Ex Parte Taimela et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 22, 201812845011 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/845,011 07/28/2010 Pasi Taimela 145956 7590 03/26/2018 WARD AND SMITH, P.A. 5430 Wade Park Blvd Wade II, Suite 400 Raleigh, NC 27636-3009 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. 170087-00433 9174 EXAMINER VU,TOANT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2836 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/26/2018 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): patents@wardandsmith.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte PASI TAIMELA, ROBERT WILLIAM JOHNSON, JR., and ANTHONY OLIVO Appeal2017-004039 Application 12/845,011 Technology Center 2800 Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's December 8, 2015 decision finally rejecting claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 16, 22, and 23. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Eaton Corporation (Br. 1 ). Appeal2017-004039 Application 12/845,011 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants' disclosure is directed to a power supply system for an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) (Abstract). Details of the claimed invention are set forth in independent claim, which is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief: 1. An uninterruptible power supply (UPS) system comprising: a first UPS circuit having an output configured to be coupled to a load and first and second inputs coupled to an AC power source and a plurality of ultracapacitors, respectively; a second UPS circuit having an output configured to be coupled to the load in parallel with the output of the first UPS circuit and first and second inputs coupled to the AC power source and an electrochemical battery, respectively; and a network configuration circuit configured to provide varying parallel and serial interconnections among the plurality of ultracapacitors responsive to a control input, wherein the first UPS circuit is not configured to receive power from an electrochemical battery and wherein the second UPS circuit is not configured to receive power from an ultracapacitor. REJECTION Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 16, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Liao2 in view ofUmemura. 3 DISCUSSION Appellants argue the claims together (Br. 6). Accordingly, we will focus our discussion on the rejection of claim 1 over Liao in view of U memura. 2 Liao, US 2009/0072623 Al, published March 19, 2009. 3 Umemura et al., US 2002/0017822 Al, published February 14, 2002. 2 Appeal2017-004039 Application 12/845,011 The Examiner's findings with regard to the rejection of claim 1 are set forth in detail in the Final Action at pages 4---6 and in the Answer at page 3 and will not be repeated in detail herein. In general, the Examiner finds that Liao discloses a UPS system comprising a first UPS circuit and a second UPS circuit, with each UPS circuit being coupled to, inter alia, a battery (Final Act. 4, citing Liao, Fig. 2). The Examiner further finds that each of Liao's UPS circuits is not configured to receive power from the battery of the other circuit (id.). 4 The Examiner also finds that Liao does not disclose a first UPS circuit coupled to a plurality of ultracapacitors and a network configuration circuit configured to provide varying parallel and serial interconnections among the plurality ofultracapacitors responsive to a control input; and wherein the second UPS circuit is not configured to receive power from an ultracapacitor (Final Act. 5). However, the Examiner finds that Umemura teaches a power control device (e.g., a UPS) which includes an ultracapacitor bank (ELDC) which may be used to power the UPS (Final Act. 5, citing Umemura i-fi-156-58, Fig. 1). The Examiner further finds that Umemura's UPS is not configured to receive power from an electrochemical battery, but instead can use an ultracapacitor (Final Act. 5). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to implement the teachings of Umemura to configure the system to use a single 4 The Examiner makes also findings based on alleged similarities between Liao's Fig. 6 and Appellants' Fig. 12 (Final Act. 5---6). Because our conclusions do not rely on these findings, we do not address the arguments made by Appellants that the embodiment of their Fig. 12 is not the subject of claim 1. 3 Appeal2017-004039 Application 12/845,011 power source as taught in its Fig. 1 into the first UPS of Fig. 2 of Liao to replace the battery with the ultracapacitor for a quick discharge or charge of power with long service life and protecting the environment (Final Act. 6, citing Umemura, i-f 10). Appellants argue that a person of skill in the art combining the teachings of Liao and Umemura to gain the advantages described in Umemura would attach storage device 18 ofUmemura's Fig. 6 to one of Liao' s UPS' s (Br. 5). Such a combination, according to Appellants, would not teach or suggest the limitation that "the first USP circuit is not configured to received power from an electrochemical battery and wherein the second UPS circuit is not configured to receive power from an ultracapacitor" (id.). Appellants argue that Umemura teaches the use of a control system which allows for providing power to the same DC bus in power storage device 18 by both a battery 15 and an ultracapacitor bank 4 (id.). According to Appellants, the claimed system, by using separate power supplies for each of the UPS circuits, makes for simpler circuitry and provides for improved flexibility as compared with Umemura (id.). This argument is not persuasive. As found by the Examiner (Ans. 3), Liao discloses a UPS system having two parallel UPS circuits, where each UPS circuit has its own power storage device for independently supplying power to a load, with the power storage devices for each circuit being isolated from each other. Liao does not disclose that one of these storage devices is an ultracapacitor bank. However, Umemura discloses that an ultracapacitor bank can supply energy quickly as needed (Umemura i-f 10). Therefore, as determined by the Examiner, it would have been obvious to 4 Appeal2017-004039 Application 12/845,011 replace one of the batteries in one of Liao's UPS circuits with an ultracapacitor to supply energy quickly as needed. Appellants have not demonstrated error in the Examiner's findings in this regard, or persuasively explained why the Examiner's stated reasons for combining the references as required by the rejection are erroneous. Appellants' arguments that Umemura discloses a more complex system than recited in claim 1 is not persuasive, because the rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references, and is not premised on the bodily incorporation ofUmemura's system in Liao's device: The test for obviousness[, however,] is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 16, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Liao in view ofUmemura. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation