Ex Parte StilesDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 28, 201712869564 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation