10575771 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2013)

Ex Parte Schetters

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 25, 2013

10575771 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte CORNELIS JOHANNES ADRIANUS SCHETTERS ____________________ Appeal 2011-000272 Application 10/575,771 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-000272 Application 10/575,771 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a second rejection of claims 1, 2, and 7-11. Claims 6 and 12-15 are allowed. Claims 3-5 have been objected to as allowable if rewritten to include all of the features of the base claim from which these claims depend, and any intervening claim(s). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellant’s Invention Appellant’s disclosed invention pertains to rectifier circuits and filtering for use with a Switched-Mode Power Supply Integrated Circuit (SMPS IC), i.e., a power converter (Spec. 1:1-25; App. Br. 4). Exemplary Claim Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with emphases added, reads as follows: 1. A power converter, comprising: an input circuit having a rectifier configured for receiving a full-wave AC signal along a first conductive path and a second conductive path, the rectifier including a single diode rectifier and a filter that includes a non-electrolytic capacitor connected in series with the rectifier and across the first and second conductive paths, that includes a conductive impedance element connected in series with the non- electrolytic capacitor and arranged to extend the second conductive path to common, the filter providing a DC voltage output; and a switched mode power supply IC arranged to receive the DC voltage output from the filter. Appeal 2011-000272 Application 10/575,771 3 Examiner’s Rejections (1) The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 2 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Balakrishnan’168 (US 6,813,168 B2) and Saleh (US 4,353,114).1 Ans. 3-5. (2) The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Balakrishnan’168, Saleh, and Balakrishnan’514 (US 6,525,514 B1). Ans. 5-6. (3) The Examiner rejected claims 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Balakrishnan ’168, Saleh, and Philips (Data Sheet: TEA152x family STARplugTM, Philips Semiconductors, pp. 1-21 (September 8, 2000)). Ans. 6-7. Principal Issue on Appeal Based on Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 2-8; Reply Br. 2-12), the following principal issue is presented: Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 2, and 7-11 as being obvious because the base combination of Balakrishnan’168 and Saleh is not 1 Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 2 and 7-11, and Appellant argues these claims as a group (see App. Br. 4-8). We select sole independent claim 1 as representative of the group of claims rejected under § 103(a) (claims 1 and 2), pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2012). See In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“If the brief fails to meet either requirement [of 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(7)], the Board is free to select a single claim from each group of claims subject to a common ground of rejection as representative of all claims in that group and to decide the appeal of that rejection based solely on the selected representative claim.”). We will decide the appeal of dependent claims 7-11 on the same basis as provided with respect to claim 1 from which these claims ultimately depend. Accordingly, our analysis herein will only address representative claim 1. Appeal 2011-000272 Application 10/575,771 4 properly combinable to teach or suggest the power converter, filter, and SMPS IC limitations at issue in representative and sole independent claim 1? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 2-8) and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2- 12) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 3-7), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (see Ans. 7-20). We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. The Examiner has provided a factual basis and articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness with regard to claim 1 (see Ans. 4-5 and 7-17). See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to modify Balakrishnan’168’s power converter with Saleh’s IC converter with a pi-filter to carry out incremental signal (control) functions required by the IC and to provide substantial cost reductions (Ans. 4), as well as generally providing improved filtering (Ans. 7). See also Ans. 10-11 and 17 explaining the benefits of using pi-filters. We also agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to use a non-electrolytic capacitor in the filter to assure a relatively steady voltage at the converter and to prevent voltage ripples at the converter being reflected back to the source (Ans. 4-5 and 16). Accordingly, we disagree with Appellant’s assertions (App. Br. 4-7) that there is no motivation to combine Balakrishnan’168 and Saleh. Appeal 2011-000272 Application 10/575,771 5 In view of the foregoing, Appellant has not sufficiently shown that the Examiner erred in finding that (i) it would have been obvious to modify Balakrishnan’168 with Saleh, or (ii) Balakrishnan’168 as modified teaches or suggests the power converter having a rectifier, filter with non-electrolytic capacitor, and SMPS IC, as recited in claims 1 and 2. The invention recited in representative claim 1 has not been shown to be patentably distinguishable from the teachings and suggestions of Balakrishnan’168 and Saleh. For the above reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of representative claim 1 based upon the teachings and suggestions of Balakrishnan’168 and Saleh. We also sustain the rejections of claims 2 and 7-11 for the reasons stated in connection with claim 1. CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner has not erred in determining that the combination of Balakrishan’168 and Saleh teaches or suggests the invention set forth in claims 1 and 2. (2) The Examiner did not err in rejecting (a) claim 7 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Balakrishnan’168, Saleh, and Balakrishnan’514; and/or (b) claims 8-11 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Balakrishnan’168, Saleh, and Philips for the reasons discussed in connection with claim 1. Appeal 2011-000272 Application 10/575,771 6 DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, and 7-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are 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 llw