LSIS CO., LTD.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 26, 20212021000680 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/384,883 12/20/2016 Hyo-Jin KIM 0313073.00235 5370 24573 7590 10/26/2021 K&L Gates LLP-Chicago P.O. Box 1135 Chicago, IL 60690 EXAMINER JOSEPH, DEVON A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2846 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/26/2021 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): USpatentmail@klgates.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte HYO-JIN KIM ____________ Appeal 2021-000680 Application 15/384,883 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, GEORGE C. BEST, and DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges. BEST, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 6, and 7 of Application 15/384,883. Final Act. (December 27, 2019). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies LSIS Co., Ltd., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-000680 Application 15/384,883 2 I. BACKGROUND The ’883 Application describes an inverter for converting DC electric power into three-phase AC electric power. Spec. 1. The Specification describes the inverter as being particularly useful for converting electricity generated by solar panels into a form that can be used to power an electric motor—e.g., in a pump used to supply water for drinking, fields, livestock farming, and the like in remote areas. Id. The inverter adjusts the output frequency of the three-phase voltage based on a comparison of the motor’s minimum operating voltage with a DC link voltage applied to a DC link. Id. According to Appellant, this method of operation controls the motor to rapidly follow the maximum power output without the need for an expensive controller to calculate a maximum power point tracking algorithm. Id. at 1–4; Appeal Br. 11. Claim 1 is representative of the ’883 Application’s claims and is reproduced below from the Appeal Brief’s Claims Appendix. We have italicized the claim elements that are important to our analysis. 1. An inverter for converting power and supplying the power to a motor, comprising: a measurement part configured to measure a DC link voltage applied to a DC link, wherein the DC link voltage is supplied from a solar power system and is configured to be nonlinearly changed depending on an output of the motor; a conversion part configured to convert the DC link voltage into a three-phase voltage and output the three-phase voltage to the motor; and a control part configured to make a comparison in magnitude between the DC link voltage and a minimum operating voltage of the motor, and adjust an output frequency of the three-phase voltage based on the comparison in magnitude to drive the motor at maximum power, wherein the Appeal 2021-000680 Application 15/384,883 3 DC link voltage and the minimum operating voltage are not a current, wherein the minimum operating voltage of the motor is a minimum voltage that is needed for the operation of the motor, wherein, if the DC link voltage exceeds the minimum operating voltage of the motor, the control part increases the output frequency of the three-phase voltage by a first frequency, and if the DC link voltage is less than or equal to the minimum operating voltage of the motor, the control part decreases the output frequency of the three-phase voltage by a second frequency which is lower than the first frequency. Appeal Br. 25 (emphasis added). II. REJECTION Claims 1–3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Skaug2 and Kim.3 Answer 3; Final Act. 5–8. III. DISCUSSION Appellant argues for reversal of this rejection on the basis of the limitations of independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 12–23. Dependent claims 2, 3, 6, and 7 are said to be patentable based on their dependence from claim 1 and are not separately argued. Id. at 23. We, therefore, limit our discussion to claim 1. 2 US 2005/0068001 A1, published March 31, 2005. 3 US 2011/0255307 A1, published October 20, 2011. Appeal 2021-000680 Application 15/384,883 4 Appellant argues, inter alia, that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness by failing to identify where the prior art describes or suggests each of the claim limitations. Appeal Br. 16–23. We agree with Appellant. For the purpose of this opinion, we focus on the following limitations: “a first frequency,” and “a second frequency,” wherein the “second frequency . . . is lower than the first frequency.” The ’883 Application’s Specification makes it clear that the first frequency and second frequency are discrete values used to increment or decrement the inverter’s output frequency. See Spec. 8–9. For example, the Specification says that “the first frequency may be set as a frequency value to minimize a rapid change in the DC link voltage Vdc, which may be caused by the adjustment of the output frequency f. For example, the first frequency may be 5Hz.” Id. at 8. The Specification further describes the second frequency as being smaller than the first frequency. Id. at 9. Thus, in operation, the claimed invention adjusts the frequency of the output current in a step-wise fashion, increasing it in increments equal to the first frequency and decreasing by amounts equal to the second frequency. The Examiner explains and clearly identifies where Skaug describes changing the frequency of the output current in response to changes in the input voltage. See, e.g., Final Act. 6–7 (citing Skaug ¶ 56); Answer 5–7. In these explanations, however, the Examiner does not address the step-wise nature of the frequency adjustment. Id. The Examiner, therefore, never makes findings or explains where Skaug teaches or suggests the recited “first frequency” and “second frequency” or the relationship between their magnitudes. Appeal 2021-000680 Application 15/384,883 5 Nor does the Examiner rely upon Kim for a description or suggestion of these claim elements. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Kim as describing the use of a solar power system to supply the input DC link voltage. Final Act. 7. In view of the foregoing, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness. We, therefore, reverse the rejection of claim 1. Thus, we also reverse the rejections of claims 2, 3, 6, and 7 based on their dependency from claim 1. IV. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 6, 7 103 Skaug, Kim 1–3, 6, 7 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation