Martin Neuburger et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 4, 2019

13997869 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 2019)

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.
13/997,869 07/22/2013 Martin Neuburger 022862-1864-US00 6371
34044 7590 11/04/2019
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch)
100 EAST WISCONSIN AVENUE
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
JOSEPH, DEVON A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/04/2019 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 MARTIN NEUBURGER and KURT REUTLINGER
Appeal 2019-000040
Application 13/997,869
Technology Center 2800
Before MARK NAGUMO, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to finally reject claims 1 and 5–11. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2

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 Robert Bosch
GmbH. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed March 19, 2018, p. 2.
2 Our Decision additionally refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed June
25, 2013, the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated October
Appeal 2019-000040
Application 13/997,869

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method and device for operating an
electric machine having external or hybrid excitation. Spec. 1, Title. That is,
“the exciter magnetic field is provided wholly or partly with the aid of an
exciter winding.” Id. at 7.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter (critical limitation emphasized):
1. An electronically commutated electric machine (2), comprising:
- a rotor (21);
- an exciter winding (6) arranged at the rotor (21) in order
to generate or alter a direct magnetic field in the rotor (21); and
- a stator (22) having a three-phase or polyphase stator
winding (23) with phases which can be driven via phase lines (8)
connected to inverter circuits (9);
- wherein the stator winding (23) has stator coils
interconnected in a star conection [sic, connection];
- wherein the exciter winding (6) is directly connected to a
star point of the star connection of the stator winding (23), and
directly to a supply potential via an exciter winding line (11); and
- wherein, to set an exciter winding current, a duty ratio
used to drive the inverter circuits (9) is varied to vary a potential
of the star point.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Syverson et al. US 5,631,544 May 20, 1997
Oyobe et al. US 2009/0121659 A1 May 14, 2009

19, 2017, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated August 1, 2018, and
Appellant’s Reply Br. (“Reply Br.”) filed October 1, 2018.

Appeal 2019-000040
Application 13/997,869

3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant requests our review of, the
following grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
1. Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, and 11 as unpatentable over Syverson; and
2. Claims 7, 9, and 10 as unpatentable over Syverson and Oyobe.
OPINION
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the Examiner reversibly
erred in finding that Syverson’s exciter winding 600 is directly connected to
a supply potential as required by claim 1. For the reasons expressed in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs as well as below, we answer this question in the
affirmative and do not uphold the Examiner’s obviousness rejections based
upon Syverson.
The Examiner’s position
The Examiner finds that Syverson, Figure 14, teaches an exciter
winding 600 directly connected to a supply potential only via an exciter
winding line. Final Act. 3. Syverson’s Figure 14 is reproduced below.

Figure 14 of Syverson depicts a hybrid alternator wiring diagram
Appeal 2019-000040
Application 13/997,869

4
The Examiner further finds that Syverson teaches switches 626, 628
of voltage regulator 642 are connected to the supply potential 610 of the
regulator. Final Act. 3. The Examiner determines that because Appellant
“has not [identified] a connection of the supply, the [E]xaminer has given
. . . claim [1] the broadest reasonable interpretation.” Id. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to connect Syverson’s exciter
winding 600 “to a star point only via an exciter winding line to only provide
one path for the zero sequence currents during faults and allow exciting the
remaining two windings to support a fault tolerant operation.” Id.
The Examiner identifies the line connecting exciter winding 600 to
two branch lines connecting to switches 626, 628 as the exciter winding line.
Ans. 3. In addition, the Examiner finds that when one or both of switches
626, 628 are closed, there is always a supply potential connection. Id. The
Examiner explains that
[b]ecause the neutral point of a star configured stator winding
operates at approximately one half the output voltage applied to
the battery 610, a forward current can be induced in the rotor
winding 600 simply by connecting the opposite end of the rotor
winding to the positive end of the battery 610. Alternatively, to
induce a negative current in the rotor winding, the opposite end
can be connected to ground. Control circuit 630 closes switch
626 and opens switch 628 to apply a forward polarity voltage to
the rotor winding 600, switch 626 is opened and switch 628 is
closed to apply a reverse polarity voltage to the rotor winding
600. Therefore, switches 626 and 628 always delivers a voltage
polarity across it, there is always a supply potential being sent
to neutral point of the winding. The examiner also notes that the
claim language indicated that the phrase “directly” is being
modified by the phrase “via”. Therefore, applying the broadest
reasonable interpretation, one of ordinary skill in the art would
consider the supply line as shown in the drawing above to be
directly connected to a supply potential. This interpretation is not
Appeal 2019-000040
Application 13/997,869

5
remotely related to the claim invention as argue[d] by appellant,
since the voltage regulator 624 is directly connected to the supply
potential 610 and providing the same voltage across the exciter
winding 600.
Id. at 3–4 (emphasis added).
Appellant’s position
Appellant argues that Syverson’s exciter winding 600 is not directly
connected to the supply potentials. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant contends that the
term “directly” is clear on its face, does not include a connection through a
switch, and results in the exciter winding always being connected to the
supply potential. Id. According to Appellant, Syverson is not connected to
the supply potential when switches 626, 628 are open, and likely operates so
that both switches are open during the switch transition to ensure against a
short circuit. Id.; Reply Br. 2. Appellant also asserts that “the claimed direct
connection cannot be altered in any way electrically.” Id.
Analysis
We begin, appropriately, with the claim’s words. See Oakley, Inc. v.
Sunglass Hut Int’l, 316 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (explaining that
anticipation and obviousness require comparison of the properly construed
claims to the available prior art); Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com,
Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Only when a claim is properly
understood can a determination be made . . . whether the prior art anticipates
and/or renders obvious the claimed invention.”). 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
Appeal 2019-000040
Application 13/997,869

6
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). However, the PTO cannot adopt a
construction that is “beyond that which was reasonable in light of the totality
of the written description.” In re Baker Hughes, Inc., 215 F.3d 1297, 1303
(Fed. Cir. 2000).
The claim limitation in question is “wherein the exciter winding (6) is
directly connected . . . directly to a supply potential via an exciter winding
line (11).” This relationship is depicted in both of Appellant’s Figures 3
(peripheral star point) and 4 (central star point). Because Figure 4 and
Syverson’s Figure 14 both connect the exciter winding to the central star
point, we reproduce Appellant’s Figure 4 below.

Appellant’s Figure 4, shows a schematic of an electric machine
In Figure 4, exciter winding 6 which corresponds to Syverson’s
exciter winding 600 is directly connected to the supply potential via exciter
winding line 11 (the connections to a supply potential on the left of the
diagram are not shown expressly). We note that Appellant discloses that, in
an alternative embodiment, it is possible to connect the exciter winding line
11 for connecting the exciter winding 6 directly to the housing. Spec. 10, last
Appeal 2019-000040
Application 13/997,869

7
¶. These uses of the term “directly” are consistent with its plain and ordinary
meaning, i.e., without anyone or anything intervening.3 In this case, the
exciter winding is directly connected to the supply potential via the exciter
winding line which means that there is no other intervening structure
between the exciter winding and the supply potential except the exciter
winding line which electrically connects the two directly to each other.
Because Syverson includes switches in the line connecting exciter winding
600 to the supply potential, Syverson does not meet the claim limitation in
question. The discussion raised by both the Examiner and Appellant
regarding the functioning of these switches serves to highlight the active
intervention of the switches between the exciter winding and the supply
potential repeatedly throughout the ordinary operation of the motor, contrary
to the claim limitation. The Examiner has not directed our attention to any
disclosure in the Specification indicating that such an enlargement of the
scope of the term “direct connection” would have been recognized by a
person having ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the Examiner makes no
findings regarding Oyobe that cure the deficiency in Syverson discussed
above.
Because the Examiner relies on an incorrect claim interpretation, and
does not establish that the claim limitation in question is otherwise shown in
the prior art or would have been otherwise obvious to the skilled artisan, we
cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection over Syverson, alone or
in view of Oyobe.

3 https://www.thefreedictionary.com/directly, last visited October 28, 2019.
Appeal 2019-000040
Application 13/997,869

8
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 1 and 5–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Syverson,
alone or in view of Oyobe, is reversed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 6, 8, 11 103(a) Syverson 1, 5, 6, 8, 11
7, 9, 10 103(a) Syverson, Oyobe 7, 9, 10
Overall
Outcome
1, 5–11

REVERSED