Ex parte Shultz

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 31, 2001

08603680 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 2001)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 28
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte JAMES P. BURGESS, DAVID J. PEARSON and
GILBERT F. SHULTZ
_____________
Appeal No. 1998-2932
Application No. 08/603,680
______________
HEARD: May 17, 2001
_______________
Before THOMAS, KRASS, and LALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-12, all of the
pending claims.
The invention is directed to a power distribution module, preferably entirely
contained within an enclosure having an integral heat sink in thermal communication with
power switches, and especially suitable for vehicular applications.
Appeal No. 1998-2932
Application No. 08/603,680
2
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A power distribution module, comprising:
an input/output port adapted for connection to an external multiplexed
communication path;
transceiver circuitry connected to the input/output port operative to
send and receive messages over the communication path in digital form;
an input for connection to a source of power;
a plurality of power output ports;
a plurality of controllable power switches, each associated with one of
the power output ports, each power switch being operative to route power
from the source of power to an associated power output port in accordance
with a control signal; and
a controller operatively connected to the transceiver circuitry and to
each power switch, the controller being operative to perform the following
functions:
send and receive messages over the communication path through the
transceiver circuitry, and
provide a control signal to a specific power switch in
accordance with a received message, causing power to be routed
from the power source to the output port associated with that switch.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Sagues et al. (Sagues) 4,557,225 Dec. 10, 1985
Cruickshank et al. (Cruickshank) 4,951,250 Aug. 21, 1990
Tomita et al. (Tomita) 5,065,153 Nov. 12, 1991
Shultz et al. (Shultz) 5,433,283 Jul. 18, 1995
(filed Oct. 27, 1993)
Appeal No. 1998-2932
Application No. 08/603,680
3
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness,
the examiner cites Shultz with regard to claim 1, adding Cruickshank with regard to claims
3, 4 and 8-12. With regard to claim 2, the examiner cites Shultz and Tomita. With regard
to claim 5, the examiner cites Sagues, to which Cruickshank and Tomita are added with
regard to claims 6 and 7.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
Turning first to independent claim 1, the examiner holds the subject matter of this
claim to have been obvious over Shultz. More specifically, the examiner identifies, in
Shultz, a power distribution module (Figure 1), an I/O port (40 with connection to 70) for
connection to an external multiplexed communication path, transceiver circuitry (within 40)
connected to the I/O port and operative to send and receive messages over the
communication path in digital form (column 4, lines 38-48), an input (20 and 55) for
connection to a source of power, a plurality of power output ports (GATE DRIVES),
controllable power switches (30-32) and a controller (40) for sending and receiving
messages (column 3, lines 55 through column 4, line 48).
Appeal No. 1998-2932
Application No. 08/603,680
4
The examiner contends that a control signal is provided to a specific power switch
in accordance with a received message, causing power to be routed from the power
source but not to the output port associated with that switch. However, the examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious “to be able to route the power from the source
of power through the actual power output port, if so desired, in order to provide a more
compact design by including the power switches within the main module (40)” [Paper No.
10-page 4].
For their part, appellants contend that Shultz merely discloses a processor which
converts a pulse-width-modulated command input signal along line 69 into gated drives to
transistors 30-32 which control a motor 11. While the examiner characterizes the outputs
of processor 40 of Shultz as “power outputs,” appellants contend that Shultz’s outputs are
merely low-power gate drive lines to transistors 30-32 and it is the transistors themselves
that actually route power from bus 20 directly to the motor. In fact, appellants argue, Shultz
does not contain any power outport ports but only MOSFETs 30-32 which are used to
switch coils in the motor. Appellants further state that the examiner’s conclusion regarding
the obviousness of routing power through the actual output port is erroneous because
Shultz contains no suggestion for doing so since Shultz is not directed to power
distribution, but only to motor control in a throttle plate/carburetor application.
Appeal No. 1998-2932
Application No. 08/603,680
5
While appellants may be correct in that Shultz’s outputs are “merely low-power gate
drive lines” and it is the transistors themselves that actually route power from the source to
the motor, we find nothing in independent claim 1 that would distinguish “low-power gate
drive lines” from the broadly claimed “power output ports.” In fact, one may consider the
outputs of transistors 30-32 of Shultz to be “power output ports,” as claimed. The
microprocessor 40 would then provide a control signal to the transistor switches in
accordance with a received message (i.e., a desired throttle position). The controller, 40,
would also be “operatively connected to the transceiver circuitry and to each power switch
(i.e., to each transistor).
The claim requires that “each” of the controllable switches is “associated with one
of the power outport ports” and that “each power switch” be able to route power to an
associated power port in accordance with a control signal. In Shultz, each one of the
transistor switches 30-32 is associated with its own output, or “power output port” and
each transistor “routes power to an associated power port in accordance with a control
signal” as provided by processor 40. Further, the claim requires that the control signal is
provided to a “specific” power switch, in accordance with a received message and that
power is caused to be routed from the power source to “the output port associated with
that switch.” Shultz’s controller provides a gate drive to each transistor
Appeal No. 1998-2932
Application No. 08/603,680
6
switch so that the control signal is, indeed, provided to a “specific” transistor switch. While
the controller, 40, of Shultz does provide control signals to each of the power switches
(transistors 30-32) and the switches do provide power to be routed from the power source
to the windings 15-17 of the motor 11 with each of the transistor switches associated with
an output port, Shultz is very clear that simultaneous driving signals are applied to at least
two windings [column 5, lines 10-15, claims 1 and 11]. However, we do not find any claim
language that would preclude this simultaneous application to at least two windings in
Shultz. Thus, Shultz does provide a control signal to a specific power switch, causing
power to be routed from the power source to the output port associated with that switch.
Shultz provides a control signal to power switches causing power to be routed from a
power source to the output port associated with that switch. Even though Shultz requires
the application of the control signal to at least two switches, Shultz can still be said to teach
providing a control signal to a specific power switch since the control signal is applied to
each winding, as needed.
Nevertheless, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
because the claim requires “transceiver circuitry . . . to send and receive messages” and
that the control signal is provided “to a specific power switch in accordance with a
received message”. While the examiner contends that Shultz’s “transceiver circuitry”
Appeal No. 1998-2932
Application No. 08/603,680
7
is included in processor 40, we do not agree. It may be broadly stated that Shultz’s
processor 40 does send and receive signals, because the processor 40 does send
signals to the transistors through the gate drives and the processor 40 does receive
signals from the temperature input on line 68 and command input on line 69. However, a
transceiver is commonly known in the art as sending and receiving “communication”
signals. The signals described with regard to Shultz’s processor 40 are not
communication signals. Column 4, lines 44-48, of Shultz does describe the
microcontroller 40 as providing on-board or diagnostic multiplexed “communications” to
provide warnings or other operating indicia externally of the system, wherein the
diagnostics and “communications” functions are denoted by box 70 in Figure 1. However,
while processor 40 is described as providing “communications” signals, there is no
indication that there is any signal received by the processor 40 regarding the warnings or
other operating indicia. In fact, it would seem that the communication is only one way if the
processor is providing warning signals to an operator. Without two-way communication,
the processor 40 of Shultz cannot be said to comprise a “transceiver,” as required by
independent claim 1.
Turning to the rejection of claims 2-4, we will not sustain the rejection of these
claims since they are dependent on claim 1 and neither Cruickshank nor Tomita, relied
Appeal No. 1998-2932
Application No. 08/603,680
8
on by the examiner for other claim limitations (Cruickshank for programmable control and
distribution modules and Tomita for use of control modules within a shared communication
medium in which contention protection is offered), provides for the deficiency of claim 1.
Independent claims 8 and 9 include recitations of a “network.” Claim 8 calls for a
“vehicular communication network” while claim 9 calls for a “first, existing network” and a
“plurality of power-control modules interfaced to the first network...”
Neither Shultz nor Cruickshank suggests a “network” of any kind. Accordingly, we
will not sustain the rejection of independent claims 8 and 9, or of claims 10-12, dependent
on claim 9, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Independent claim 6 is a very narrow claim directed to a power distribution module
having, inter alia, an enclosure, bidirectional communication path, digital communication
circuitry for sending and receiving messages, contention detection circuitry for outputting a
fault signal if a message is received while one is being sent, and protection circuitry.
The examiner relies on the combination of Sagues, Cruickshank and Tomita in
rejecting claim 6 and its dependent claim 7. However, we do not find the required
bidirectional communication and digital communication circuitry disclosed or suggested
in any of the applied references. The examiner contends that Sagues has a
Appeal No. 1998-2932
Application No. 08/603,680
9
communication capability which is considered two-way “as information is gathered from
sensors, compiled and acted upon by the sending of signals to various power-consuming
loads. We do not view the sending of signals to loads, wherein the signals are derived
from processing signals from sensors, as “bidirectional communication” or as constituting
“digital communication circuitry” as claimed. Any signals in Sagues are not considered as
constituting communication “messages” which are sent and received over the bidirectional
communication path as in the claimed invention. Neither Cruickshank nor Tomita are of
any help in this regard.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
With regard to independent claim 5, we take the opposite view and will sustain the
rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner employs Sagues, alone, to reject claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Specifically, the examiner sets forth, at pages 7-8 of the final rejection (Paper No. 10, Dec.
10, 1996) how each claimed element is considered to correspond to an element in
Sagues. The only difference between the claimed subject matter and that disclosed by
Sagues, as the examiner sees it, is that Sagues does not specifically disclose that
Appeal No. 1998-2932
Application No. 08/603,680
10
switches selectively route power from the power input connector to a terminal of the power
output connector through an associated power switch . The examiner finds that it would
have been obvious to route the power from the power input connector to a terminal of the
power output connector through an associated power switch, if desired, because an
additional power source would have been saved and this would reduce space
requirements.
The examiner at least makes a rational case for obviousness by identifying
corresponding components in the reference, identifying differences between the reference
and the claimed subject matter and sets forth a reason why the claimed subject matter as a
whole would have been obvious to the artisan.
It also appears clear to us from Sagues’ disclosure (column 1, lines 45-47; column
7, lines 58-62) that the reference provides a suggestion for routing power from an input
source to various components at an output.
The only response by appellants is set forth at pages 10-12 of the principal brief.
This response comprises citations from the examiner’s final rejection and from column 1,
lines 40-52, of Sagues and general allegations that the examiner’s position is in error and
that Sagues teaches away from the claimed invention because Sagues employs voltage
regulators to power internal components rather than using elements 80 to
Appeal No. 1998-2932
Application No. 08/603,680
11
provide power outputs. Appellants also contend that because Sagues recites a solid-state
switch to power an actuator, this does not necessarily provide a power output to a terminal.
We do not find appellants arguments in this regard to be persuasive. Sagues
clearly discloses a switch for powering an actuator. The actuator clearly enables
functioning of some output device. Thus, it appears to us that unless there is evidence to
the contrary of which we are unaware, Sagues does, indeed, provide power to some
output terminal. If not, no load at the output would be operable.
At the telephonic hearing of May 17, 2001, appellants’ representative was invited to
point to a specific claim limitation in claim 5 which distinguished over Sagues and/or to
dispute the examiner’s correspondence of elements at pages 7-8 of the answer but no
such indication or dispute was made. General allegations of the reference’s inapplicability
to the claimed subject matter do not suffice to overcome the prima facie case of
obviousness set forth by the examiner.
CONCLUSION
We have sustained the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 but we have not
sustained the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal No. 1998-2932
Application No. 08/603,680
12
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may
be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
PARSHOTAM S. LALL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
eak/vsh
Appeal No. 1998-2932
Application No. 08/603,680
13
RONALD W. CITKOWSKI
280 N WOODWARD AVENUE
SUITE 400
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009