Ex Parte Zhang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 12, 201613513992 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/513,992 06/05/2012 65913 7590 05/16/2016 Intellectual Property and Licensing NXPB.V. 411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41 SAN JOSE, CA 95134 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Cheng Zhang 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. 81413480 US04 4313 EXAMINER JACKSON, LAKAISHA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2838 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/16/2016 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): ip.department.us@nxp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte CHENG ZHANG and HANS HALBERSTADT Appeal2014-009783 Application 13/513,992 Technology Center 2800 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 28-33, 35-37, and 39. Claims 34 and 38 were indicated as containing allowable subject matter. Claims 1-27 were canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm.2 1 Appellants identify NXP B.V. as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 1.) 2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed June 5, 2012 ("Spec."), the Final Office Action mailed Feb. 14, 2014 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed May 14, 2014 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer mailed Aug. 11, 2014 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed Sept. 16, 2014 ("Reply Br."). Appeal2014-009783 Application 13/513,992 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims are directed to a power factor corrector with a high power factor at low load conditions. (Spec. Title.) Claim 28, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 28. A circuit configured to control power delivered to a load by an AC/DC power converter, the AC/DC power converter configured to receive a mains alternating current (AC) voltage as an input, the mains AC voltage having a mains voltage cycle of an absolute voltage value varying in a cyclic manner from a first zero to a second zero over a cycle period, the cycle period having a first half-cycle period during which the absolute voltage value increases from the first zero to a maximum, and a second half-cycle period during which the absolute voltage value decreases from the maximum to the second zero, the circuit comprising: a rectifier configured to receive the mains AC voltage and produce a direct current (DC) voltage; a switched mode power supply (SMPS) configured to receive the DC voltage, produce an output voltage, and provide the output voltage and a drive current to the load, the SMPS including a control switch, being switchable between an ON and an OFF state and only conducting during said ON state to control the output voltage and drive current delivered to the load; a filter configured to receive a filter current; and a feedback control circuit configured to drive the control switch between the ON and OFF states, wherein the feedback control circuit shifts the drive current relative to the mains voltage cycle by generating a[ n] error signal based on a difference between a reference mains current signal and a sensed current signal at an output of the rectifier, and modifying the drive current based on the error signal so that the reference mains current signal and the sensed current signal have current shapes based upon an input desired mains current shape. 2 Appeal2014-009783 Application 13/513,992 REJECTIONS Claims 28-30, 32, 35, 37, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Ng (US 7,688,041 B2; Mar. 30, 2010). (Final Act. 2-5.) Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Ng, Smith (US 7,268,526 Bl; Sept. 11, 2007), and Hu (US 7,936,575 B2; May 3, 2011 ). (Final Act. 5---6.) Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Ng and Yeh et al. (US 2010/0124080 Al; May 20, 2010). (Final Act. 6.) Claim 36 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Ng and Baker (US 5,594,630; Jan. 14, 1997). (Final Act. 6-7.) ANALYSIS § 102(b) Rejection of Independent Claim 28 Issue 1: Does Ng disclose "modifYing the drive current based on the . l "? error szgna. . Appellants contend the Examiner failed to address the step of modifying the drive current based on an error signal, and merely relied upon inherency in Ng's power converter to disclose the disputed limitation without providing a basis in fact or technical reasoning to support the Examiner's finding. (App. Br. 5---6.) We are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellants' contention. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Ng explicitly discloses the disputed limitation, specifically that Ng's drive current (i.e., the load current at VOUT) is controlled by the switch signal G, which has an input component of error signal IERR; thus, signal G is used to modify the drive current based on the error signal. (Final Act. 2--4; Ans. 2-3; citing Ng col. 3, 11. 31-35). 3 Appeal2014-009783 Application 13/513,992 We observe that Appellants did not rebut the Examiner's findings in response to Appellant's arguments regarding Ng's modifying the drive current based on an error signal (see Reply Br. 2-3). Therefore, in the absence of sufficient rebuttal evidence or argument to persuade us otherwise, in light of the discussion above, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's finding that Ng discloses modifying the drive current based on the error signal recited in claim 28. Issue 2: Does Ng disclose "the reference mains current signal and the sensed current signal have current shapes based upon an input desired mains current shape"? Appellants contend the claimed input desired mains current shape is not disclosed or inherent in Ng, because Ng' s comparator uses a sinusoidal current signal that emulates a resistive load but does not use a desired mains current shape. (App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2-3.) The Examiner finds Ng's input mains AC signal is the input desired mains current shape (Final Act. 3), and finds Ng's feedback control circuit uses the error signal IERR to adjust the drive current (i.e., load current at VOUT) such that the sensed current signal IFB and the reference mains current signal VSIN have current shapes based upon the desired mains AC signal shape (Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 3; citing Ng col. 3, 11. 31-35). In light of Appellants' disclosure that the input desired mains current shape may be equivalent to the AC mains power source current shape (see Spec. i-f 83), we agree with the Examiner's finding that Ng's input AC mains signal shape discloses the claimed input desired mains current shape. Further, under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with 4 Appeal2014-009783 Application 13/513,992 Appellants' disclosure, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Ng's reference and sensed current shapes are "based upon" the input desired mains current shape, due to their dependency on the electrical characteristics of the input AC mains current shape in Ng's AC/DC power converter circuit. (Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 3; see In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004).) Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 28. § 102(b) Rejection of Dependent Claim 29 Issue: Does Ng disclose a first scaling unit configured to receive both the "error signal and a power level signal based on the output voltage"? Appellants contend Ng' s RAMP signal does not disclose a power level signal, because RAMP is produced by a ramp generator and is not based on the output voltage. (App. Br. 8.) Further, Appellants argue the ramp generator has only a single input and cannot be the same as the claimed scaling unit that receives both the error signal and the power level signal. (Reply Br. 3.) Appellants' contentions are not persuasive of error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the broadest reasonable interpretation of "based on the output voltage" that is consistent with Appellants' disclosure encompasses any indirect connection between the power level signal (i.e., RAMP signal) and the output voltage VOUT. (Ans. 4; see In re Am. A cad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., supra.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Ng's power level signal RAMP, which has VOUT as an indirect feedback component, is received with error signal IERR at Ng's comparator in order to produce control signal G. (Final Act. 4; Ans. 4.) 5 Appeal2014-009783 Application 13/513,992 Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 29. § 103(a) Rejections of Claims 31, 33, and 36 Appellants contend the Examiner failed to provide articulated reasoning to support the obviousness rejections of claims 31, 33, and 36. (App. Br. 13). We are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejections, because the Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness for each rejection, specifically the proffered combinations result in a power converter that operates more efficiently and is prevented from system overload. (Final Act. 5-7; see KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).) Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claim 31, 33, and 36. Remaining Claims Appellants present no separate arguments for claims 30, 32, 35, 37, and 39 (see App. Br. 9). We therefore sustain their rejection for the reasons stated with respect to independent claim 28. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 28-33, 35-37, and 39 are 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). 6 Appeal2014-009783 Application 13/513,992 AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation