Ex Parte Truckenbrod et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 28, 201612721325 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 121721,325 03/10/2010 Gregory Robert Truckenbrod 136306 7590 09/30/2016 IR HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. 45 South Seventh Street Suite 2700 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1683 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. 20420.0202USU 1 1896 EXAMINER PARRIES, DRUM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2836 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/30/2016 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): ptomail@hsml.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GREGORY ROBERT TRUCKENBROD, ARNOST HURYCH, BRUCE KRANZ, ERIC KIRBY, MICHAEL D. GILMAN, and RICHARD W. SCHMIDT Appeal2015-002922 Application 12/721,325 Technology Center 2800 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 1 In our Opinion below, we refer to the Non-final Action mailed July 29, 2013 ("Non-final Act."), the Final Action mailed February 13, 2013 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed August 13, 2014 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer mailed October 17, 2014 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed December 17, 2014 ("Reply Br."). Appeal2015-002922 Application 12/721,325 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The claims are directed to systems and methods of powering a refrigeration or air conditioning unit used with a hybrid vehicle. Claims 1, 13, and 17 reproduced below and with limitations at issue italicized, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A power system for powering a refrigeration unit, the power system comprising: a first connection configured to receive power from a first power source, the first power source being a first high- voltage alternating current (AC) power source; a second connection configured to receive power from a second power source, the second power source being a high- voltage direct current (DC) power source; a third connection configured to receive power from a third power source, the third power source being a second high- voltage AC power source; and a power converter configured to supply power to the refrigeration unit; wherein the power system couples the first power source to the power converter when power is received at the first connection, couples the second power source to the power converter when power is received at the second connection but not the first connection, and couples the third power source to the power converter when power is not available from both the first and second connections; 2 Appellants identify Thermo King Corporation as the real party-in-interest. App. Br. 2. 2 Appeal2015-002922 Application 12/721,325 wherein only one of the first power source, the second power source, and the third power source is coupled to the power converter at any one time. 13. A system for powering a refrigeration unit coupled with a hybrid vehicle having a plurality of high-voltage batteries, the system comprising: a power system coupled to the plurality of high-voltage batteries and configured to receive power from a shore power source; a refrigeration control unit coupled to the power system, the refrigeration control unit receiving an indication from the power system of the availability of power from the high-voltage batteries and the shore power source; and an engine coupled to the refrigeration control unit; wherein the refrigeration control unit links power from the power system to the refrigeration unit when power is available from the power system and links the engine to the refrigeration unit when power is not available from the power system; wherein only one of power from the power system and the engine is linked to the power refrigeration unit at any one time. 1 7. A method of powering a refrigeration unit, the method compnsmg: receiving at a first input a high-voltage DC power from a plurality of batteries of a hybrid vehicle; receiving at a second input a high-voltage AC power from an electric mains; connecting one of the first input and the second input to a power converter based on a position of a switch, the connecting act coupling one of the high-voltage DC power and the high- voltage AC power to the power converter thereby resulting in a coupled power; 3 Appeal2015-002922 Application 12/721,325 disconnecting the coupled power from the power converter when the position of the switch has changed; converting the high-voltage DC power into a second high-voltage AC power when the high-voltage DC power is coupled to the power converter and converting the high-voltage AC power into the second high-voltage AC power when the high-voltage AC power is coupled to the power converter; and providing the second high-voltage AC power to the refrigeration unit. App. Br. 17, 19--20, and 21 (Claims App'x). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Houck et al. US 2004/0231831 Al Nov. 25, 2004 ("Houck") Montuoro et al. US 7 ,266,962 B2 Sept. 11, 2007 ("Montuoro") King et al. US 2008/0271937 Al Nov. 6, 2008 ("King") Davis et al. US 2009/0056354 Al Mar. 5, 2009 ("Davis") Chakiachvili et al. US 2011/0162395 Al July 7, 2011 ("Chakiachvili") Wagoner et al. US 2012/0051102 Al Mar. 1, 2012 ("Wagoner") REJECTIONS The claims stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows: claims 1, 6-8, and 10 over Chakiachvili, King, and Davis; claims 2-5 over Chakiachvili, King, and Davis, and further in view of Wagoner; 4 Appeal2015-002922 Application 12/721,325 claim 9 over Chakiachvili, King, and Davis, and further in view of Montuoro; claim 11 over Chakiachvili, King, and Davis, and further in view of Houck; claim 12 over Chakiachvili, King, Davis, Montuoro, and Houck; claim 13 over Davis and King; claims 14 and 15 over Davis and King, and further in view of Wagoner; claim 16 over Davis and King, and further in view of Houck; and claims 17-19 over Davis and Chakiachvili. Final Act. 3---6. OPINION In contesting the rejections, Appellants argue only independent claims 1, 13, and 17. Dependent claims 2-12, 14--16, 18, and 19 stand or fall with their parent independent claim. Rejection of claim 1 Claim 1 stands rejected as obvious over Chakiachvili in view of King and further in view of Davis. The Examiner makes certain findings regarding Chakiachvili as set forth on pages 2-3 of the Non-final Action, and relies upon these findings as stated on page 3 of the Final Action and on page 8 of the Answer. The Examiner finds that Chakiachvili in combination with King teach all limitations of claim 1 except for the limitation: "wherein only one of the first power source, the second power source, and the third power source is coupled to the power converter at any given time." Final Act. 3. The Examiner relies on Davis to teach the missing limitation. Id. The Examiner states that Chakiachvili teaches three power sources: an AC generator, a vehicle battery, and standby power assembly connected 5 Appeal2015-002922 Application 12/721,325 to the vehicle engine, the vehicle's battery, and electric mains AC. Non- final Act. 2-3 and Chakiachvili i-fi-1 87 and 97. The Examiner finds that, while Chakiachvili does not teach a high-voltage DC power source, King teaches this element and it would have been obvious to combine Chakiachvili and King. Non-final Act. 3. Appellants do not dispute the combination of Chakiachvili and King. The Examiner argues that Davis teaches a refrigeration system analogous to that of Chakiachvili, including three power sources (elements 40 and 100 of Figure 5, and a shore power source that is independent of the vehicle). Figure 5 of Davis is reproduced below: .i / FIG. 5 Figure 5 of Davis illustrates an embodiment of the invention, wherein the power source 40 is a primary power source and an alternate power source 100 is provided. In another embodiment in Davis, primary power source 40 can coact with a shore power source (not shown in the figures) that is independent of the vehicle. Davis Fig. 2, i-fi-153-54. Appellants contend that the portions of Davis cited by the Examiner do not teach or suggest that only one of the first, second, or third power 6 Appeal2015-002922 Application 12/721,325 sources is coupled to the power converter at any one time. App. Br. 8-9. Appellants argue that Davis is silent as to requiring the shore power source to be connected to the same power converter as power source 40 and alternate power source 100. Id. at 9; Reply Br. 2. The Examiner determines that "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to substitute the method steps described in Davis' invention [supplying the three sources, one at a time] into Chakiachvili' s invention [three sources connected to the load through the converter], since they both perform the same function to achieve the predictable result of supplying power to a refrigeration system." Final Act. 3; Ans. 2. Appellants challenge this conclusion, claiming that such modification would render Chakiachvili unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and change the principle of operation of the reference. App. Br. 9-10. Appellants contend that Chakiachvili requires both the battery 60 and the AC generator 64 to be used as a power source at the same time in order for the refrigeration unit to operate. Id. at 10 (citing Chakiachvili i-f 87). In the Answer, the Examiner points to paragraph 49 of the reference, which provides that the refrigeration unit is powered by, e.g., a generator assembly operatively connected to the vehicle's engine and/or the vehicle's battery. Ans. 3. Appellants reply that Chakiachvili requires that the battery and the AC generator are both available to be used as a power source at the same time. Reply Br. 3. The paragraph cited by the Examiner contradicts this latter statement of Appellants (which was not previously raised in the Appeal Brief). Thus, Appellants' argument is not persuasive. 7 Appeal2015-002922 Application 12/721,325 With respect to Appellants' argument that Davis is silent as to requiring the shore power source to be connected to the same power converter as power source 40 and alternate power source 100 (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We note that Chakiachvili teaches that AC power from electric mains (shore power source) is supplied to the power converter, and can be converted in a similar manner to that of the power from the generator to AC power at a voltage and frequency suitable for powering the compressor and to low and/or high voltage DC power as required. Chakiachvili i-f 97, Fig. 6A (element 66). The test for obviousness is not whether claim 1 is expressly suggested in either Davis or Chakiachvili, but whether it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in light of the combined teachings of those references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 ( CCP A 19 81). One of ordinary skill can use his or her ordinary skill, creativity, and common sense to make the necessary adjustments and further modifications to result in a properly functioning device. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) ("a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ"). Chakiachvili (alone or in combination with King) remedies any silence on the part of Davis with respect to the shore power source (a high- voltage AC power source) being connected to the same power converter as a first high-voltage AC power source and a high-voltage DC power source. Appellants' argument lacks convincing merit. 8 Appeal2015-002922 Application 12/721,325 Appellants fail to show error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 over Chakiachvili, King, and Davis. Rejection of claim 13 Claim 13 stands rejected as obvious over Davis and King. 3 Final Act. 4. The limitations in dispute in claim 13 are (1) a power system coupled to the plurality of high-voltage batteries and configured to receive power from a shore power source; and (2) a refrigeration control unit coupled to the power system, the refrigeration control unit receiving an indication from the power system of the availability of power from the high-voltage batteries and the shore power source. The Examiner contends the claimed "power system" is "very generic and non-descriptive," that all of the claimed functions/characteristics of the power system are taught in Davis, whether in the controller 50 or in an element that receives the shore power source," that a part of the controller 50 can comprise the required refrigeration control unit and another part of the controller can comprise part of the power system, and that "all of the elements in Davis' system are considered to be coupled to one another." Ans. 3. Appellants reply that the power system of claim 13 is a structural element of the system, and the Examiner cannot interpret Davis' controller 50 as both the power system and the refrigeration control unit of claim 13. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 4. However, Appellants provide no explanation of why this is allegedly inappropriate. Indeed, review of Figure IA of 3 The Examiner does not address King's relevance to the rejection of claim 13 in either the Final Action or the Answer. Appellants state that King is provided to teach high-voltage batteries. App. Br. 12. 9 Appeal2015-002922 Application 12/721,325 Appellants' application shows that power system 100 includes multiple elements, among them power sources, switches, and a power converter that controls the refrigeration unit. Appellants' argument on this point is not persuasive of reversible error by the Examiner. Appellants point out that Davis is silent as to the second power switch 102 or the controller 50 being configured to receive power from a shore power source, as well as to whether the shore power source provides power to the claimed power system, as required by claim 13. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 4--5. However, the Examiner explains that the power system of Davis includes an element that receives the shore power source. Ans. 3. The power system is, therefore, configured to receive power from a shore power source and this argument of Appellants is also unpersuasive of reversible error. With respect to the second limitation at issue, Appellants dispute that Davis teaches that the refrigeration control unit receives an indication from the power system of the availability of power from the high-voltage batteries and the shore power source. App. Br. 12. The Examiner finds that Davis' system teaches the controller 50 receives an indication of the availability of power from the batteries (citing Davis i-f 45) and from the shore power source (citing Davis i-f 54 ). Ans. 3. The Examiner acknowledges that Davis is silent as to exactly where these indications were being sent from, but determines that it is inherent that the power system in Davis provides the indications because the term "power system" is non-descriptive and Davis' system as a whole performs these functions. Id. at 3--4. Davis teaches that power source 40 is connected to power source sensor 42, which provides an available electric power value signal 44 to 10 Appeal2015-002922 Application 12/721,325 controller 50. Davis Fig. 5, il 23. Davis further teaches that alternate power source 100 has an available power value that is read by or provided to the controller 50. Id. i-f 45. Davis also teaches that, "[d]epending on the rating of the shore power source, the refrigeration power system and the refrigeration unit 12 including the compressor 20, can operate while the battery bank 100 [alternate power source] is being charged." Id. i-f 5 7. Given the breadth of the term "power system," one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably read these disclosures as teaching the claimed "refrigeration control unit receiving an indication from the power system of the availability of power from the high-voltage batteries and the shore power source." We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 13 over Davis and King. Rejection of claim 17 Claim 1 7 is directed to a method of powering a refrigeration unit, the method comprising receiving at a first input a high-voltage DC power from a plurality of batteries of a hybrid vehicle; and receiving at a second input a high-voltage AC power from an electric mains. App. Br. 21 (Claims App 'x). Claim 17 stands rejected as obvious over Davis in view of Chakiachvili. Final Act. 6. The Examiner contends Davis teaches: a method of powering a refrigeration unit (Fig. 5), the method comprising: receiving at a first input a high-voltage DC power from a plurality of batteries ( 100) of a hybrid vehicle; receiving at a second input (not shown) a high-voltage AC power from an electric mains (shore source; [0054]); connecting one of the first input and the second input to a power converter (57) based on a position of a switch (56, 102, & one not shown - all working as one), the connecting act coupling one of the source powers to the 11 Appeal2015-002922 Application 12/721,325 power converter thereby resulting in a coupled power ([0048]- [0051 ]); disconnecting the coupled power from the power converter when the position of the switch has changed; converting (via 57 and 33) the high-voltage DC power into a second high-voltage AC power when the high-voltage DC power is coupled to the power converter and converting the high- voltage AC power into the second high-voltage AC power when the high-voltage AC power is coupled to the power converter; and providing the second high-voltage AC power to the refrigeration unit (20, 24, & 28). Final Act. 6. The Examiner acknowledges that Davis does not teach the electric mains/shore power source being connected to the refrigeration unit via the converter (57), or the switch having contacts between the electric mains and the converter. Id. However, the Examiner finds that Chakiachvili teaches a similar method of powering a refrigeration unit wherein the electric mains is connected to the refrigeration unit via a converter. Id. at 6- 7. According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinar; skill at the time of the invention to implement in Davis' invention an additional set of contacts to the switch on the line between the shore power source and the converter to allow the controller more precise control over which source supplies power to the converter at a given time. Id. at 7. Appellants argue that the combination of Davis and Chakiachvili does not teach or suggest connecting one of either the alternate power source 100 or the shore power source of Davis to a power converter based on a position of a switch. App. Br. 13. According to Appellants, the power switches disclosed in Davis (56 and 102), either alone or in combination, cannot be interpreted as the switch in claim 17 because Davis is silent on the shore power source being connected to a power switch. Id. at 13-14. Appellants point out that the Examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious to 12 Appeal2015-002922 Application 12/721,325 control the shore power source in the same manner as the primary power source 40 and the alternate power source 100 connected to the inverter 57 relies on an assumption that the shore power source would be coupled to and provide power to the inverter 57. Reply Br. 6. Appellants contend that the Examiner fails to provide any basis for asserting one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would look to couple the shore power source of Davis to the inverter. Id. Here, again, Appellants attempt to dispute obviousness by attacking references individually, when the rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re Merck, 800 F .2d at 1097. The test is not whether coupling a shore power source to an inverter is found in Davis, but rather what Davis in view of Chakiachvili would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. On this basis, the Examiner has adequately supported that the combination of Davis and Chakiachvili teaches connecting one of either input of a high-voltage DC power from a plurality of batteries or input of a high-voltage AC power from an electric mains to a power converter based on the position of a switch. Appellants also urge that Davis fails to teach or suggest that either power switch is capable of relaying both high-voltage AC power and high- voltage DC power, and the Examiner's statement that it would be obvious to add contacts to the switches in Davis to allow two different power sources to pass through the switch is conclusory and without basis. App. Br. 14. The Examiner finds that the claimed "switch" taught by the combination of references results in a system where three power sources are each connected to the power converter by a corresponding switch. Ans. 4. Unless a more limited construction is indicated by the specification or 13 Appeal2015-002922 Application 12/721,325 prosecution history, the indefinite article "a" is construed in a claim to mean "one or more." KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Based on the position of the combination of switches, they will connect one of the input power and disconnect the other. Ans. 4--5. Davis explicitly teaches that at the same time that the controller 50 provides a power supply signal to switch 102 to connect the inverter, the controller 50 disconnects or opens the first power switch 56. Davis i-f 51. Thus, the combination of references discloses the claimed switch. Appellants' final argument is that the combination of Davis and Chakiachvili fails to teach or suggest converting the high-voltage DC power into a second high-voltage AC power when the high-voltage DC power is coupled to the power converter and converting the high-voltage AC power into the second high-voltage AC power when the high-voltage AC power is coupled to the power converter. App. Br. 14. According to Appellants, the Examiner relies on the inverter 57 and the speed controller 33 of Davis as teaching these features of claim 17. Id. Appellants contend that Davis fails to teach that the inverter 57 is capable of converting high-voltage DC power into a second high-voltage AC power when the high-voltage DC power is coupled to the power converter, arguing that "[a]t most, Davis teaches that the alternate power source 100 can be a vehicle battery." Id. at 14--15. The Examiner finds that Davis teaches the converter outputting a second high-voltage AC power to the refrigeration unit regardless of which power source is being supplied to the converter. Ans. 5 (citing Davis i-f 22). Davis teaches that the alternate power source 100 can be a separate battery bank mounted on the vehicle. Davis i-f 56. The Examiner finds that "high voltage" is a relative term and that the battery bank taught by Davis has a 14 Appeal2015-002922 Application 12/721,325 high enough voltage to be able to provide a power greater than the required power for the refrigeration system. Ans. 5. Appellants did not refute this finding. Appellants have not convinced us of a reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 7. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-19 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 15 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation