Faraday&Future Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 17, 2020

2020001025 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 2020)

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.
14/954,963 11/30/2015 Mengwei Campbell FARA.004A 6039
157346 7590 11/17/2020
Veros Legal Solutions, LLP // FARADAY
2305 Historic Decatur Road, Suite 100
SAN DIEGO, CA 92106
EXAMINER
LAUGHLIN, CHARLES S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2846
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2020 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):
docketing@veroslegal.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MENGWEI CAMPBELL and JIE DANG
____________

Appeal 2020-001025
Application 14/954,963
Technology Center 2800
___________

Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, GEORGE C. BEST, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6–10, 12, and 14–20. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Farady&Future Inc. (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2020-001025
Application 14/954,963

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added
to highlight key limitation in dispute):
1. A system for controlling an electric motor, the system
comprising:
a position sensor configured to measure a position of a
rotor of the electric motor;
an error detector configured to detect an offset between
the position measured by the position sensor and an actual
position of the rotor, the error detector including:
a signal injector configured to inject a probing
signal to a stator of the electric motor, wherein the
probing signal includes a high frequency current signal;
and
a signal sampler configured to sample a response
signal from the stator of the electric motor;
wherein the error detector is configured to derive the
offset based on the response signal; and
a current regulator, wherein:
the signal injector is configured to inject the
probing signal by inputting a current command in a
reference frame to the current regulator during a startup
process2 or within a short period after the rotor starts to
rotate; and
the signal sampler is configured to sample the
response signal by receiving a voltage command in the
reference frame from the current regulator.
Appellant’s arguments are directed to the meaning of the italicized
phrases, which appear in claim 1 supra, as well as in independent claims 9,
17, and 20, which respectively recite a method, motor system, and chassis
comprising a position sensor corresponding to that recited in system claim 1
(Appeal Br. 9–12, Claims Appendix; generally Appeal Br.). Accordingly,

2 Claim 1 in the Appeals Appendix contains a typographical error (repeating
the phrase “during a startup”) which has been corrected here.
Appeal 2020-001025
Application 14/954,963

3
we decide each ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the basis of the
arguments made in support of patentability of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 8, 9, and 16–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combined prior art of Schulz 1 (US 2008/027273 A1;
published Nov. 6, 2008) and Shimada (US 2014/0145660 A1; published
May 29, 2014).
Claims 4, 6, 7, 12, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over the combined prior art of Schulz 1, Shimada, and Schulz 2 (US
2010/0295491 A1; published Nov. 25, 2010).
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the
combined prior art of Schulz 1, Shimada, and Cao (US 2013/0093375 A1;
published Apr. 18, 2013).
ANALYSIS
After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of
Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies
reversible error. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the
issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). We sustain the
Appeal 2020-001025
Application 14/954,963

4
Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action
and the Answer.
We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings based on Schulz
1, which is directed to a control system for an electric motor system using a
position sensor and an error detector “configured to detect an offset”
between the position measured by the position detector and an actual
position of the motor’s rotor (Final Act. 2–3). The Examiner relies upon
Shimada for its teaching of using an error detection system that uses a high
frequency current to estimate the magnetic pole position and speed of the
rotor, and specifically relies upon the signal injector 31 of Shimada (Final
Act. 3, 4). Appellant makes only one main argument, that is, “Shimada does
not disclose anything regarding the timing of injecting a probing signal” and
thus does not teach or suggest doing so “during a startup process or within a
short period of time after the rotor starts to rotate” as recited in each
independent claim (Appeal Br. 4, 6).
It is well established that “the PTO must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the specification. . . . Therefore, we
look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but
otherwise apply a broad interpretation.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (also noting that “as applicants may
amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution
creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.”).
With respect to Appellant’s argument, that Shimada does not disclose
the timing of the signal as recited in the claims, the Examiner counters that
Shimada teaches that signals Ɵh and Ɵee are updated at the start of every
Appeal 2020-001025
Application 14/954,963

5
operating cycle, and Ɵh is used in element 31 of Shimada which calculates
the high frequency to be injected (e.g., Ans. 4 (citing Shimada Fig. 1, ¶¶ 34,
35, 98–100, 187, 188)). Further, as the Examiner points out, Appellant’s
Specification lacks any limiting definition of a “short period of time after
startup” as recited in claim 1 (Ans. 4 (Spec. ¶ 23 discusses non-limiting
examples including “5 seconds, etc.”)). Thus, the Examiner reasonably
determined that the claim recitation encompasses Shimada’s update control
scheme.
Furthermore, it has been well settled that “the [obviousness] analysis
need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also In re Fritch, 972
F.2d 1260, 1264–65 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (a reference stands for all of the
specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in
the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom).
Appellant’s de facto argument that the Examiner has failed to
sufficiently explain how the applied prior art rendered claim 1 obvious is
also not persuasive of error as Appellant fails to consider the applied prior
art as a whole and the inferences that one of ordinary skill would have made.
The Examiner explains that one of ordinary skill would have interpreted
Shimada’s control scheme as occurring when the motor is rotating, “which
would occur right at start or right after startup of the motor” (Ans. 4
(discussing Shimada ¶ 5)). This cited section, along with Shimada’s overall
disclosures already relied upon, supports the Examiner’s contention that one
of ordinary skill would have reasonably inferred that Shimada’s injection of
Appeal 2020-001025
Application 14/954,963

6
a high frequency probing signal would occur during a motor’s start up or
within a short period of time after the rotor starts to rotate as required in each
independent claim.
Consequently, a person of ordinary skill would have looked to
Shimada for disclosure on motor control systems for electric motors that
take into account a high frequency current signal injected to the stator during
a startup process or within a short period after the rotor starts to rotate.
Therefore, Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner’s
determination that the disputed claim phrase encompasses the error detection
system of Shimada is in error. No reversible error has been shown with the
Examiner’s determination that the use of the invention of Shimada to modify
the electric motor resolver alignment/position error controller of Schulz 1
would have been within the skill and creativity of one of ordinary skill in the
art.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent
claims 1, 9, 17, and 20, as well as all claims dependent thereon, noting that
Appellant relies upon the arguments made for claim 1 for all the other claims
(see also, Appeal Br. 7).
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 8, 9,
16–19 103 Schulz 1, Shimada
1, 8, 9,
16–19
4, 6, 7, 12,
14, 15, 20 103
Schulz 1, Shimada,
Schulz 2
4, 6, 7, 12,
14, 15, 20
Appeal 2020-001025
Application 14/954,963

7
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
2, 10 103 Schulz 1, Shimada, Cao 2, 10
Overall
Outcome

1, 2, 4, 6–
10, 12,
14–20

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)(iv).
AFFIRMED