Ex parte Raddi et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 18, 1999

08038469 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 18, 1999)

Application for patent filed March 29, 1993.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 26
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte WILLIAM J. RADDI,
JOSEPH C. PAULAKONIS, and
ROBERT W. JOHNSON JR.
__________
Appeal No. 1996-3275
Application 08/038,4691
__________
HEARD: Oct. 5, 1999
__________
Before KRASS, RUGGIERO, and LALL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 5 and 7 through 13, all of the claims pending
Appeal No. 1996-3275
Application No. 08/038,469
2
in the application.
The invention is directed to uninterrupted power systems
(UPS) and, more particularly, to a power factor corrected UPS
that has an improved connection of the battery to the neutral
line.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as
follows:
1. An uninterrupted power supply (UPS), having first and
second input terminals for connection to a power line source,
one of said terminals being connected to power line neutral,
first and second output terminals, one of said output
terminals being connected to said neutral through an
uninterrupted conductor, and a battery, comprising
a power factor correction (PFC) circuit having an AC to
DC converter circuit, an input connected across said input
terminals, and having a positive output terminal
providing a positive DC high voltage with respect to said
neutral and a negative output terminal providing a negative
high DC voltage with respect to neutral,
a high positive voltage rail connected to said positive
output terminal and a negative high voltage rail connected
to said negative output terminal,
an output circuit having an input connected across said
positive and negative rails, and providing an output to said
output terminals, and
battery connection circuit means for connecting said
battery to said PFC converter circuit so that when the
power line voltage fails and said UPS is in battery mode
operation, battery voltage is converted through said PFC
converter circuit to supply said positive and negative high
voltage rails.
Appeal No. 1996-3275
Application No. 08/038,469
We note that the examiner’s answer does not set forth a2
formal statement of the grounds for rejection but based on the
final rejection and the rationale in the answer, as well as
appellants’ understanding of the rejection as set forth in the
brief, it is clear that the claims are being rejected under 35
U.S.C. 103 based on the admitted prior art in view of Tamoto.
3
The examiner relies on the admitted prior art [APA]
depicted in Figure 2, as well as on the following reference:
Tamoto 4,823,247 Apr. 18, 1989
Claims 1 through 5 and 7 through 13 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over APA in view of Tamoto.2
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
As appellants explain in their specification, it was
known to use a battery connection circuit for connecting
battery power to the input of the DC to AC inverter in a UPS
system. However, these conventional systems did not involve a
power factor correction device which further complicates the
problem of maintaining integrity of the neutral. The
specification points out, at page 2, that the “task of
Appeal No. 1996-3275
Application No. 08/038,469
4
connecting the battery to neutral is simple in a power supply
unit without a PFC circuit” and identifies the Tamoto
reference for such a teaching.
Further, the specification indicates that the prior art
was able to provide for an undisturbed neutral in systems
containing a PFC device but that those systems required three
converters. The instant invention provides for an improvement
wherein separate converters for the battery are eliminated
while preserving the advantages of power factor corrected UPS
devices maintaining the integrity of the neutral connection
from input to load.
The examiner rejects the instant claims over APA, which
shows a conventional UPS system containing a PFC circuit but
which contains a battery converter because the battery cannot
be connected directly to the PFC circuit, in view of Tamoto,
even though Tamoto has no PFC circuit. As appellants
explained in the specification, Tamoto merely shows a typical
system without a PFC circuit and that the “task of connecting
the battery to neutral is simple in a power supply unit
without a PFC circuit,” as in Tamoto. Now, without any
motivation for doing so, other than appellants’ disclosure,
Appeal No. 1996-3275
Application No. 08/038,469
5
the examiner wants to combine Tamoto with APA, concluding that
it would have been obvious to provide for a direct connection
of the battery to the PFC circuit in APA in view of Tamoto’s
battery connection since this “would allow for the correction
of the battery power and provide a more stable output, as both
the acknowledged prior art and Tamoto are from the same field
of endeavor, i.e. (UPS) systems with PFCs” [answer-page 4].
Thus, the examiner takes the position that Tamoto does,
indeed, disclose a UPS system with a PFC circuit. The
examiner appears to be factually in error on this point.
There is nothing in the disclosure of Tamoto regarding a PFC
circuit. Tamoto employs a chopper and booster circuit which
chops and boosts a rectified DC voltage across capacitors 19
and 20 to provide a greater DC voltage across capacitors 29
and 30. We agree with appellants that at “no point is there
is any power factor correction” [brief-page 5] in Tamoto.
The examiner is apparently equating the “power factor
correction circuit” of APA, including elements L1, L2, Q1 and
Q2, to elements 23-26 of Tamoto and assuming that since Tamoto
shows similar inductors and transistors, this must be a PFC
Appeal No. 1996-3275
Application No. 08/038,469
6
circuit. We disagree and refer to appellants’ brief, at pages
7-8 for an explanation, with which we agree, as to why the
circuitry of Tamoto does not function as a PFC circuit.
The examiner’s response to appellants’ argument is that
appellants argue limitations which are not in the claim. We
disagree. The instant claims very clearly call for a battery
connection circuit for connecting the battery to the PFC
converter circuit “so that...battery voltage is converted
through said PFC converter circuit...” [independent claims 1
and 9, independent claim 13 providing for similar, but
slightly different language reciting the connection of the
battery connecting circuit to the PFC circuit]. Thus, in
order for Tamoto to have provided the impetus for the artisan
to have modified APA to provide for connection of the battery
directly to the PFC circuit, Tamoto would have needed to
suggest at least a PFC circuit which, notwithstanding the
examiner’s claims to the contrary, it does not.
Accordingly, we find the examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness of the claimed subject matter in view of APA and
Tamoto to be unreasonable and we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 1 through 5 and 7 through 13 under 35
Appeal No. 1996-3275
Application No. 08/038,469
7
U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal No. 1996-3275
Application No. 08/038,469
8
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
Errol A. Krass )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Joseph F. Ruggiero ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Parshotam S. Lall )
Administrative Patent Judge )
tdc
Appeal No. 1996-3275
Application No. 08/038,469
9
Mitchell S. Bigel
MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A.
Post Office Box 37428
Raleigh, NC 27627