Ex Parte Wolf

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 5, 2017

13054477 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 5, 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.
13/054,477 01/14/2011 Harold Wolf 12604/71 6944
26646 7590 07/07/2017
ANDREWS KURTH KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10004
EXAMINER
GBLENDE, JEFFREY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2838
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/07/2017 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):
u spto @ keny on .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HARALD WOLF
Appeal 2016-008228
Application 13/054,4771
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Primary
Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 16, 18—21, 24—29, 31, 33, 35, and
36.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The Applicant (hereinafter “Appellant”) states that the real party in interest
is “SEW-EURODRIVE GmbH & Co. KG.” (Appeal Brief filed on
September 11, 2015, hereinafter “Appeal Br.,” 1).
2 Appeal Br. 3—6; Supplemental Appeal Brief filed on December 21, 2015,
hereinafter “Supp. Appeal Br.,” 2-4; Reply Brief filed on August 31, 2016,
hereinafter “Reply Br.,” 1—3; Examiner’s Answer (notice emailed on July 1,
2016), hereinafter “Ans.,” 3—5; Final Office Action (notice emailed on
February 6, 2015), hereinafter “Final Act.,” 3—11.
Appeal 2016-008228
Application 13/054,477
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to circuit configurations for
converting direct voltage to alternating voltage via a semiconductor switch
so that overvoltages on quickly-switching semiconductor switches are
reduced without increasing switching losses. Specification, hereinafter
“Spec.,” p. 1,11. 6-10, 25-32; p. 3,11. 21-22; p. 4,11. 32-35.
Representative claim 16 is reproduced from page 2 of the
Supplemental Appeal Brief (Claims Appendix), as follows (emphases
added):
16. A method for charging a capacitance effective on main
current terminals of a semiconductor switch, comprising:
forcibly controlling a precharging of the effective
capacitance via a charging current path;
wherein a diode is serially arranged in a main current path
of the semiconductor switch, and a free-wheeling diode is
connected in parallel to the series circuit;
wherein the charging current path includes an inductance,
and a control semiconductor switch is provided in the charging
current path; and
wherein the capacitance includes at least one of (a) a
drain-source capacitance of a MOSFET semiconductor and (b)
a collector-emitter capacitance of an IGBT semiconductor
switch.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, the Examiner maintains several rejections, which are as
follows (Ans. 2; Final Act. 2—11):
I. claims 16, 18—21, 24, 26, 27, 29, 33, and 35 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jacobs3 in
3 US 6,243,278 Bl, issued on June 5, 2001.
2
Appeal 2016-008228
Application 13/054,477
view of Limmer4 and Halberstadt;5
II. claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Jacobs in view of Limmer and Halberstadt and
further in view of Jang;6
III. claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Jacobs in view of Limmer and Halberstadt and
further in view of Morita;7
IV. claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Jacobs in view of Limmer and Halberstadt and
further in view of Dickerson;8 and
V. claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Pengov9 in view of Jacobs, Juanarena Saragueta,10
and Halberstadt.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
The Examiner rejects claims 16, 18—21, 24, 26, 27, 29, 33, and 35
under § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jacobs in view of Limmer and
4 US 6,268,758 Bl, issued on July 31, 2001.
5 US 2008/0130334 Al, issued on June 5, 2008.
6 US 6,356,462 Bl, published on Mar. 12, 2002.
7 US 6,483,678 Bl, issued on Nov. 19, 2002.
8 US 2007/0035975 Al, published on Feb. 15, 2007.
9 US 6,054,819 A, issued on Apr. 25, 2000.
10 US 7,518,256 B2, issued on Apr. 14, 2009.
3
Appeal 2016-008228
Application 13/054,477
Halberstadt. Final Act. 3—7. We select claim 16 as representative of the
issues discussed below.
The Examiner finds Jacobs discloses a method for charging a
capacitance effective on main current terminals of a semiconductor switch in
which precharging of the effective capacitance is forcibly controlled via a
charging current path that includes an inductance and a control switch. Id. at
3. The Examiner finds Jacobs does not disclose a diode serially arranged in
the main current path and a free-wheeling diode connected in parallel to the
circuit or that the capacitance includes at least one of (a) a drain-source
capacitance of a MOSFET semiconductor and (b) a collector-emitter
capacitance of an IGBT semiconductor switch, as recited in claim 16. Id.
The Examiner finds Limmer discloses a diode serially arranged in the
main current path of a semiconductor switch and a free-wheeling diode
connected in parallel. Id. The Examiner concludes it would have been
obvious to modify Jacobs in view of Limmer to increase the reliability of
Jacobs’s circuit and suppress interference. Id.
The Examiner finds Halberstadt discloses a capacitance that includes
at least one of (a) a drain-source capacitance of a MOSFET semiconductor
and (b) a collector-emitter capacitance of an IGBT semiconductor switch, as
recited in claim 16. Id. at 3^4. The Examiner concludes it would have been
obvious to modify Jacobs in view of Halberstadt so that the circuit of Jacobs
could use soft switching, which can reduce power dissipation and increase
operational efficiencies. Id. at 4.
The Appellant contends the Examiner has not clearly articulated a
prima facie case of obviousness. Appeal Br. 3^4. Specifically, the
Appellant asserts the Examiner has not identified what features would be
4
Appeal 2016-008228
Application 13/054,477
included when modifying the circuit of Jacobs in view of Halberstadt. Id. at
4. Appellant states that, to the extent the Examiner means to modify Jacobs
in view of Halberstadt to include a ‘“drain-source capacitance’ of a primary
switch, such a reliance on Halberstadt would be superfluous since the drain-
source capacitance is something that is intrinsic to switches of the type
embodied by Q1 of Jacobs.” Id. In view of this, the Appellant contends
“there is nothing to ‘add’ from Halberstadt if the only thing meant by
‘features’ is this drain-source capacitance.” Id. The Appellant further
argues “Halberstadt merely makes a passing reference to a drain-source
capacitance in paragraph [0020]” and this does not cure the deficiencies of
Jacobs. Reply Br. 2. To the extent the Examiner meant to include other
features of Halberstadt, the Appellant argues the Examiner did not set forth a
prima facie case of obviousness. Appeal Br. 4.
These arguments are unpersuasive. The Appellant’s own statements
indicate it would have been unnecessary to modify Jacobs in view of
Halberstadt, such as to provide a capacitance that is a drain-source
capacitance of a MOSFET semiconductor, as recited in claim 16, because
“the drain-source capacitance is something that is intrinsic to switches of the
type embodied by Q1 of Jacobs.” Appeal Br. 4.
Nonetheless, the Examiner explains in the Examiner’s Answer that
Halberstadt discloses a capacitance that includes a drain-source capacitance
of a MOSFET semiconductor. Ans. 4 (citing Halberstadt 120). We find no
error in that finding. In addition, the Examiner correctly finds paragraph 20
of Halberstadt further discloses that a drain-source capacitance for a
MOSFET semiconductor allows soft switching, which results in increased
operational efficiencies. Id. at 5. Thus, both the finding that Halberstadt
5
Appeal 2016-008228
Application 13/054,477
discloses a MOSFET semiconductor having a drain-source capacitance, as
recited in claim 16, and the reason to modify the circuit of Jacobs in view of
Halberstadt are well-supported.11
In response to the Examiner’s Answer, the Appellant contends that
Jacobs does not disclose “charging a capacitance effective on main current
terminals of a semiconductor switch,” as recited in claim 16, because Figure
2 of Jacobs depicts the intrinsic capacitance of a rectifier switch as being
connected to the gate of the switch, not its main terminals. Reply Br. 1—2.
This argument is ineffective. The Appellant previously stated in the Appeal
Brief that Jacobs would possess a capacitance effective on the main current
terminals of a semiconductor switch by stating “the drain-source capacitance
is something that is intrinsic to switches of the type embodied by Q1 of
Jacobs.” Appeal Br. 4. Because the argument in the Reply Brief is new
(and arguably inconsistent with a position taken in the Appeal Brief), we
need not consider it absent a showing of good cause, which is lacking here.
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). In any event, the argument does not consider the
applied references as a whole and what they would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. As discussed above, the Examiner finds Halberstadt
discloses a MOSFET semiconductor having a drain-source capacitance, as
recited in claim 16, and provides a rationale for combining Jacobs and
Halberstadt in view of Halberstadt’s teachings. Therefore, the Appellant’s
arguments do not identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 16.
11 Figure 2 of Limmer also appears to disclose that a drain-source
capacitance of a MOSFET is known in the art (i.e., MOSFET of Figure 2 has
an output capacitance Coss arranged between its drain and source). See
Limmer col. 1,11. 44—52.
6
Appeal 2016-008228
Application 13/054,477
The Appellant does not argue claims 18—21, 24, 26, 27, 29, 33, and 35
separately from claim 16. Appeal Br. 3^4.
For these reasons and those discussed in the Examiner’s Answer, we
uphold the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 16, 18—21, 24, 26, 27,
29, 33, and 35.
Rejections II—V
For each of the rejections of claims 25, 28, 31, and 36 under § 103(a),
the Appellant merely reiterates the arguments set forth in support of the
patentability of claim 16 and contends the additional references do not
remedy the deficiencies of the references applied in the rejection of claim
16. Appeal Br. 4—6. For the reasons set forth above, there are no
deficiencies in the rejection of claim 16 that require curing by the additional
references.
For these reasons and those discussed in the Examiner’s Answer, we
uphold the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 25, 28, 31, and 36.
SUMMARY
Rejections I—V are affirmed. Therefore, the Examiner’s final decision
to reject claims 16, 18—21, 24—29, 31, 33, 35, and 36 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
7