SEW-EURODRIVE GmbH & Co. KGDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 14, 20212021000938 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 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. 14/898,326 12/14/2015 Harald BUDZEN 2915-132 6308 31554 7590 10/14/2021 CARTER, DELUCA & FARRELL LLP 576 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD MELVILLE, NY 11747 EXAMINER MCDANIEL, TYNESE V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2859 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/14/2021 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): docket@carterdeluca.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte HARALD BUDZEN Appeal 2021-000938 Application 14/898,326 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, DONNA M. PRAISS, and JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10–12 and 15–35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed Dec. 14, 2015 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action dated Dec. 5, 2019 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed June 8, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated Sept. 18, 2020 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Nov. 17, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). 2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies SEW-EURODRIVE GmbH & Co. KG as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-000938 Application 14/898,326 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The invention relates to charging an accumulator with the aid of a charging system. Spec. 1:10–12. Independent claim 10, reproduced below from the Appeal Brief’s Claims Appendix, illustrates the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added). 10. A charging system, comprising: an accumulator; a DC voltage source; a converter including an inverter; and a rectifier, wherein: a DC current at least one of supplied and driven by the DC voltage source is supplied to a DC-voltage-side terminal of the inverter, the inverter includes semiconductor switches that are controllable in a pulse-width modulated manner for generating an output-side AC voltage, the output-side AC voltage feeds the rectifier that produces a rectified output-side voltage that at least one of functions and acts as a charging voltage for the accumulator, the converter is adapted to detect an output current of the inverter, an effective value of the output current corresponds to a charge current of the converter, the output-side AC voltage is a controllable variable, the converter is adapted to limit the output current of the inverter to a current value such that a charging power is controlled toward a maximum value, and the converter includes a maximum power point tracker that sets the output current value such that the charging power is regulated toward a maximum value. Appeal 2021-000938 Application 14/898,326 3 Claims 15, 16, 26, and 32 are the other independent claims pending in this Appeal. Appeal Br. (Claims Appendix 1–5). Similar to claim 10, each of the independent claims limits an output current to a current value such that a charging power is controlled toward a maximum value. Id. ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues Appellant identifies, 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.”)). After considering the argued claims in light of each of Appellant’s arguments, we are persuaded Appellant has identified reversible error in the appealed rejections. The Examiner rejects claims 10–12 and 15–35 as follows: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 10–12, 15, 21–24, 32– 35 103 Falk,3 Harvey,4 Ichinose5 16 103 Kutkut, 6 Harvey, Ichinose 17 103 Falk, Harvey, Ichinose, Hunter7 3 US 2008/0192510 A1, pub. Aug. 14, 2008. 4 US 2006/0132102 A1, pub. June 22, 2006. 5 JP 2003-009537 A, pub. Jan. 10, 2003 (citations herein are to the English language translation in the record). 6 US 2004/0189251 A1, pub. Sept. 30, 2004. 7 US 2013/0193276 A1, pub. Aug. 1, 2013. Appeal 2021-000938 Application 14/898,326 4 Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 18 103 Falk, Harvey, Ichinose, Hunter, Kutkut 19, 20 103 Falk, Harvey, Ichinose, Kutkut 25 103 Falk, Harvey, Ichinose, Newdoll8 26–31 103 Falk, Harvey We address below Appellant’s arguments challenging each rejection. Claims 10–12, 15, 21–24, and 32–35 The Examiner finds Falk discloses the charging system of independent claim 10, except for the converter being adapted to detect an output current of the inverter, which the Examiner finds is taught by Ichinose. Final Act. 14–17. The Examiner’s rationale for the combination is to maximize output power of the inverter as taught by Ichinose and facilitate fast charging. Id. at 17. The Examiner finds Falk modified by Ichinose does not provide the charging power is controlled toward a maximum value, so the Examiner turns to Harvey for teaching limiting an output current to a current value such that the charging power is controlled toward a maximum value. Id. at 17. The Examiner’s rationale for the combination is to charge the accumulator with power equal to peak power available from the source as taught by Harvey and to optimize system efficiency. Id. at 18. According to Appellant, the Examiner erred in modifying Falk with each of Ichinose and Harvey. Specifically, Appellant contends that Ichinose does not disclose maximizing the AC power output from the converter is 8 US 2012/0138123 A1, pub. June 7, 2012. Appeal 2021-000938 Application 14/898,326 5 related to detecting an output current of the inverter, thus, the Examiner’s reason to modify Falk is not supported. Appeal Br. 6. Regarding Harvey, Appellant contends Harvey teaches away from the proposed combination with Falk because Harvey relates to charge controllers for double layer capacitors and criticizes systems that require battery storage. Id. at 6–7. Appellant also contends that Harvey is neither in the same field of endeavor nor reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor because Appellant’s invention does not address the problem of charging double-layer capacitors from non-ideal power sources. Id. at 7–8. Appellant’s argument implies that claim 10’s “accumulator” does not encompass Harvey’s double-layer capacitors. Appellant’s arguments persuade us that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 10 as obvious over Falk, Harvey, and Ichinose. During examination, the Examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); see also Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[T]he analysis that ‘should be made explicit’ refers not to the teachings in the prior art of a motivation to combine, but to the court’s analysis.”). In the Answer, the Examiner merely restates from the Final Office Action the reason provided for modifying Falk with Ichinose rather than Appeal 2021-000938 Application 14/898,326 6 responding to Appellant’s assertions that Falk does not attribute maximizing output power of the inverter with the modification. Ans. 10. The Examiner’s statement that “knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art” is used to support the rationale does not adequately explain what that knowledge is and how it connects Ichinose’s teaching to the proposed modification to Falk. Id. at 10–11. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”). The Examiner also does not adequately respond to Appellant’s assertion that because Harvey is directed to charge controllers for double layer capacitors, Harvey is neither in the same field of endeavor or reasonably related to the same problem as that of the inventor. The analogous-art test requires that a reference is either in the field of the applicant’s endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned in order to rely on that reference as a basis for rejection. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1447. The Examiner does not adequately explain how Harvey, which relates to charger controllers for double layer capacitors, reasonably addresses a problem faced by the inventor. The Examiner merely responds that independent claims 10 and 26 do not recite “double layer capacitors” and that the Appellant cannot show nonobviousness by attaching the references individually. Id. at 14–15. The Examiner’s response does not provide any basis for Harvey being either in the same field of art as the claimed invention or reasonably related to the problem faced by the inventor. Appeal 2021-000938 Application 14/898,326 7 For at least these reasons, Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Falk, Ichinose, and Harvey. We also reverse the rejection of claims 11, 12, 15, 21–24, and 32–35 over the combination of Falk, Ichinose, and Harvey for the same reasons because the Examiner relies on the same rationale for combining Ichinose and Harvey with Falk. Claim 16 Independent claim 16 is directed to a charging system and, similar to claim 10, recites “the converter includes a maximum power point tracker that sets the current value such that the charging power is regulated toward a maximum value.” Appeal Br. (Claims Appendix 2–3). The Examiner finds Kutkut discloses the charging system of claim 16 except for the converter includes a maximum power point tracker that sets the current value such that the charging power is regulated toward a maximum value. Final Act. 32. The Examiner relies on Harvey for this teaching and determines it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kutkut with the teachings of Harvey to effectively optimize system efficiency and to maximize output power of the inverter to maximize power of the system as taught by Ichinose. Id. at 33. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection should be reversed because Harvey is not analogous art as discussed above in connection with claim 10 and the Examiner’s modification based on Ichinose is not supported by the cited record, but, rather, based on speculation or conjecture. Appeal Br. 9–10. Appeal 2021-000938 Application 14/898,326 8 The Examiner responds that Appellant argues the references individually and that Harvey is not relied upon to teach a DC power source. Ans. 20. We are constrained to reverse the rejection of claim 16 because the Examiner does not adequately respond to Appellant’s assertion that Harvey is nonanalogous art. As discussed above, the analogous-art test requires that a reference is either in the field of the applicant’s endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned in order to rely on that reference as a basis for rejection. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1447. The Examiner does not adequately explain how Harvey, which relates to charger controllers for double layer capacitors, reasonably addresses a problem faced by the inventor. For at least these reasons, Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kutkut, Harvey, and Ichinose. Claim 17 Claim 17 depends from claim 10 and recites “the output-side AC voltage is a three-phase voltage, and the rectifier is developed as a rectifier for three-phase voltage.” Appeal Br. (Claims Appendix 3). The Examiner rejects claim 17 over the combination of Falk, Harvey, Ichinose, and Hunter for the reasons presented with respect to claim 10 in addition to Hunter’s teaching of a three phase output-side AC voltage and the rectifier developed as a rectifier for three-phase voltage. Final Act. 34. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to make the further modifications to provide power transfer from an AC main to a vehicle such Appeal 2021-000938 Application 14/898,326 9 as a train without the use of wires and extra infrastructure equipment as taught by Hunter. Id. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection should be reversed for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 10 and because Hunter is nonanalogous art. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant contends Hunter relates to a system for inductive power transfer and robust position sensing, which is not analogous to Appellant’s invention. Id. In the Answer, the Examiner response that Hunter is not used to teach the claim language of claim 10 and that Hunter is in the field of charging an accumulator using a rectifier and converter technology. Ans. 22. Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible error for at least the same reasons discussed above in connection with claim 10. Accordingly, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Falk, Harvey, Ichinose, and Hunter. Claim 18 Claim 18 depends from claim 17 and recites “wherein the rectifier is a three-phase current bridge rectifier.” Appeal Br. (Claims Appendix 3). The Examiner rejects claim 18 over the combination of Falk, Harvey, Ichinose, and Hunter as applied to claim 17 and further in view of Kutkut’s teaching of a three-phase current bridge rectifier. Ans. 35. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use Kutkut’s rectifier “in order to power or battery charging that require higher power requirements than a single-phase rectifier circuit is able to supply.” Final Act. 35. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection should be reversed because neither Hunter, which relates to a system for inductive power Appeal 2021-000938 Application 14/898,326 10 transfer and robust position sensing, nor Harvey are analogous art. Appeal Br. 11. In the Answer, the Examiner directs us to the same response for the rejection of claim 17. Ans. 21. As discussed above in connection with claim 17, Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible error for at least the same reasons discussed above in connection with claim 10. Accordingly, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Falk, Harvey, Ichinose, Hunter, and Kutkut for at least the same reasons discussed above in connection with claim 10. Claims 19 and 20 Claim 19 depends from claim 10 and further recites “an arrangement for ascertaining the charging voltage.” Appeal Br. (Claims Appendix 3). Claim 20 depends from claim 19 and recites “wherein the arrangement for ascertaining is provided at the accumulator.” Id. The Examiner rejects claims 19 and 20 over the combination of Falk, Harvey, and Ichinose as applied to claim 10 and further in view of Kutkut’s disclosure of the elements recited in claims 19 and 20. Final Act. 35–36. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to modify the combination with Kutkut in order to prevent damage and deterioration due to overcharging the accumulator. Id. at 36. Appellant contends the Examiner erred for the same reasons discussed above in connection with claim 10 and also because the Examiner’s reason for modifying is merely a conclusory, unsupported statement. Appeal Br. 11–12. Appeal 2021-000938 Application 14/898,326 11 Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible error for at least the same reasons discussed above in connection with claim 10. Accordingly, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Falk, Harvey, Ichinose, and Kutkut. Claim 25 Claim 25 depends from claim 10 and recites “wherein the charge voltage is higher than a voltage applied at the DC-voltage-side terminal of the inverter.” Appeal Br. (Claims Appendix 4). The Examiner rejects claim 25 over Falk, Harvey, and Ichinose for the same reasons provided for claim 10, and further in view of Newdoll which the Examiner finds discloses the charge voltage is higher than a voltage applied at the DC-voltage-side terminal of the inverter. Final Act. 36. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Falk, Harvey, and Ichinose with the teachings of Newdoll in order to reduce power transmission losses as taught by Newdoll. Id. at 36–37. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection should be reversed for the same reasons provided for claim 10. Appeal Br. 12. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons discussed above in connection with claim 10, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Falk, Harvey, Ichinose, and Newdoll. Claims 26–31 The Examiner rejects claims 26–31 over the combination of Falk and Harvey. Claim 26, the only independent in the group, recites: Appeal 2021-000938 Application 14/898,326 12 A maximum power point tracking method for charging an accumulator, comprising: charging the accumulator by an inverter that is actuated in a pulse-width modulated manner and supplied from a DC voltage source; and limiting an output current of the inverter to a current value such that a charging power is controlled toward to a maximum value. Appeal Br. (Claims Appendix 4). The Examiner finds Falk does not disclose limiting an output current of the inverter such that a charging power is controlled toward to a maximum value. Final Act. 38. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Falk to limit the output current of the inverter to a current value such that the charging power is controlled toward a maximum value as taught by Harvey to effectively optimize the system efficiency. Final Act. 38–39. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection should be reversed because Harvey fails to provide a motivation to modify Falk as it is focused on charging double layer capacitors and constitutes nonanalogous art under either analogous art test. Appeal Br. 12–13. In the Answer, the Examiner directs us to the same responses regarding the rejection of claim 10. Ans. 13–16. Accordingly, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 26, as well as claims 27–31 based on their dependence from claim 26, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Falk and Harvey for at least the same reasons discussed above in connection with claim 10. Appeal 2021-000938 Application 14/898,326 13 CONCLUSION For these reasons and those provided in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10–12 and 15– 35. In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 10–12, 15, 21–24, 32– 35 103 Falk, Harvey, Ichinose 10–12, 15, 21–24, 32– 35 16 103 Kutkut, Harvey, Ichinose 16 17 103 Falk, Harvey, Ichinose, Hunter 17 18 103 Falk, Harvey, Ichinose, Hunter, Kutkut 18 19, 20 103 Falk, Harvey, Ichinose, Kutkut 19, 20 25 103 Falk, Harvey, Ichinose, Newdoll 25 26–31 103 Falk, Harvey 26–31 Overall Outcome 10–12, 15– 35 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation