Ex Parte Oettinger et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 24, 2019

11967776 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/967,776 12/31/2007
23494 7590 05/29/2019
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
PO BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Eric Gregory Oettinger
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.
TI-62882 7621
EXAMINER
PARK,HYUND
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2019 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC GREGORY GETTINGER and MARK DAVID HAGEN
Appeal2018-004991
Application 11/967,776
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-004991
Application 11/967,776
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the final rejection of
claims 1-13, 20-24, 26-29, 40, and 41 2. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellants' invention is directed to methods, apparatus, and non-
transitory computer readable medium to implement and/or control digital
power supplies. (Spec. ,r 2; See e.g., claims 1, 7, 9, 12, 20, 27, and 40).
Claim 1 is illustrative of the issues on appeal:
1. In a digital power supply comprising a power stage, a
controller having a digital signal processor and a memory, and a
desired reference in a closed loop configuration, a method of
measuring a transfer function comprising:
injecting a signal at a first point in a control loop utilizing
a digital signal processor, for the diagnostic purpose of
measuring a transfer function;
the digital signal processor being internal to the digital
power supply and being programmed to add a plurality of
sinusoidal injection signals one at a time each at a different
single fixed non-zero predetermined frequency to a first signal
to generate a combined signal in the digital signal processor;
using the combined signal to generate a control signal for
the power stage;
generating a sampled signal by sampling the control
signal at the predetermined frequency of the injection signal at a
second point around the control loop in the internal digital
signal processor to determine a response to the injection signal;
comparing the sampled signal to the injection signal
utilizing one of the digital signal processor or another
1 The Appeal Brief on page 1 indicates that "Texas Instruments
Incorporated" is the assignee of record.
2 This application was the subject of Appeal 2013-007585 in which the
Board affirm the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections that included the
combination of Zhang and Poussart.
2
Appeal2018-004991
Application 11/967,776
programmed processor to compute an actual transfer function of
the digital power supply; and
displaying the transfer function on a user interface.
App. Br. 46 (Claims Appendix).
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 1---6, 8-10, 21-24, 27-29, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Zhang (US 2005/0270813 Al published
Dec. 8, 2005) in view of Thoen (US 5,124,626 issued June 23, 1992),
Nise (Nise, Norman S., Control Systems Engineering, 3rd Ed. pp.13-
14, 50, 267-270, 911-923 © 2000 ), and Poussart (US 4,067,060
issued Jan. 3, 1978).
2. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Zhang in view of Thoen, Nise, Poussart and Hill (US 5,406,495 issued
April 11, 1995).
3. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Zhang in view of Thoen, Nise, Poussart, and Vinciarelli (US
6,975,098 B2 issued Dec. 13, 2005).
4. Claims 12, 13, 20, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Zhang in view of Thoen, Nise, Poussart, and Majid
(US 6,154,375 issued Nov. 28, 2000).
5. Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Zhang in view of Thoen and Poussart. (Final Act. 3-5).
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
Rejection (1)
3
Appeal2018-004991
Application 11/967,776
The Examiner's findings and conclusions regarding Zhang, Thoen,
Nise and Poussart are located on pages 5 to 25 of the Final Action. The
Examiner finds, in relevant part, that Vin and Vref in Zhang correspond to
the claimed injected signals (Final Act. 5---6). The Examiner finds that
Zhang teaches using an AC input voltage that would provide a plurality of
sinusoidal injection signals that result in Vin (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds
that the lower half of Zhang's Figure 10 corresponds to the digital signal
processor (DSP) in claim 1 (Final Act. 6). The Examiner relies on Thoen to
teach injecting sinusoidal signals at a plurality of different frequencies (Final
Act. 7). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to use
Thoen's teachings in Zhang and inject the sinusoidal signals at a different
single fixed non-zero predetermined frequency, so as to eliminate amplitude
and phase difference between the injected signals and a measurement of the
response of a control loop (Final Act. 7).
Appellants argue that putting a computer into Zhang results in a DC to
DC converter with a digital computer operating the converter but does not
result in determining a transfer function (App. Br. 19). Appellants rely on
arguments made with respect to claim 40 regarding Zhang, Thoen and
Poussart (App. Br. 19). Appellants argue that Zhang's paragraph 10 relied
upon by the Examiner teaches that the device is an AC-DC converter such
that the output voltage from the AC-DC converter is a DC voltage (App. Br.
14). Appellants argue that the reference voltage (Vref) must also be a DC
voltage for comparison to the output DC voltage (App. Br. 14). Appellants
argue that DC voltage has a zero frequency (App. Br. 15). Appellants
contend that Zhang' s AC power signal does not meet the claim requirement
of a plurality of sinusoidal signals one at a time each different single fixed
4
Appeal2018-004991
Application 11/967,776
non-zero predetermined frequency for the purpose of measuring a transfer
function (Reply Br. 2).
The Examiner does not dispute that DC current has a zero frequency
(Ans. Generally). In the portion of Zhang relied upon by the Examiner,
Zhang teaches that an AC-DC converter is used and that AC input voltage
and diode bridge (DI, D2, D3, D4) replaces the DC input voltage (Zhang
,r,r 110, 117). In Zhang's Figure 10, the AC input voltage (Vac) is shown as
going through the diode bridge and exiting the bridge as Vin. The diode
bridge converts the AC input into a DC voltage. In other words, Vin is a DC
voltage. The Examiner does not provide any response to Appellants'
argument that Vref must be a DC voltage for comparison to the voltage in
the Adder 1 (i.e., Vin(n)) (Zhang Fig. 10; App. Br. 14). As such the Vin(n)
voltage would have a zero frequency. The Examiner has not shown that
Zhang teaches injecting signals having a predetermined, non-zero frequency.
Although the Examiner relies on Thoen to teach injecting sinusoidal signals
at a plurality of different frequencies, the Examiner does not explain how
such a modification would have been made. For example, if the Examiner's
rejection is based upon injecting the signals a different frequencies as
Zhang's Vac in Figure 10, then the injected signals (e.g., Vin) in the portion
of Zhang's Figure 10 that the Examiner finds to correspond to the DSP
would be converted to DC voltage via the diode bridge. It would appear that
the converted signals in the combination of Zhang and Thoen that originate
in Zhang's DSP (i.e., the lower half of Zhang's Figure 10) would have
resulted in a signal with a zero frequency that is compared. The Examiner
has not established the combined teachings of Zhang and Thoen would have
suggested the subject matter of Appellants' claims.
5
Appeal2018-004991
Application 11/967,776
On this record, the preponderance of the evidence favors Appellants'
arguments of non-obviousness. Because all of the rejections are based on
the combination of Zhang and Thoen, we reverse the Examiner's rejections
(1) to (5).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
ORDER
REVERSED
6