Ex Parte Taimela et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2018

12845011 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018)

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