Ex Parte Paatero

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 10, 2009

10808007 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 10, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ESA PAATERO
____________________

Appeal 2009-002565
Application 10/808,0071
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Decided:2 July 10, 2009
____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MARC S. HOFF, and THOMAS S.
HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-48. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 The real party in interest is Eaton Electrical, Inc.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-002565
Application 10/808,007

Appellant’s invention relates to a power conversion apparatus such as
an uninterruptible power supply (UPS). The apparatus includes a DC link
including first and second DC busses and a reference bus, and a precharge
coupled to the DC link and operative to charge a first capacitance between
the first DC bus and the reference bus and to transfer charge from the
charged first capacitance to a second capacitance between the second DC
bus and the reference bus (Spec. 2).
Claims 1 and 19 are exemplary:
1. A power conversion apparatus comprising:
a DC link comprising first and second DC busses and a reference bus;
a DC generator circuit coupled to the DC link and operative to
generate first and second DC voltages with respect to the reference bus on
respective ones of the first and second DC busses; and
a precharge circuit coupled to the DC link and operative to charge a
first capacitance between the first DC bus and the reference bus and to
transfer charge from the charged first capacitance to a second capacitance
between the second DC bus and the reference bus.

19. A power conversion apparatus comprising:
a DC bus;
a buck converter circuit coupled to the DC bus and operative to charge
a capacitance coupled to the DC bus; and
a boost converter circuit coupled to the DC bus and operative to
commence generating a DC voltage on the DC bus from an AC source
and/or a DC source after the buck converter circuit precharges the DC bus.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Johnson, Jr. US 6,483,730 B2 Nov. 19, 2002
Johnson, Jr. US 6,819,576 Nov. 16, 2004

2
Appeal 2009-002565
Application 10/808,007

Claims 1-48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Johnson ‘576 in view of Johnson ‘730.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“Br.,” filed March 7, 2008) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
June 10, 2008) for their respective details.

ISSUES
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s asserted combination fails to
teach a precharge circuit operative to charge a first capacitance between the
first DC bus and the reference bus and to transfer charge from the charged
first capacitance to a second capacitance between the second DC bus and the
reference bus (Br. 5-6). With respect to claim 19, Appellant further argues
that Johnson ‘576 in view of Johnson ‘730 fails to teach a buck converter
and boost converter coupled to the DC bus as particularly claimed (Br. 6).
The Examiner finds that battery converter circuit 330 of Johnson ‘576
corresponds to the claimed precharge circuit (Ans. 5).
The contentions of Appellant and the Examiners, thus, present us with
the following issues:
1. Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Johnson ‘576 in combination with Johnson ‘730 teaches a precharge circuit
coupled to a DC link and operative to charge a first capacitance between a
first DC bus and a reference bus and to transfer charge from the charged first
capacitance to a second capacitance between a second DC bus and the
reference bus?
2. Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Johnson ‘576 in combination with Johnson ‘730 teaches a buck converter
3
Appeal 2009-002565
Application 10/808,007

circuit coupled to the DC bus, and a boost converter circuit coupled to the
DC bus operative to commence generating a DC voltage after the buck
converter circuit precharges the DC bus, as recited in claim 19?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. According to Appellant, the invention concerns a power
conversion apparatus such as an uninterruptible power supply (UPS). The
apparatus includes a precharge circuit operative to charge a first capacitance
between the first DC bus and the reference bus and to transfer charge from
the charged first capacitance to a second capacitance between the second DC
bus and the reference bus (Spec. 2).

Johnson ‘576
2. Johnson ‘576 teaches a power converter such as an
uninterruptible power supply, including a multifunction rectifier operative to
control relative magnitudes of the DC voltages generated by the auxiliary
DC voltage generator (Abstract).
Johnson ‘730
3. Johnson ‘730 teaches a power converter having “boost” phases,
in which the desired AC output voltage Vout exceeds the DC input voltage
VDC, and “buck” phases, in which the desired AC output voltage Vout falls
below the DC input voltage VDC (col. 10, ll. 11-13 and 47-50).

4
Appeal 2009-002565
Application 10/808,007

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated that “the
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Further, the Court stated “[t]he combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416. “One of the ways
in which a patent’s subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that
there existed at the time of the invention a known problem for which there
was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.” Id. at 419-
420.
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1-18 AND 20-48
Independent claims 1, 20, 25, and 40 each recite either (a) a precharge
circuit operative to transfer charge from a charged first capacitance to a
second capacitance, or (b) transferring charge from a charged first
capacitance to a second capacitance.
The Examiner finds that battery converter circuit 330 of Johnson ‘576
meets the recited precharge circuit (Ans. 6-7). We have reviewed Johnson
‘576 and we find no teaching that circuit 330 is operative to transfer charge
from a charged first capacitance to a second capacitance.
The Examiner further finds that Johnson 730 “teaches the utilization
of the similar technique for a transferring charge from first capacitor to
second capacitor” (Ans. 4). We do not find support for this position in the
section cited by the Examiner (col. 4, ll. 15-21). We have reviewed Johnson
5
Appeal 2009-002565
Application 10/808,007

‘730 in full and we find no teaching of a precharge circuit operative to
transfer charge from a charged first capacitance to a second capacitance.
The Examiner’s asserted combination of Johnson ‘576 and Johnson
‘730 therefore fails to set forth a prima case of obviousness. Accordingly,
because Appellant has shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 20, 25, and 40, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 1-18 and 20-48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CLAIM 19
The Examiner finds that “[a]ccording to claim 19, a pre-charge circuit
is a buck converter coupled to DC bus” and that Johnson ‘576 shows
converter 330 coupled to the DC bus (Ans. 7, citing Johnson ‘576 Fig. 3).
The Examiner cites Johnson ’730, without further explanation, for “buck
converter and boost converter topology” (Ans. 4).
We are not persuaded by the Examiner’s position. While the section
of Johnson ‘730 cited by the Examiner (cols. 9-12) describes converter 600’s
ability to operate in “buck” and “boost” phases (FF 3), the Examiner fails to
explain with any particularity where one may find (and we are unable to
find) any specific teaching of a “buck converter circuit coupled to the DC
bus operative to charge a capacitance coupled to the DC bus” and “a boost
converter circuit coupled to the DC bus operative to commence generating a
DC voltage on the DC bus from an AC source and/or a DC source after the
buck converter circuit precharges the DC bus,” both of which are required
by claim 19. Appellant has, thus, demonstrated that the combination of
Johnson ‘576 and Johnson ‘730 fails to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness.
6
Appeal 2009-002565
Application 10/808,007

Accordingly, Appellant has shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 19, and we will not sustain the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Johnson ‘576 in combination with Johnson ‘730 teaches a precharge circuit
coupled to a DC link and operative to charge a first capacitance between a
first DC bus and a reference bus and to transfer charge from the charged first
capacitance to a second capacitance between a second DC bus and the
reference bus.
2. Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Johnson ‘576 in combination with Johnson ‘730 teaches a buck converter
circuit coupled to the DC bus, and a boost converter circuit coupled to the
DC bus operative to commence generating a DC voltage after the buck
converter circuit precharges the DC bus, as recited in claim 19.
7
Appeal 2009-002565
Application 10/808,007

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
REVERSED

ELD

MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC
PO BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
8