Ex Parte Maron

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2016

12198127 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/198, 127 08/26/2008
32964 7590 02/25/2016
DEKEL PATENT LTD,, DAVID KLEIN
BEIT HAROFIM
18 MENUHA VENAHALA STREET, ROOM 27
REHOVOT, 76209
ISRAEL
Vladimir Maron
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1781MMG-US 3528
EXAMINER
PAUL, ANTONYM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2016 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 VLADIMIR MARON
Appeal2014-004160
Application 12/198,127
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a
decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1--4 of Application 12/198,127.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a linear motor driver. Br. 2.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Soreq Nuclear Research.
Br. 1.
Appeal2014-004160
Application 12/198,127
Representative claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief as follows:
1. A pumping driver for a linear motor comprising:
a DC/DC converter connected to a battery, an output of said
DC/DC converter being connected to a commutator, wherein
said commutator is connected to a linear motor; and
a temperature controller, wherein temperature feedback from
said linear motor is fed to said temperature controller, and said
temperature controller processes the feedback and a
temperature control signal to output a control signal to a battery
current controller that outputs to said DC/DC converter, such
that said DC/DC converter that performs at least one of
constant power pumping and constant input current pumping of
said battery to said linear motor.
THE REJECTION
Claims 1--4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Gully. 2
DISCUSSION
Appellant presents arguments specifically directed only to claim 1.
Br. 4--5. Therefore, dependent claims 2--4 stand or fall with claim 1.
Appellant argues that Gully does not anticipate claim 1 because it
does not disclose (1) "a DC/DC convertor connected to a battery" or (2) "an
output of said DC/DC converter being connected to a commutator." Id. We
have reviewed each of Appellant's arguments, and determine that a
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's finding that claim 1
is anticipated by Gully. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections
2 Gully et al., issued May 21, 1991 (hereinafter "Gully").
2
Appeal2014-004160
Application 12/198,127
for the reasons explained in the Answer. We add the following primarily for
emphasis.
"[T]he PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification. . . . Therefore, we look to the specification
to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad
interpretation." In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007). Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary
and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Trans logic Tech., Inc.,
504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Examiner correctly applied the
broadest reasonable interpretation of "a DC/DC converter connected to a
battery" in determining that the CHOP of Gully, connected to power supply
V cc, is encompassed by Appellant's claim 1. Ans. 3. Appellant's argument
that Gully's CHOP circuit is not "connected to a battery" because its input
directly connects to terminal A with voltage VA, which then connects to V cc
through resistor RI, is not persuasive; we emphasize that all that claim l
requires is a connection. Br. 4--5. Similarly, Appellant's argument that the
output of CHOP is not connected to a commutator is not persuasive because
claim 1 does not require a direct connection. Id. As the Examiner correctly
finds in Gully, output B of CHOP is connected to the commutator switching
circuitry SW1-SW4, CS1-CS2 via gates GI and G2. Ans. 4.
SUMMARY
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1--4 as
anticipated by Gully under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
3
Appeal2014-004160
Application 12/198,127
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
4