Ex parte TODA et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 17, 1999

08257478 (B.P.A.I. May. 17, 1999)

Application for patent filed June 09, 1994. According to1
the appellants, this application is a continuation of
Application 08/040,893, filed March 31, 1993, which is now
abandoned.
-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 31
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte KOICHI TODA
and YOSHIO OGAWA
_____________
Appeal No. 96-2168
Application 08/257,4781
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, JERRY SMITH and HECKER, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HECKER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final
Appeal No. 96-2168
Application No. 08/257,478
-2-
rejection of claims 1 through 17, all of the claims pending in
the present application.
The invention relates to a control device for
controlling a plurality of motors in an air conditioner, e.g.
a blower motor and a compressor motor. A single microcomputer
controls the rotation of each motor by generating the driving
signals for each motor. The driving signals are dependent on
a respective position detection signal from each motor, and
drive respective inverter circuits for each motor.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as
follows:
1. A motor control device comprising: a plurality
of motors for driving respective loads; a microcomputer for
controlling the plurality of motors; position detecting means
for detecting a respective position of a rotor of each of the
motors and outputting a respective position signal dependent
thereon; drive means for individually driving each of the
motors, each drive means including switch means for switching
a connection between a DC power supply and a respective motor;
drive signal generating means for generating respective drive
signals for individually driving the respective motors in
response to corresponding position signals for each motor
inputted from the position detecting means to the
microcomputer, whereby the respective drive signals are
effective to selectively drive the switch means of the
respective drive means so that rotors of respective motors are
rotated in response to corresponding position signals, the
connection between the DC power supply and the respective
motors is switched so that a DC voltage from the DC power
Appeal No. 96-2168
Application No. 08/257,478
-3-
supply is converted into an AC voltage, which is applied to
rotate rotors of the motors; chopping signal generating means
for generating chopping signals each having a predetermined
period for combining with respective drive signals for
selectively driving means of the respective drive means, the
chopping signals having a higher frequency than that of the
drive signals; wherein respective chopping signals and drive
signals are output by the microcomputer to the respective
drive means to convert the DC voltage to an AC voltage and to
effect voltage chopping, and the chopped AC voltage is applied
to respective motors to control the rotation frequency of
rotors of the motors.
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Karlin et al. (Karlin) 3,600,655 Aug. 17, 1971
Nam 5,210,684 May 11, 1993
(filed Dec. 18, 1991)
Yamaguchi et al. (Yamaguchi) 5,373,436 Dec. 13,
1994
(filed June 30, 1992)

Claims 1 through 3, 6, 13, 16 and 17 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Karlin and
Yamaguchi. Claims 4, 5 and 7 through 12 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Karlin and
Yamaguchi in view of Nam. Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and being anticipated by Karlin.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants
and the Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer
for the respective details thereof.
Appeal No. 96-2168
Application No. 08/257,478
-4-
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us we
will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 13, 16 and
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, nor the rejection of claims 14 and
15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections
The Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie
case. It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one
having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the
claimed invention by the reasonable teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the
artisan contained in such teachings or suggestions.
In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6
(Fed. Cir. 1983).
With regard to the rejection of independent claim
1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Karlin and
Yamaguchi, Appellants argue that “in all embodiments of the
present invention the microcomputer serves as the driving
Appeal No. 96-2168
Application No. 08/257,478
-5-
signal generating means for individually driving each of a
plurality of motors,... Contrastingly, Karlin lacks any
disclosure or suggestion of a microcomputer controller for
generating driving signals in a plural motor driven system.”
(Brief at the bottom of page 17).
Looking at claim 1 we see “a microcomputer for
controlling the plurality of motors;” (lines 2 and 3), “drive
signal generating means for generating respective drive
signals for individually driving the respective motors...”
(lines 9 and 10) and “wherein respective ... drive signals are
output by the microcomputer...” (lines 25 and 26). Clearly, a
microcomputer is claimed for generating drive signals for all
motors.
A thorough inspection of the Examiner’s Answer gives
no clue as to how Karlin and/or Yamaguchi meet this
limitation. The Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments
recites that Karlin’s drive signal generating means is met by
“multiphase generators 63a, 63b etc.” (answer at page 6).
However, as noted by Figure 3 of Karlin, this represents a
separate drive signal generator for each motor, as opposed to
Appeal No. 96-2168
Application No. 08/257,478
According to the Dictionary of Computers, Information2
Processing & Telecommunications, pages 382 and 384, (1987), a
microprocessor is part of a microcomputer, a microcomputer
contains a microprocessor and more.
-6-
the single (microcomputer) generator claimed. And further, no
single microcomputer can be found in Karlin. Even if certain
circuitry of Karlin could be considered equivalent to a
microcomputer, one would end up with an equivalent
microcomputer for each motor rather than a single equivalent
microcomputer. The only control circuit common to all motors
of Karlin is the variable frequency oscillator 55. We do not
consider oscillator 55 to be equivalent to a microcomputer.
Yamaguchi discloses a controller 30 which generates
drive signals and the Examiner proposes to combine Yamaguchi
with Karlin to obtain the aspects of Pulse Width Modulation.
Controller 30 may be a microprocessor, see column 4, lines 54
and 55. Assuming Yamaguchi’s microprocessor is equivalent to
a microcomputer , and there is sufficient rationale to combine2
Appeal No. 96-2168
Application No. 08/257,478
-7-
Yamaguchi with Karlin, the expected result would be a
microcomputer for each motor, not one microcomputer as
claimed. Although there are many similarities between
Karlin and the claimed invention (plural motors individually
controlled in one system), dissimilar aspects of the claimed
invention are not met. "Additionally, when determining
obviousness, the claimed invention should be considered as a
whole; there is no legally recognizable 'heart' of the
invention." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, Inc.,
73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). For the
above reasons, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1,
and likewise dependent claims 2, 3, 6 and 13, dependent
therefrom and subject to the same applied art.
Turning to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection using the
prior art of Karlin and Yamaguchi, as discussed supra, and
further in view of Nam, we will first look at claims 4 and
5, since they depend from claim 1. The critical issue is,
Appeal No. 96-2168
Application No. 08/257,478
-8-
does the addition of Nam to the combination of references now
meet the limitations of claim 1. In Figure 1 of Nam we see a
control portion 2. Control portion 2 appears to be a
microprocessor, note column 1, lines 21-24 and 63-64.
Assuming this microprocessor is equivalent to the claimed
microcomputer, we note that it provides control signals (i.e.
drive signals) to an inverter drive portion 6, which applies
signals to the transistors of inverter 7, to run the
compressor 8 (Nam at column 2, lines 35-40). This is akin to
Appellants’ Figure 1 wherein microcomputer 20 is met by Nam’s
control portion 2, Appellants’ first transistor drive circuit
24 is met by Nam’s drive portion 6, and Appellants’ drive
circuit 5 is met by Nam’s inverter 7. However, Nam’s blower
motor is controlled by portion 11
(column 2 lines 47-50), in much the same way Appellants’ prior
art figure 11 depicts brushless motor control 14. We find no
evidence in Nam that its microprocessor provides drive signals
for blower motor speed control, and therefore also fails to
teach the single microcomputer drive signal generator for
plural motors recited in claim 1. For these reasons we will
Appeal No. 96-2168
Application No. 08/257,478
-9-
not sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 5, dependent from
claim 1.
The Examiner applied the same combination of
references (Karlin, Yamaguchi and Nam) in rejecting claims 7
through 12. Independent claim 7 (at lines 15-17) recites “a
single controlling means for controlling the rotation of each
of the condenser motor and the blower motor by generating the
plurality of driving signals” (emphasis added). As noted
above, these references, singularly or in combination, do not
teach a single controller, i.e., microcomputer, for generating
the drive signals for all motors. Therefore we will not
sustain the rejection of independent claim 7, and likewise
claims 8 through 12 dependent therefrom.
35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection
At first glance, Karlin appears to meet all the
limitations of claims 14 and 15. It is axiomatic that
anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found only if the
prior art reference discloses every element of the claim.
See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138
(Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
Appeal No. 96-2168
Application No. 08/257,478
-10-
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ
481, 485
(Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellants argue that their “means-plus-function
language must be construed to cover only the structure
described in the specification, and equivalents thereof, to
the extent that the specification provides such disclosure.
In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1194, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1849
(Fed. Cir. 1994).” (Brief at page 21).
Looking at claim 14, lines 8 and 11 we see “driving
signal generating means for generating driving signals for
each respective motor in accordance with the detected
frequency of the respective motors.” Appellants urge that the
“driving signal generating means” is the single microcomputer
in their specification. We note that functional language
follows this “means for” language of the claim and Appellants
are entitled to rely on their disclosure for thus limiting the
broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution. We
also note that Appellants have disclosed no equivalents of
their microcomputer and thereby argue that claim 14 must be
Appeal No. 96-2168
Application No. 08/257,478
-11-
read as claiming a single microcomputer as their “driving
signal generating means” under
35 U.S.C. § 112 paragraph 6. The Examiner’s answer does not
address this issue (therefore has not disputed this paragraph
6 interpretation). In accordance with the above reasoning,
and that we have found Karlin does not meet this limitation in
our review of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections supra, we will
not sustain the rejection of claim 14, and thereby the
rejection of 15 through 17, dependent therefrom.
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 1
through 13, 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103; nor have we
sustained the rejection of claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §
102. Accordingly, the Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
Kenneth W. Hairston )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
Appeal No. 96-2168
Application No. 08/257,478
-12-
)
)BOARD OF PATENT
Jerry Smith )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Stuart N. Hecker )
Administrative Patent Judge )
dm
Adams & Wilks
50 Broadway
31st Floor
New York, NY 10004