Ex Parte Stiles

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

12869564 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/869,564 08/26/2010 Robert Stiles 144074.00037 8119
26710 7590
QUARLES & BRADY LLP
Attn: IP Docket
411 E. WISCONSIN AVENUE
SUITE 2350
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-4426
EXAMINER
LETTMAN, BRYAN MATTHEW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
pat-dept@quarles.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT STILES
Appeal 2015-004733
Application 12/869,564
Technology Center 3700
Before GEORGE R. HOSKINS, FREDERICK C. LANEY, and ARTHUR
M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Robert Stiles (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 6—11, and 13—15.1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant submits the real party in interest is Pentair Pool Products, Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-004733
Application 12/869,564
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, the only independent claim is reproduced below.
1. A pumping system for at least one aquatic application
including a pool, the pumping system controlled by a user, the
pumping system including a pump, the pumping system
comprising:
a variable speed motor coupled to the pump;
a user interface that receives an input including a desired
mode of operation from the user; and
a controller in electrical communication with the variable
speed motor and the user interface and arranged to operate the
variable speed motor at an actual speed that is substantially
infinitely variable between a minimum speed and a maximum
speed,
the controller determining a current value of at least
one of a volume, a flow rate, a mass, and a pressure in the
pumping system associated with the desired mode of
operation,
the controller substantially continuously modifying
the actual speed of the variable speed motor based on the
current value in order to operate the variable speed motor
at a substantially minimum speed to achieve the desired
mode of operation with a substantially minimal energy
usage,
the controller determining that there is an
obstruction in the pumping system,
the controller automatically stopping flow by
ceasing operation of the motor to help prevent an
entrapment.
REJECTIONS
1) Claims 1—3, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over McDonough (US 6,390,781 Bl, issued May 21,
2
Appeal 2015-004733
Application 12/869,564
2002), Sabini (US 6,464,464 B2, issued Oct. 15, 2002), and
Frederick (US 4,545,906 issued Oct. 8, 1985).
2) Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
McDonough, Sabini, Frederick, and Kilayko (US 6,264,432 Bl,
issued July 24, 2001).
3) Claims 7, 9-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over McDonough, Sabini, Frederick, and Hamos (US
5,117,233, issued May 26, 1992).
4) Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
McDonough, Sabini, Frederick, and Lathrop (US 6,065,946, issued
May 23, 2000).
5) Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
McDonough, Sabini, Frederick, and Moeller (US 2002/0176783
Al, published Nov. 28, 2002).
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
The Examiner finds that McDonough teaches the limitations of claim
1 except for a variable speed motor and a user interface. Final Act. 2. The
Examiner finds that Sabini discloses a pumping system with a controller and
a motor that is substantially infinitely variable between a minimum and a
maximum speed. Id. at 3 (citing Sabini, col. 5,11. 9-12). The Examiner
reasons it would have been obvious “to modify the pumping system taught
by McDonough with the variable speed motor and user interface taught by
Sabini in order to automatically control a pumping system in accordance
with user defined set points.” Id. at 3^4. The Examiner notes that “Sabini is
3
Appeal 2015-004733
Application 12/869,564
silent as to how the user selects the adjustable set points” but, finds that
Frederick discloses “it is well known in the art to set the speed of a variable
speed motor to maintain minimal energy usage.” Id. at 4 (citing Frederick,
col 3,11. 48-56).
Appellant contends that “Sabini does not teach or suggest a minimum
speed level or minimal energy level.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant next
contends that Frederick does not cure the deficiencies in the combination of
McDonough and Sabini and further it teaches away from a variable speed
drive for a pool motor. Id. at 6. Appellant argues that Frederick discloses
the use of a motor having dual stator windings which provide a two-speed
motor. Id. Appellant argues that Frederick discloses that the use of a dual
stator motor that results in “a more favorable energy efficiency ... as
compared with other speed varying means such as rectifiers or variacs.” Id.
(quoting Frederick, col. 5,11. 34-42) (Emphasis omitted). Appellant then
argues that Frederick makes clear that an “infinitely variable drive, such as
the claimed controller, are undesirable in energy efficient situations” and
“suggests that distinct windings provide an advantage and should be used in
place of variable speed control of a single winding.” Id.
The Examiner responds that Appellant offers “no evidence that
Frederick compared the efficiency of the disclosed two stator winding motor
to anything other than rectifiers and variacs.” Ans. 10. The Examiner states
the “microprocessor controlled variable frequency drive disclosed by Sabini
in 1999 is simply not the rectifier or variac contemplated by Frederick in
1983.” Id. The Examiner maintains that “Frederick provides evidence that
it is well known in the art to operate a pump motor, such as the one taught
4
Appeal 2015-004733
Application 12/869,564
by Sabini, at the minimum speed needed for the desired mode of operation.”
Id. For the following reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Frederick discloses a swimming pool filtering system with a “motor
having two sets of stator windings for allowing the selection of one of two
water circulation rates.” Frederick, Abstract. Frederick discloses:
the present invention contemplates use of a two-speed pump
motor that provides high capacity for system priming and high
circulation rates for vacuuming operations, period of heavy
pool use or clean up after a storm while providing a lower
circulation rate during other periods of time. The low
circulation rate is sufficient to prevent the pool from becoming
stagnant with the resulting growth of algae while providing a
considerable saving in energy costs.
Id. col. 3,11. 48—56 (emphasis added).
Sabini discloses a controller for a pump system. Sabini, Abstract.
Sabini discloses a controller that controls the speed of a pump motor that is
infinitely variable. See id. col. 5.11. 8—13. Sabini’s controller varies the
speed of the motor to control a parameter such as pressure. Id. Fig. 7.
We agree with the Examiner that Frederick does not teach away from
the use of variable speed motors such as disclosed in Sabini. Rather,
Frederick teaches that a motor with two-stators to produce two distinct
speeds is more energy efficient than a motor which achieves variable speed
adjustment with a variac or a rectifier. See Frederick, col. 3,11. 59-67, and
col. 5,11. 34-42. Appellant does not direct us to any disclosure in Sabini of a
variac or rectifier to control the speed of Sabini’s motor. Consequently,
Appellant’s contention that Frederick teaches away from the use of a
variable speed drive is not persuasive.
Appellant’s contention that Sabini does not disclose a minimum speed
level or minimum energy usage of its motor is also not persuasive. The
5
Appeal 2015-004733
Application 12/869,564
Examiner relies on Frederick, not Sabini, for teaching “a pumping system
wherein a variable speed motor is operated at a substantially minimum speed
to achieve a desired mode of operation with substantially minimal energy
usage.” Final Act. 4. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because it
amounts to an attack on Sabini and Frederick individually while the rejection
is based on the combined teachings of the references. See In re Keller, 642
F. 2d 413, 426 (CCPA1981).
Appellant has, thus, not apprised us of error in the rejection of claim
1. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the controller
enters an idle mode while the pumping system is being serviced.” Appeal
Br. 12 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that McDonough’s pump is shut
down when an obstruction in the system is detected and the pumping system
enters an idle mode while the pumping system is being serviced. Final Act.
5 (citing McDonough, col. 6,11. 39—67).
Appellant refers to the Specification and draws a distinction between
an “idle mode” and a “completely off’ mode. Appeal Br. 8—9 (citing Spec. 1
34). Appellant contends that McDonough discloses a completely off-mode
not an idle mode because it discloses “shutting off a pump ... in response to
a detected decrease in pressure.” Id. (citing McDonough, col. 6,1. 49). The
Examiner responds that when McDonough’s pump is shut down, “the
microcontroller is still on and sending a signal to transistor 110 which
operates as a switch for the motor. Appellant incorrectly assumes that when
the pump is shut off that the pumping system is also.” Ans. 11. For the
following reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 3.
6
Appeal 2015-004733
Application 12/869,564
The Specification describes “the pumping system 10 can be placed
into an idle mode (e.g. when pool 114 is being otherwise serviced) or a
completely off mode to conserve electric power.” Spec. 134. McDonough
discloses that the pump is shut-off when an obstruction is detected.
McDonough, col. 6,11. 65—66. Appellant, however, does not direct us to any
disclosure in McDonough that the entire pumping system including
microcontroller 82, as opposed to just the pump, is powered off when an
obstruction is detected. Appellant’s argument that McDonough discloses a
completely off mode of the pumping system rather than an idle mode of the
pumping system is not persuasive because it is not supported by the
disclosure in McDonough. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 2, 6, and 8 depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. 12 (Claims
App.). Appellant does not present additional arguments for the patentability
of these claims but relies on the same contentions as for claim 1. Appeal Br.
10. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 2, 6, and 8 for the same
reasons as discussed for claim 1.
Rejection 3
Claim 15 depends from claim 1 and recites “a second user interface
with a second master controller for receiving the desired mode of operation.”
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on the combination of
McDonough, Sabini, and Frederick for disclosure of the limitations of claim
1 and finds that Hamos discloses a pumping system with a first master
controller 14, first user interface 31 or 36, second master controller 19, and
second user interface 32, 37. Final Act. 7 (citing Hamos, col. 5,11. 22—33,
col. 7.1. 59-col. 8.1. 33). The Examiner concludes it would have been
obvious to “modify the pumping system taught by McDonough with the two
7
Appeal 2015-004733
Application 12/869,564
user interfaces taught by Hamos in order to provide a convenient control
system for the user.” Id.
Appellant contends that Hamos does not disclose a second master
controller because “remote unit 19 communicates instructions to the
electrical controls 13 where the instructions are processed the same as if they
had been entered directly into the actuators 31, 36 on the manual stationary
control 14.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant also argues that paragraph 36 of the
Specification describes a possible arrangement of a second master controller
and second user interface and Hamos does not disclose that arrangement. Id.
The Examiner maintains that Hamos clearly discloses a first master
controller 14 and a second master controller 19. Ans. 11. The Examiner
submits that Appellant’s argument for distinguishing Hamos is unrelated to
the language of claim 15. Id.
We agree with the Examiner that claim 15 does not contain any
limitations precluding the second controller from communicating control
instructions to the first master controller. Appellant’s argument is thus not
persuasive. Appellant’s argument that Hamos does not disclose a second
master controller as described in paragraph 36 of Appellant’s Specification
is also not persuasive because it is based on reading limitations from the
Specification into the claims. As Appellant has not apprised us of error, we
sustain the rejection of claim 15.
Claims 7 and 9-11 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Appeal
Br. 12—13 (Claims App.). Appellant does not present additional arguments
for the patentability of these claims but relies on the same contentions as for
claim 1. Appeal Br. 10. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 7 and
9—11 for the same reasons as discussed for claim 1.
8
Appeal 2015-004733
Application 12/869,564
Rejections 2, 4 and 5
Claims 4, 13, and 14 depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. 12—13 (Claims
App.). Appellant does not present additional arguments for the patentability
of these claims but relies on the same contentions as for claim 1. Appeal Br.
10. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 4, 13, and 14 for the same
reasons as discussed for claim 1
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 6—11, and 13—15 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9