Ex Parte SCHULZE-ICKING-KONERT

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 24, 2018

14890648 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/890,648 11/12/2015
24972 7590 07/26/2018
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Georg SCHULZE-ICKING-KONERT
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.
BOSC.P9448US/1000199711 1068
EXAMINER
DICKINSON, DUSTIN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2867
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/26/2018 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEORG SCHULZE-ICKING-KONERT
Appeal2018-005505
Application 14/890,648
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
JANEE. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-005505
Application 14/890,648
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner's Non-Final
Rejection of claims 10-18, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
6(b ). A petition to make this application special was granted on April 25,
2016.
We REVERSE.
Appellant's invention is directed to a device, method and non-
transitory computer readable media that determines the degradation of a
current source in an activation of an electrical consumer (e.g., a 3-phase
motor). (Spec. 1: 1--4; 6:10-11).
Claim 10 is illustrative:
10. A device for activating an electrical consumer,
compnsmg:
a controllable current source to provide a control current;
a switching unit to control a consumer current as a
function of the control current;
a sampling unit to determine a time delay between an
activation of the current source and
the enabling or interruption of a current flow by the
switching unit; and
a processing unit to determine that the current source is
defective if the time delay is outside a predetermined range.
2
Appeal2018-005505
Application 14/890,648
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as
unpatentable over Muller et al. (US 2008/0019063 Al; Jan. 24, 2008)
("Muller").
2. Claims 11-13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Muller in view of Li et al. (US 2013/0107584 Al;
May 2, 2013) ("Li").
3. Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Muller in view of Sato (US 2011/0215751 Al; Sept. 8, 2011).
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that Muller does not disclose a sampling unit that
determines a time delay between an activation of the current source and the
enabling or interruption of a current flow by the switching unit as recited in
claim 10 (App. Br. 4). Appellant contends that Muller's "AND" unit Al
does not determine a time delay between OP and the enabling or interruption
of a current flow (App. Br. 4). Appellant contends that Muller's Figure 3
does not show that a time delay is determined, but rather Figure 3 merely
shows a sequence of events (App. Br. 4). Appellant argues that Muller does
not determine a time delay, but rather inputs a fixed time delay (i.e., 50 ms)
(App. Br. 8).
The Examiner finds that Muller's disclosure in paragraphs 31 and 33
to 3 5 teaches that "if A 1 does not output high there was a determination that
the [time] delay is below TRI" (Ans. 2). The Examiner finds that "if Al
outputs high there was a determination that the [time] delay [was] not below
3
Appeal2018-005505
Application 14/890,648
TRI" (Ans. 3). The Examiner finds that "this is a determination of a time
delay between activation of the current source and the interruption of current
flow which is sufficient to satisfy the claimed invention" (Ans. 3).
We begin by construing the disputed claim 10 limitation. Claim 10
recites, "a sampling unit to determine a time delay between an activation of
the current source and the enabling or interruption of a current flow by the
switching unit" (App. Br. 10, emphasis added). By the plain language of the
claim, the sampling unit is required to determine the time delay. In other
words, the sampling unit is required to have a structure that positively
determines the time delay. Our construction is supported by Appellant's
Specification that describes that the sampling unit has a counter 155 that
counts the pulses of a clock signal provided by clock generator 160 (Spec.
7:14--28). The counter 155 is connected to the current source 140 and
monitoring unit 150 so that counting begins when the current source 140 is
activated and ends when monitoring unit 150 provides a signal which
indicates that the current flow is enabled or interrupted by switching unit
115 (Spec. 7:29--33). The counter content of counter 155 indicates the time
delay between the activation of the current source 140 and the enabling or
interruption of the current flow by switching unit 115 (Spec. 8: 1--4).
The Examiner finds that Muller's "AND element" Al corresponds to
the claimed sampling unit (Non-Final Act. 3). The Examiner erroneously
finds that Muller teaches that A 1 determines a time delay between an
activation of the current source. Paragraphs 31 and 33 to 35 do not teach
that that a time delay is "determined" by Al. Rather, Muller teaches that the
time delay is "governed by the sum of the circuit breaker natural response
time and the time which is required for quenching of the switching arc which
4
Appeal2018-005505
Application 14/890,648
is formed on opening of the switch, and, at for example, 50 ms, exceeds the
sum of these two times somewhat, for safety reasons" (i-f 31 ). As we
understand Muller's disclosure, a time delay is estimated based upon the
natural response time and quenching time of the circuit breaker and that
estimate is used as the time delay for the OP signal. Muller describes the
function of the "AND element" as comparing the fault signal I> with the
disconnection command OP emitted from the protective device PU (i-f 31 ).
The Examiner does not direct us to where Muller teaches a structure ( e.g., a
counter) in the sampling device that determines or detects (claims 15 and 18)
a time delay between an activation of the current source and the enabling or
interruption of a current flow by the switching unit. The Examiner has not
shown that Muller discloses the claimed invention as properly construed
within the meaning of 35 USC§ 102.
In the 35 USC§ 103 rejection over Muller in view of Sato, the
Examiner finds that Muller does not explicitly teach a digital counter as
required by claim 14 (Non-Final Act. 6). The Examiner relies on Sato to
teach using a digital counter and concludes that its use would have been
obvious to determine the delay in Muller more accurately (Non-Final Act.
6). We find, however, that the Examiner has not established that Muller
determines a time delay as we construe claim 10. Likewise, the Examiner
does not find that Sato uses the disclosed digital counter to determine a time
delay as recited in claim 10. Therefore, absent Appellant's disclosure, there
would have been no reason to use Sato' s counter in Muller for determining
the claimed time delay more accurately, as proposed by the Examiner.
On this record, we reverse the Examiner's§ 102 and §103 rejections
of record.
5
Appeal2018-005505
Application 14/890,648
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
6