SEW-EURODRIVE GMBH & CO. KGDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 11, 20212020005286 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 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. 15/665,069 07/31/2017 Helmut BELZ 2915-58A 2900 31554 7590 08/11/2021 CARTER, DELUCA & FARRELL LLP 576 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD MELVILLE, NY 11747 EXAMINER AMRANY, ADI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2836 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/11/2021 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 HELMUT BELZ, BENJAMIN MOOS, and JOSEF SCHMIDT1 ____________ Appeal 2020-005286 Application 15/665,069 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before N. WHITNEY WILSON, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 29–52. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to systems for transmitting information via electric lines, and to associated methods. E.g., Spec. 1:10– 13; Claim 29. Claim 29 is reproduced below from page 1 of the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief: 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SEW- EURODRIVE GmbH & Co. KG. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-005286 Application 15/665,069 2 29. A system, comprising: an apparatus, including a control unit, connectable to a multi- phase AC supply voltage source; and a device connected to the apparatus via a plurality of lines, each line corresponding to a respective phase of the AC supply- voltage source, each line adapted to supply AC voltage from the apparatus to the device to power the device; wherein the apparatus is adapted to transmit information from the control unit to the device over only a single one of the plurality of lines that connect the device to the apparatus; and wherein the device includes a voltage-measurement device adapted to measure voltage on each of the plurality of lines, the device including an amplifier adapted to amplify, by a predetermined, amplification factor, the measured voltage associated with only the single one of the lines adapted to transmit information between the control unit and the device to an amplified value, the device uniquely identifying information transmitted between the control unit and the device in accordance with the amplified value. ANALYSIS Claims 29–52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, for failure to comply with the written description requirement.2 After review of the cited evidence in the appeal record and the opposing positions of the Appellant and the Examiner, we determine that the Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection for reasons set forth below, in the Final Action dated Sept. 27, 2019, and in the Examiner’s Answer. 2 In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner withdraws several rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Ans. 4. Appeal 2020-005286 Application 15/665,069 3 The Appellant argues the claims as a group. We select claim 29 as representative, and the remaining claims will stand or fall with claim 29. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). “[T]he test for [compliance with the written description requirement] is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). However, “[t]he invention claimed does not have to be described in ipsis verbis in order to satisfy the description requirement of § 112.” In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 969 (CCPA 1971). Claim 29 recites, inter alia, an apparatus connected to a device via a plurality of lines, and that information is transmitted over “only a single one of the plurality of lines.” Claim 29 further recites that the device includes “an amplifier adapted to amplify . . . the measured voltage associated with only the single one of the lines adapted to transmit information.” The Examiner determines, and the Appellant does not dispute, that those limitations require a structure in which the amplifier is capable of amplifying only the voltage of the information line, and not the voltages of non- information lines (power-only lines). E.g., Ans. 12. The Examiner determines that the written description does not support the “amplifier” limitation because any amplifier disclosed by the written description must be adapted to amplify all lines, rather than only the information line. Final Act. 7–8. The Appellant argues that, in Figure 1, switches S1 and S2 apply only to a single line, L3, indicating that only L3 is an information line. Appeal Appeal 2020-005286 Application 15/665,069 4 Br. 3. The Appellant states that, “[a]gainst this background, where only a single supply line L3 is used to transmit information, the Specification states that ‘the measured value of phase L3 is amplified by a suitable factor.’” Id. at 3–4 (quoting Spec. 12:11–20). The Appellant argues that, because the Specification mentions amplification of L3 but “does not mention amplification of supply lines L1, L2, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that Appellant had possession of a system in which an amplifier is adapted to amplify . . . a measured voltage associated with only a single line.” Id. In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner responds that the written description concerns a system in which the information line must first be identified from a plurality of lines,3 and that the information line can be identified using either an averaging method or an amplification method. Ans. 7. The Examiner finds that the amplification method is described by page 12 of the Specification, relied on by the Appellant. Id. The Examiner acknowledges that page 12 of the Specification states, “[f]or instance, the measured value of phase L3 is amplified,” but the Examiner finds that, in order for this amplification method to be used to identify the information line from amongst a plurality of lines, the amplifier must be adapted to and capable of amplifying each line in order to determine which line is the information line. Id. In the Reply Brief, the Appellant repeatedly emphasizes that page 12 of the Specification states that “the measured value of phase L3 is amplified” and is silent as to any amplification of phases L1 or L2. Reply 3 E.g., Spec. 7:1–2 (“Therefore, at the beginning in a first period of time, that phase on which the information is coded is determined.”). Appeal 2020-005286 Application 15/665,069 5 Br. 4–7. The Appellant does not persuasively dispute the Examiner’s finding that the discussion on page 12 of the Specification concerning amplification contemplates the use of amplification, as an alternative to averaging, to determine which line amongst a plurality of lines is the information line. See generally Reply Br. Instead, the Appellant appears to accept that characterization of page 12, and the Appellant simply repeats that page 12 states that “the measured value of phase L3 is amplified” but is silent as to lines L1 and L2. Id. We are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. We accept the Examiner’s characterization of page 12 of the Specification as disclosing amplification as an alternative to averaging for purposes of determining which line amongst a plurality of lines is the information line. See Spec. 12:11–20 (disclosing the use of amplification “instead of averaging”). Although we recognize that page 12 specifically mentions amplification of L3, we discern no reason to reject the Examiner’s finding that, in order to determine which line amongst a plurality of lines constitutes the information line, the amplifier must be adapted to amplify each line. Thus, although page 12 does not expressly describe amplification of other lines such as L1 and L2, its silence as to lines L1 and L2 does not show possession of an amplifier adapted to amplify “only the single one of the lines adapted to transmit information,” as recited by claim 29 and interpreted by the Examiner. Rather, for reasons explained in detail by the Examiner, see generally Ans., and not persuasively contested by the Appellant, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the amplifier contemplated by page 12 of the Specification must be adapted to amplify all of the lines in order to determine which of the lines is the information line. Appeal 2020-005286 Application 15/665,069 6 Consistent with that reasoning and with the Examiner’s analysis, we also observe that none of the Figures depicts an amplifier adapted to amplify only a single line amongst a plurality of lines. On this record, the Appellant has not persuasively identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. See 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 . . . .”). CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 29–52 112, ¶ 1 Written Description 29–52 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation