Ex Parte Sato et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 18, 2009

10239789 (B.P.A.I. May. 18, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte EIJI SATO and HIROKI OHTANI
_____________

Appeal 2009-2703
Application 10/239,789
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided:1 May 18, 2009
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, KARL D. EASTHOM,
and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 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 2009-2703
Application 10/239,789

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a motor controller’s drive signal
correcting section for correcting the drive signal based on the calculated offset of
the drive signal caused by the motor being driven (Spec. ¶¶ [0010]-[0012]).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A controller for a motor, having a drive signal generator for generating a
drive signal for an inverter, the inverter for turning on or off a switching element in
accordance with the drive signal, comprising:
a current detecting section for detecting a current value of a drive current of
the motor;
an offset amount calculating section for calculating an offset amount in
terms of a real direct current amount of the drive current based on a plurality of
equidistant samples of the current value detected within a full rotation cycle of a
rotor of 0 to 2π radians when the motor is being driven, the drive current including
positive and negative peak values that are asymmetrical about a zero level, and the
samples including non-peak values; and
a drive signal correcting section for correcting the drive signal based on the
calculated real direct current amount.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Katayama US 5,298,841 Mar. 29, 1994

Endo US 6,013,994 Jan. 11, 2000
Appeal 2009-2703
Application 10/239,789

3

Masaki US 6,225,774 B1

May 1, 2001
(effectively filed on
Jun. 10, 1998)
The following rejection is before us for review:
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Katayama.
2. The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Katayama in view of Masaki.
3. The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Katayama in view of Endo.
Appellants argue the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 as a group (App. Br.
5-6). We therefore select independent claim 1 as representative.2 See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37 (c)(1)(vii) (2004).

ISSUE
Appellants contend that Katayama is a simple feedback control of the motor
drive current, and is completely unrelated to detecting an offset component of the
motor drive current (App. Br. 6).3 Appellants further contend that the motor
current average value described in Katayama is the average of the current absolute
value, while the offset amount calculating section according to the present

2 Only arguments made by Appellants have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make in the Brief have
not been considered and are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2004).
3 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed on Oct. 27, 2006.
Appeal 2009-2703
Application 10/239,789

4
invention uses the average value of the actual current to calculate a current offset
amount (App. Br. 6).
The Examiner finds that Katayama’s calculated error can be considered an
offset (col. 12, ll. 58-64 and Ans. 6). The Examiner further finds that the claim
language does not recite the “current average value” as argued by Appellants (Ans.
7).
We note that Appellants additionally argued for the first time in the Reply
Brief that Katayama or any of the other cited references do not teach controlling
direct current components as claimed (Reply Br. 3). Appellants further argued for
the first time in the Reply Brief that the Examiner did not provide evidence to
substantiate the alleged motivation to modify Katayama to include samples having
non-peak values (Reply Br. 3). These arguments were not timely raised in the
Appeal Brief, but rather were raised for the first time in the Reply Brief. As such,
these arguments are waived.4
Thus, the issue before us, then, is as follows:
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred by determining that
Katayama teaches calculating “an offset amount” of the motor drive current as
claimed?

4 See Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appls. S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (“[A]n issue not raised by an appellant in its opening brief … is waived.”)
(citations and quotation marks omitted).
Appeal 2009-2703
Application 10/239,789

5
FINDINGS OF FACT
The relevant facts include the following:
1. Appellants’ Specification defines the “offset amount” as the amount required
to correct the drive signal (Spec. ¶¶ [0010] and [0011]) to reduce motor
torque (Spec. ¶ [0046]).
2. The customary definition of “an error” is “a measure of the estimated
difference between the observed or calculated value of a quantity and its true
value.” Compact Oxford English Dictionary, at
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/error?view=uk (last visited May 7,
2009).
3. Katayama teaches a current control for calculating a drive current error (col.
12, ll. 59-64) of a motor over a full rotation cycle (Fig. 9 and col. 13, ll. 38-
47) to correct irregular motor rotation (col. 14, ll. 27-32) and thereby reduce
torque ripples (last sentence of the Abstract).
4. The Examiner found that the claim language does not recite the “current
average value” as argued by Appellants (Ans. 7).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is
met, then the burden shifts to the Appellants to overcome the prima facie case with
argument and/or evidence. Id. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
The claim terms should be given their broadest reasonable meaning in their
ordinary usage as such claim terms would be understood by one skilled in the art
Appeal 2009-2703
Application 10/239,789

6
by way of definitions and the written description. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from
the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 6
Appellants’ Specification defines the “offset amount” as the amount required
to correct the drive signal to reduce motor torque (Finding of Fact 1). The
customary definition of “an error” is “a measure of the estimated difference
between the observed or calculated value of a quantity and its true value” (Finding
of Fact 2). Thus, Appellants’ definition of an “offset amount” is tantamount to the
customary definition of “an error.” Katayama teaches a current control for
calculating a drive current error of a motor over a full rotation cycle to correct
irregular motor rotation and thereby reduce torque ripples (Finding of Fact 3).
Accordingly, the claim terms “offset amount” were given their broadest reasonable
meaning in their ordinary usage, by the Examiner, as such claim terms would be
understood by one skilled in the art by way of definitions and the written
description. See Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054.
Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Katayama is
completely unrelated to detecting an offset component of the motor drive current.
We agree with the Examiner that Katayama teaches calculating “an offset amount”
of the motor drive current as claimed.
Appeal 2009-2703
Application 10/239,789

7
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the claim language
does not recite the “current average value” as argued by Appellants (Finding of
Fact 4). As stated supra, although claims are interpreted in light of the
specification, a limitation from the specification (i.e., the limitation of a “current
average value”) is not read into the claims. See Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants has not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 1 or claims 2, 4, and 6 which fall
with claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of those claims.

Rejection of claims 3 and 5
Regarding the obviousness rejections of (1) claim 3 over Katayama and
Masaki (Ans. 4-5), and (2) claim 5 over Katayama and Endo (Ans. 5), we find that
Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner's prima facie case of
obviousness for these claims, but merely contended that the additional references
fail to cure the previously-noted deficiencies of Katayama with respect to claim 1
(App. Br. 6-7).
Once the Examiner has satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness, the burden then shifts to Appellants to present evidence and/or
arguments that persuasively rebut the Examiner's prima facie case. See Oetiker,
977 F.2d at 1445. Since Appellants did not particularly point out errors in the
Examiner’s reasoning to persuasively rebut the Examiner's prima facie case of
obviousness, the rejections are therefore sustained.

Appeal 2009-2703
Application 10/239,789

8
CONCLUSION
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
erred by determining that Katayama teaches calculating “an offset amount” of the
motor drive current as claimed as recited in representative claim 1. Nor have
Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2-6 under § 103(a).

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

KIS

KENYON & KENYON, L.L.P.
1500 K Street, N.W. – Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 2005-1257