Ex Parte Shu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2013

11507748 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JIAHONG SHU, TZE MING PANG,
LARRY ROBERT HEDDING,
KIANKEONG OOI, JUNECHRISTIAN ANG,
KWEE TECK SAY, and DANNY JOE KASTLER
____________________

Appeal 2010-001073
Application 11/507,748
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-5, 11, 13 and 19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2010-001073
Application 11/507,748

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a motor driver system for
a phased motor that rapidly decelerates (brakes) the motor by exciting, in
sequence, a complementary excitation signal (Abstract).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. Motor control circuitry configured to generate a
complementary excitation signal to each base excitation signal
in a sequence of commutation states.

REFERENCE and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 11, 13 and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Carobolante (US Patent No. 5,517,095,
May 14, 1996).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Carobolante teaches all the limitations of
Appellants’ claim 1. That is, the claimed complementary excitation signal
corresponds to “signal 67 or signal 68 applied via logic gates 63 to each base
excitation signal in sequence of commutation states” (Ans. 7).
Appellants contend Carobolante “fails to disclose how any of these
signals are generated” and neither does it teach how any of the signals
applied to line 68 are complementary signals as claimed (App. Br. 5).
As the Examiner finds, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
independent claims only calls for the generation of complementary
excitation signals “applied to a motor winding commutated in a sequence”
(Ans. 6). The Examiner provides a definition of “complementary” (Ans. 6-
Appeal 2010-001073
Application 11/507,748

3
7). We agree with the Examiner that Carobolante’s Figures 1 and 4 show all
the components of the claimed invention. That is, the brake signal 67 is
applied to logic gate circuits 63 that have outputs to the upper and lower
output lines 52 and 53, and signal 68 is also applied to the logic gate circuits
63 in the signal interface 12 controlled by the sequencer circuit 13 (Ans. 7).
Further, as the Examiner finds, Appellants’ arguments that Carobolante does
not disclose how any of the signals are generated are not commensurate with
the scope of the claims because Appellants’ claims also do not disclose how
the complementary excitation signals are generated (Ans. 8).1
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. Because
we find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s ultimate legal
conclusion of obviousness. As independent claims 1, 3, and 13 were argued
together and found anticipated by Carobolante, the remaining claims 2, 4, 5,
11 and 19, which were not argued separately (App. Br. 5), fall with claims 1,
3, and 13.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-5, 11, 13 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. 102(b).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 11, 13 and 19 is
affirmed.

1 It should be noted at least Appellants’ claim 1 is directed to signals with no
corresponding physical structure recited.
Appeal 2010-001073
Application 11/507,748

4
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

Vsh/peb