner, “[ljess
resistance on a motor provided with an otherwise constant input will
necessarily result in an increased speed of the motor.” Ans. 8: see also Final
Act. 4. Appellant does not explain how this rationale is incorrect, only that
it is. App. Br. 18. As above, unsupported attorney argument is not
persuasive. Also, Appellant’s latter argument assuming the Examiner to
have taken “official notice” is not persuasive. We sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 10 as being obvious over Yamaguchi and Ball.
Claim 12
Appellant relies on arguments previously presented with respect to
claim 1 above. App. Br. 21 (“[sjimilar to the reasons set forth in group 1,
7
Appeal 2017-001998
Application 13/830,756
the Examiner has erred”); see also id. at 22-24. Appellant’s repeat of such
arguments is not persuasive. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
12-14 as being obvious. See also Ans. 9-11.
Claim 15
Appellant relies on arguments previously presented. See App. Br. 24-
26. Such arguments are not persuasive for the reasons previously provided.
See also Ans. 11-12. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-10 and 12-15 are 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8