Ex Parte Zirkel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

12621113 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/621, 113 11/18/2009
34044 7590 09/28/2016
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch)
100 EAST WISCONSIN A VENUE
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Daniel Zirkel
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.
022862-9033 1843
EXAMINER
SHECHTMAN, SEAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2121
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL ZIRKEL, GUNTER WIEDEMANN,
and DAVID SCHLIPF
Appeal2014-009872
Application 12/621,113 1
Technology Center 2100
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 21-23, 25, 27, 29, 31-33, 38, 40, and 41.2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 Appellants indicate the Real Party in Interest is Robert Bosch GmbH. App.
Br. 2.
2 Claims 1-20, 24, 26, 28, and 30 are cancelled. App. Br. 16-20. Claims
34--37 and 39 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim,
but the Examiner has indicated these claims would be allowable if rewritten
in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and
any intervening claims. Final Act. 18.
Appeal2014-009872
Application 12/621,113
We AFFIRivL
Invention
The disclosure relates to a closed-loop control system specifying a
controlling variable, a primary controller, a measuring means, a
measurement system, and a secondary controller. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 21 is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
21. A closed-loop control system for controlling a controlled
system, specifying at least one controlling variable to the controlled
system, and controlling a regulated variable of the controlled system to
a predetermined setpoint, the controlling variable representing a value
within a maximum controlling variable barrier having a value and a
minimum controlling variable having a value, the system comprising:
a primary controller for generating the controlling variable
within the interval between the maximum controlling variable barrier
and the minimum controlling variable barrier and receiving a
difference between an actual value of the regulated variable and the
predetermined setpoint;
at least one measuring means for determining the actual value of
the regulated variable;
at least one measurement system for ascertaining at least one
state variable of the controlled system; and
at least one secondary controller for dynamically varying the
value of the maximum controlling variable barrier and the value of the
minimum controlling variable barrier as a function of the state
variable.
2
Appeal2014-009872
Application 12/621,113
Claims 21-23, 25, 27, 32, 33, 38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Fung (US 5,586,444; Dec. 24, 1996).
Claims 32, 33, 38, 40, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Uehara et al. (US 2007 /0026280 Al; Feb. 1, 2007).
Claims 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, and 31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Uehara and Kocher et al. (US 7,117,044 B2; Oct. 3,
2006).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the findings and reasons set forth in
the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis
as follows.
Section 102 - Independent Claim 21
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim
21 because Fung fails to disclose "a primary controller for generating the
controlling variable within the interval between the maximum controlling
3 The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 32, 33, 38, and 40
as being anticipated by Gilbert (US 4, 115,998; Sept. 26, 1978) is withdrawn.
Ans. 2.
3
Appeal2014-009872
Application 12/621,113
variable barrier and the minimum controlling variable barrier," and "at least
one secondary controller for dynamically varying the value of the maximum
controlling variable barrier and the value of the minimum controlling
variable barrier as a function of the state variable," as recited in claim 21.
App. Br. 7-10; Reply Br. 2, 3.
Appellants argue:
[t]he values of the controlling variables associated with the
CMPH and CMPL variables disclosed in Fung (i.e., the value of
the control signals for the fixed speed compressors), do not have
values between the values of the CMPH and CMPL variables.
Rather . . . the variables CMPH and CMPL have numerical
values but the controlling variables for the fixed speed
compressors described in Fung are either an "on" signal or an
"off' signal.
App. Br. 9.
Id.
Appellants also argue:
The control signals sent to the fixed speed compressors [in Fung]
are simply an "on" signal or an "off' signal. To the extent that
the "on" and "off' signals represent "limits" for the control
signals provided to the fixed speed compressors, the signals are
static and do not vary in any way.
The Examiner finds, however, that Fung discloses compressor
capacity:
as a variable that has control over turning compressors on/off
(See Figs. 8-9, Col. 9, lines 28 - Col. 13, lines 57, claims), and
therefore is a controlling variable .... [T]he capacity is clearly
selected > CMPL and