Ex Parte Viitanen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

13523066 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017)

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.
13/523,066 06/14/2012 Tero VIITANEN 1034456-000239 6764
129925 7590 03/29/2017
ABB Inc EXAMINER
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
One Indiana Square
SPRENGER, KEVIN H
Suite 3500
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2023
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2838
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2017 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):
taft-ip-docket @ taftlaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TERO VIITANEN
Appeal 2016-002814
Application 13/523,0661
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1—19. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).2
We AFFIRM.
The subject matter on appeal relates to switching branches for a three-level
rectifier, methods of charging an intermediate circuit in a rectifier, and non-
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is ABB OY. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Our decision refers to the Appellant’s Specification filed June 14, 2012 (Spec.),
the Final Office Action received July 8, 2014 (Final Act.), the Appeal Brief filed
Apr. 24, 2015 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner’s Answer received Nov. 12, 2015
(Ans.), and the Reply Brief filed Jan. 12, 2016 (Reply Br.).
Appeal 2016-002814
Application 13/523,066
transitory computer readable mediums for an electric drive (see, e.g., claims 1,16,
and 17). Appellant discloses that prior art three-phase three-level rectifiers include
capacitors that must be charged before normal use of the rectifiers. Spec. 4—5.
Such charging may be performed via a contactor electrically connected with the
charging stage of a capacitor and via a charging resistor that limits the charging
current. Id. at 15. This approach, however, results in a separate contactor for
charging. Id. Appellant discloses embodiments that do not require such a
contactor but instead charge capacitors by changing the control angle of a thyristor
or by using a resistor-diode branch in parallel with a thyristor. Id. at 117. The
thyristor also enhances protection of rectifier equipment by breaking a fault current
in a fault situation. Id.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief.3 The limitations at issue are italicized.
1. A switching branch for a three-level rectifier, comprising:
a first diode and a first semiconductor switch connected in series
between a positive direct voltage pole and a neutral direct voltage pole,
wherein the first diode and the first semiconductor switch reside in a
first switching branch-specific semiconductor module;
a second diode and a second semiconductor switch connected in
series between a negative direct voltage pole and a neutral direct
voltage pole, wherein the second diode and the second semiconductor
switch reside in a second switching branch-specific semiconductor
module; and
a thyristor and a third diode connected in series between a
connection point between the first diode and the first semiconductor
switch and a connection point between the second diode and the second
semiconductor switch, wherein a connection point between the
thyristor and the third diode is connected to an alternating voltage pole
of the switching branch.
3 Appeal Br. Claims Appendix 1.
2
Appeal 2016-002814
Application 13/523,066
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:
(1) claim 9 under 35U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite;
(2) claims 1—4 and 14—16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Colombi4 in view of Kolar;5
(5) claims 5—8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Colombi and Kolar and further in view of Ojo;6
(6) claims 9—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Colombi and Kolar and further in view of Johnson;7
(7) claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Colombi and Kolar and further in view of Papafotiou;8 and
(8) claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Colombi, Kolar, and Papafotiou and further in view of Johnson.
B. DISCUSSION
Indefiniteness Rejection
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite. Specifically, the Examiner finds the language “the rectifier intermediate
circuit” of claim 9 lacks antecedent basis. Final Act. 4.
As an initial matter, we note the Claims Appendix of Appellant’s Appeal
Brief contains an error. Claim 9, which depends from claim 1, is listed in the
Claims Appendix as reciting “control means arranged to change a control angle of
4 Colombi et al., US 7,474,081 B2, issued Jan. 6, 2009 (“Colombi”).
5 Kolar et al., US 6,377,482 Bl, issued Apr. 23, 2002 (“Kolar”).
6 Olorunfemi Ojo and Srikanth Konduru, High Performance Control of Three-
Phase Three-Level Rectifier under Unbalanced Conditions, IEEE APEC 2007
Conference Proceedings, pp. 1102-1108 (“Ojo”).
7 Johnson, US 4,639,851, issued Jan. 27, 1987 (“Johnson”).
8 Papafotiou et al., US 8,498,133 B2, issued July 30, 2013 (“Papafotiou”).
3
Appeal 2016-002814
Application 13/523,066
the thyristor during the charging of a rectifier intermediate circuit in response to
the voltage of the rectifier intermediate circuit and the supply voltage of the
rectifier.” Appeal Br. Claims Appendix 3. This is an error because an After-Final
claim amendment filed by Appellant on October 8, 2014 proposed amending claim
9 to recite “during the charging of a rectifier intermediate circuit” instead of
reciting “during the charging of the rectifier intermediate circuit” as a way to
address the Examiner’s indefmiteness rejection for lack of antecedent basis.
However, the After-Final amendment was not entered by the Examiner, as
indicated by the Advisory Action received December 4, 2014.
In view of the above, Appellant’s Claims Appendix should instead recite
“control means arranged to change a control angle of the thyristor during the
charging of the rectifier intermediate circuit in response to the voltage of the
rectifier intermediate circuit and the supply voltage of the rectifier” for claim 9.
Further, the § 112 rejection of claim 9 is before us on appeal because the record
does not indicate that the rejection has been overcome or otherwise withdrawn. No
arguments regarding the propriety of the rejection have been presented by
Appellant. We therefore summarily affirm the Examiner’s § 112 rejection of claim
9.
Rejections under §103
Rejections of claims 1—4 and 14—16
Claims 1—4 and 14—16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Colombi in view of Kolar. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Colombi and Kolar and further in view of
Papafotiou. Appellant does not argue these rejections apart from one another.
Appeal Br. 5—10. Thus, we select claim 1 as representative for resolving the issues
4
Appeal 2016-002814
Application 13/523,066
on appeal.
In the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner finds Colombi discloses a
switching branch for a three-level rectifier including a first diode (diode Dl9 in
Figure 1 of Colombi) and a first semiconductor switch (switch T1 in Figure 1)
connected in series, and a second diode (diode D2 in Figure 1) and a second
semiconductor switch (switch T2 in Figure 1) connected in series, as recited in
claim 1. Final Act. 4—5. The Examiner finds the first diode and first
semiconductor switch reside in a first switching branch-specific semiconductor
module and the second diode and second semiconductor switch reside in a second
switching branch-specific semiconductor module. Id. The Examiner further finds
Colombi discloses an additional component (diode D7 in Figure 1) and a third
diode (diode D8 in Figure 1) connected in series, as recited in claim 1. Id. at 5.
The Examiner finds Colombi does not disclose that the additional
component is a thyristor. Id. The Examiner finds Kolar discloses a thyristor and
concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace
the additional component (i.e., diode D7) of Colombi with the thyristor of Kolar to
reduce reverse-voltage changes and reverse-flow current, which would ensure the
symmetry of output voltages and would increase system performance. Id.
Appellant asserts paragraph 22 of Appellant’s Specification defines a
module as including “several semiconductor elements that are interconnected and
arranged on a common substrate.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant further argues this use
of the language “semiconductor module” is consistent with how it is used in the
Specification and the semiconductor arts, citing Merriam-Webster’s definition of
module as “a usually packaged functional assembly of electronic components for
9 Throughout this Decision, for clarity, we present labels to elements in figures in
bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
5
Appeal 2016-002814
Application 13/523,066
use with other such assemblies.” Id. at 8. In addition, Appellant contends the
Figures of Appellant’s application, such as Figure 2, illustrate a semiconductor
module as a dashed ellipsoid that “groups those components provided within its
boundary.” Id. Based on this, Appellant argues Colombi does not disclose that a
diode and a semiconductor switch reside in each of first and second switching
branch-specific semiconductor modules, as recited in claim 1. Id. at 6. Appellant
argues Kolar does not remedy the deficiencies of Colombi because Kolar does not
teach or suggest at least the first and second modules as recited in claim 1. In
addition, Appellant argues Papafotiou also does not disclose the first and second
modules recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 7 and Reply Br. 2—3.
To address Appellant’s arguments, it is necessary to construe the term
“module” of claim 1. During prosecution before the Examiner, claim language
should be given its broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into
account any definitions or enlightenment contained in the written description of
Appellant’s Specification. See In re Morris, 111 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
“[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.
Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed
term.’” See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
banc).
To define a term, an applicant “may demonstrate an intent to deviate from
the ordinary and accustomed meaning of a claim term by including in the
specification expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear
disavowal of claim scope.” In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1365 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, “[wjithout evidence in the patent specification of
an express intent to impart a novel meaning to a claim term, the term takes on its
6
Appeal 2016-002814
Application 13/523,066
ordinary meaning.” Optical Disc Corp. v. Del Mar Avionics, 208 F.3d 1324, 1334,
54 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “[I]n those circumstances where reference to dictionaries is
appropriate, the task is to scrutinize the intrinsic evidence in order to determine the
most appropriate definition.” Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Intern., Inc., 423
F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Paragraph 22 of Appellant’s Specification states “[i]n this context, the
semiconductor module refers generally to a module that includes several
semiconductor elements arranged on a common substrate and interconnected
electrically in a suitable manner.” This statement, which includes the language
“the semiconductor module refers generally to a module that includes. . .”
(emphasis added), appears to indicate what a module may be without specifically
expressing what a module is or what its scope would be. Therefore, the language
of paragraph 22 is insufficient to demonstrate an express intent by Appellant to
deviate from the ordinary meaning of “module” and impart it with a novel
meaning.
As noted above, Appellant cites Merriam-Webster’s definition of module as
“a usually packaged functional assembly of electronic components for use with
other such assemblies.” Appeal Br. at 8. This meaning corresponds with the
modules illustrated in Figure 2 of Appellant’s application. Figure 2 is reproduced
below.
7
Appeal 2016-002814
Application 13/523,066
Udc-
Figure 2 depicts a circuit diagram of a main circuit of a three-phase rectifier
The modules illustrated in Figure 2 include a first switching branch-specific
semiconductor module 10, a second switching branch-specific semiconductor
module 20, and a third branch-specific semiconductor module 30. Spec. 122.
However, Figure 2 is also insufficient to impart a novel meaning to the term
“module,” such as something that includes semiconductor elements arranged on a
common substrate and electrically interconnected, as argued by Appellant. The
dashed ellipsoids representing the modules 10, 20, 30 in Figure 2 merely indicate
groupings of components, as stated by Appellant at page 8 of the Appeal Brief.
Specifically, each module 10, 20, 30 in Figure 2 groups a diode (i.e., Dl, D2, or
D3) and a switch (i.e., SI or S2) or a thyristor (i.e., T). Therefore, Figure 2
supports the definition in Merriam-Webster (i.e., that a “module” is an assembly of
electronic components). As a result, we interpret a “module” as “an assembly of
electronic components.”
8
Appeal 2016-002814
Application 13/523,066
The Examiner finds that, although Colombi does not use the term “module,”
Colombi discloses structures meeting the recitations of the modules in claim 1.10
Ans. 4. Specifically, the Examiner finds Figure 1 of Colombi includes diodes and
switches arranged in the serial manner for the modules of claim 1, except Figure 1
does not include ellipsoids to indicate groupings for the diodes and switches
included in each module. Final Act. 4—5 and Ans. 4—5. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Figure 1 of Colombi provides diodes and switches in the
serial manner recited for each module of claim 1, with an “additional component”
(diode D7)11 in the place of the thyristor of claim 1. It is reasonable to consider
these various interconnected components as being grouped or as assemblies of
electronic components under our interpretation of a “module,” with diode D1 and
switch T1 being in a first assembly of electronic components, and therefore
providing a first module. Further, diode D2 and switch T2 would provide a second
assembly of electronic components (i.e., a second module) and the additional
component (diode D7) and diode D8 would provide a third assembly of electronic
components (i.e., a third module).
Appellant further argues that although Kolar discloses the use of a thyristor,
“there is no teaching or suggestion of a thyristor provided in the arrangement
recited in Appellant’s claims.” Appeal Br. 7. Moreover, in response to comments
made by the Examiner in the Advisory Action, Appellant asserts there is no
10 Appellant contends Colombi does not disclose a common substrate. Reply Br.
2—3. As discussed above, we do not interpret “module” to require a common
substrate. However, it would be reasonable for the diodes and switches depicted in
Figure 1 of Colombi to be provided on a circuit board or other substrate so the
diodes and switches are supported and maintained in the arrangement shown in
Figure 1. Moreover, to the extent Appellant argues the modules of claim 1 are
provided on separate substrates, we find claim 1 does not require this.
11 Final Act. 5.
9
Appeal 2016-002814
Application 13/523,066
evidence in the record for including a switching branch-specific semiconductor
module in combination with a thyristor, as recited in claim 1, and the Examiner has
relied upon conclusory statements in rejecting claim 1 over the combination of
Colombi and Kolar. Id. at 9—10.
These arguments are insufficient to identify a reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. As discussed above, the Examiner finds Kolar discloses a
thyristor. Final Act. 5. The Examiner further finds Kolar “discloses the concept of
replacing the input diode by a thyristor of the same polarity.” Ans. 7. The
Examiner concludes it would have obvious to replace the additional component
(i.e., diode D7) of Colombi with the thyristor of Kolar to reduce reverse-voltage
changes and reverse-flow current, which would ensure the symmetry of output
voltages and would increase system performance. Final Act. 5. Therefore, the
Examiner has provided a reason to combine Colombi and Kolar. Appellant’s
arguments do not provide any evidence or technical reasoning demonstrating that
the Examiner’s findings and reasoning are wrong, or that there would have been a
lack of reason to combine Colombi and Kolar, or that the Examiner otherwise
reversibly erred.
Appellant does not argue claims 2-4 and 14—17 separately from claim 1.
Appeal Br. 10. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above and those expressed in
the Examiner’s Answer, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 1—4
and 14—16 over Colombi and Kolar, and of claim 17 over Colombi, Kolar, and
Papafotiou.
Rejections of claims 5—13
Claims 5—8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Colombi and Kolar and further in view of Ojo. Claims 9—13 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Colombi and Kolar and further in view
10
Appeal 2016-002814
Application 13/523,066
of Johnson. Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Colombi, Kolar, and Papafotiou and further in view of Johnson.
Appellant contends Johnson and Ojo do not remedy the deficiencies of the
references applied in the rejection of claims 1 and 17. Appeal Br. 10. For the
reasons set forth above, there are no deficiencies in the rejection of claims 1 and 17
that require curing by Johnson and Ojo. Therefore, we sustain the § 103 rejections
of claims 5—13, 18, and 19.
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner 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)(1).
AFFIRMED
11