Elias M. Ayana et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 31, 2020

13705509 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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.
13/705,509 12/05/2012 Elias M. Ayana CUPG-163 2657
54620 7590 01/31/2020
CUMMINS INC.
TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
ONE INDIANA SQUARE
SUITE 3500
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204-2023
EXAMINER
LOPEZ ALVAREZ, OLVIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2117
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2020 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):
taft-ip-docket@taftlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ELIAS M. AYANA and BRAD K. PALMER
____________________

Appeal 2018-008060
Application 13/705,509
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JENNIFER S. BISK, LARRY J. HUME, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.

BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10–14 and 16–24. Claims 1–9 and 15
have been canceled. Appeal Br. 16–17 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Specification filed
December 5, 2012 (“Spec.”), the Final Rejection mailed July 19, 2017
(“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed February 20, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer mailed June 15, 2018 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief
filed August 7, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
2 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
Cummins Power Generation, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-008060
Application 13/705,509

2
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to
generator power systems with hybrid rectifiers that can be operated in
passive or active rectifier mode. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 35. This allows passive
rectification during high load conditions and active rectification at other
times to optimize efficiency of the system. Id. at ¶ 37. Claim 10,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
10. A system comprising:
a controllable alternating current power source including
an engine and a generator configurable to provide a
controlled output;
a hybrid rectifier configured to rectify the controlled
output of the controllable alternating current power
source and configurable to operate in an active
rectification mode and a passive rectification mode; and
a controller configured to adjust a speed of the engine
and to switch an operation of the hybrid rectifier between
the active rectification mode and the passive rectification
mode in response to a threshold associated with an
operation speed of the engine and an efficiency maxima
curve for the engine.
Appeal Br. 16–17 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claims 10, 11, 14, 16–20, and 22–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Datta (US
2005/02862789 A1, Dec. 29, 2005), Peterson (US 2011/0215641 A1,
Sept. 8, 2011), and Dengler (Potential of Reduced Fuel Consumption of
Appeal 2018-008060
Application 13/705,509

3
Diesel-Electric APUs at Variable Speed in Mobile Applications,” SAE
INTERNATIONAL (2011-24-0075, Sept. 11, 2011)). Final Act. 8–22.
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Datta, Peterson, Dengler, and
Wejrzanowski (US 2010/0105259 A1, Apr. 29, 2010). Final Act. 22–24.
Claims 21, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Datta, Peterson, Dengler, and
Alston (US 2009/0261599 A1, Oct. 22, 2009). Final Act. 25–28.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). To the extent Appellants have not advanced separate,
substantive arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments
are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and any evidence
presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis in our analysis below.
Rejection of Claims 10, 11, 14, 16–20, and 22–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner finds that claims 10, 11, 14, 16–20, and 22–24 would
have been obvious over the combination of Datta, Peterson, and Dengler.
Final Act. 8–22. Specifically, the Examiner relies on Datta as teaching or
suggesting the majority of the limitations of claim 10, but relies on Peterson
as teaching a controller configured to adjust a speed of the engine (id. at 10–
12), and on Dengler as teaching controlling the engine in response to a
Appeal 2018-008060
Application 13/705,509

4
threshold associated with an efficiency maxima curve for the engine (id.
at 12–13). Id. at 8–13.
Appellant makes several arguments that are not persuasive because
they attack references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA
1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Specifically, Appellant argues that “Datta fails to describe, teach or suggest
a controller configured to adjust a speed of the engine and to switch an
operation of the hybrid rectifier between the active rectification mode and
the passive rectification mode in response to a threshold associated with an
operation speed of the engine and an efficiency maxima curve for the
engine” (the “mode switch limitation”) (emphases added). Appeal Br. 6.
Appellant adds that Peterson fails to teach that the switch between
rectification modes is made “in response to a threshold associated with an
operation speed of the engine and an efficiency maxima curve for the
engine.” Id. at 7. These arguments are not persuasive because, as described
above, the Examiner relies on Peterson for teaching adjusting a speed of the
engine and on Dengler for the rest of limitation. These arguments, therefore,
do not address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner.
Appellant also argues that the mode switch limitation requires
“switching between an active rectification mode and passive rectification
mode based on engine speed and the efficiency maxima curve for the
engine.” Id. at 8 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 31–32, 38). According to Appellant, the
combination of Datta, Peterson, and Dengler “[a]t most . . . teaches adjusting
a speed of the engine in response to an efficiency maxima curve and
switching between active and passive rectification in response to a generator
Appeal 2018-008060
Application 13/705,509

5
speed, but not any switching between the active and passive rectification
modes in response to both an efficiency maxima curve for the engine and the
speed of the engine.” Id. at 8–9. Appellant adds that “[t]he Examiner
appears to rely on ingenuity or common sense to supply the missing teaching
from the cited references.” Id. at 9 (citing Final Act. 7).
We agree with the Examiner that Appellant misinterprets the mode
switch limitation. See Ans. 6. The language of this limitation does not
require switching based on engine speed of the engine and the efficiency
maxima curve for the engine, but instead requires switching “in response to a
threshold,” and that threshold is “associated with an operation speed of the
engine and an efficiency maxima curve for the engine.” Appeal Br. 16–17
(Claims App.). In other words, Appellant implies that adjusting the speed of
the engine and switching the mode of the rectifier is changed directly in
response to the speed of the engine and the efficiency maxima curve for the
engine. See Appeal Br. 8–9; Reply Br. 4–7. However, the claim language
does not support this interpretation, instead stating that the threshold, on
which the adjusting and switching change in response to, is associated with
“an operation speed of the engine and an efficiency maxima curve for the
engine.” Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.).
This interpretation is consistent with the Specification, which states
that “[i]n an embodiment, the threshold is an operating point of the
controllable alternating current power source at which an efficiency in the
passive rectification mode is substantially equivalent to an efficiency in the
active rectification mode.” Spec. ¶ 36; see also Spec. ¶¶ 6, 27–28
(describing Fig. 3, “a chart illustrating fuel consumption of a power source
in a power system”). Moreover, the Specification describes adjusting speed
Appeal 2018-008060
Application 13/705,509

6
and switching rectifier mode based on such a threshold, which is derived
from a previously calculated efficiency power curve. Id. ¶ 30
(“Accordingly, if a particular demand from a load is within the output power
curves associated with the range 92, the controller 22 can operate the engine
at the associated minimum speed.”), ¶ 31 (“Outside of the range 92, at
higher output powers, the controller 22 can be configured to operate the
engine 44 at a maximum efficiency for the target output power.”).
Based on this understanding of the mode switch limitation, we agree
with the Examiner that Dengler teaches a threshold associated with an
efficiency maxima curve. Dengler Fig. 3 (“Determined characteristic curve
of optimum fuel consumption of the system”), 4 (“This resulting curve
[shown in Fig. 3] was used for the control unit which adapts the rotary speed
of the diesel engine to the present load.”). We also agree that this teaching
of Dengler, combined with the teachings of Datta and Peterson, teaches or
suggests the mode switch limitation.
Finally, Appellant argues that “[t]here is no reason for one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify Datta to switch between active and passive
rectification based on both an efficiency maxima curve for the engine and
the speed of the engine since such control does not achieve the operational
outcomes taught by Datta.” 3 Appeal Br. 9; Reply 9. According to

3 In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues, “Datta teaches away from such a
modification since Datta’s switching is based on the back emf of the
generator to minimize current in the active converter and to enable
maximum torque per ampere operation of the generator, and to regulate the
output voltage of the generator in the passive mode.” Reply Br. 4. This
argument was not presented in the Appeal Brief and Appellant does not
explain good cause for its inclusion for the first time in the Reply Brief.
This argument, therefore, is improper. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (“Any
Appeal 2018-008060
Application 13/705,509

7
Appellant, “the principal application contemplated for the control circuitry
in Datta is for wind turbines,” and “does not include any adjustment of a
speed of the wind turbine.” Reply Br. 3–4.
We do not find this argument persuasive. Appellant, itself, notes that
Datta “discloses other power systems are envisaged.” Reply Br. 3.
Moreover, the Examiner explains “[b]oth Datta and Peterson teach that the
AC controllable generator is an AC controllable synchronous generator or
genset” and “it was very common in the art of generators (gensets) to chance
their speed when less power is needed, thus adjust[ing] the speed to produce
less power was very common.” Ans. 4 (citing Datta ¶¶ 2, 19–20; Peterson
¶ 61). In addition, the Examiner explains that a person of ordinary skill
would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Peterson and Datta
to “provide a dynamic system that changes the speed of the generator to
provide actual or desired output power and thus save costs.” Final Act. 11
(citing Peterson ¶ 19). Appellant does not directly address, or rebut, this
finding by the Examiner. We, therefore, are not persuaded by Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner’s rejection is in error with respect to the mode
switch limitation.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 as
obvious over the combination of Datta, Peterson, and Dengler. Appellant

argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or
is not responsive to an argument raised in the examiner’s answer . . . will not
be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good
cause is shown.”). Even if properly raised, we are not persuaded by this
argument because Appellant has not persuasively explained why a person of
ordinary skill, upon reading Datta, would be led in a direction divergent
from the path that was taken by the applicant given the teachings of both
Peterson and Dengler. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 53 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Appeal 2018-008060
Application 13/705,509

8
made the same arguments regarding independent 14 as for independent
claim 10. Appeal Br. 11–12. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 14 over the combination of Datta, Peterson, and Dengler.
Finally, we also sustain the rejection of claims 11, 16–20, and 22–24, which
are not argued separately (see Appeal Br. 12), as obvious over the
combination of Datta, Peterson, and Dengler.
Rejection of Claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner finds that claims 12 and 13 would have been obvious
over the combination of Datta, Peterson, Dengler, and Wejrzanowski. Final
Act. 22–24.
Claim 12 depends from claim 10 and recites “further comprising: a
memory configured to store efficiency information for the controllable
alternating current power source; wherein the controller is configured to
switch the operation of the hybrid rectifier between the active rectification
mode and the passive rectification mode in response to the threshold being
based on the efficiency information.” Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.).
Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and recites “wherein the efficiency
information includes one or more of the fuel efficiency information, minimal
noise information, and maximum service endurance information for the
engine.” Id.
The Examiner relies on Wejrzanowski as disclosing a memory to store
the efficiency information. Final Act. 23. According to the Examiner,
Wejrzanowski’s memory 58 “stores active damping and torque information
for various engine speeds (efficiency information) and a processor retrieves
appropriate active damping from the memory based on engine speeds.” Id.
(citing Wejrzanowski ¶ 107).
Appeal 2018-008060
Application 13/705,509

9
Appellant argues that Wejrzanowski does not teach “efficiency
information for the engine for switching the operation of the hybrid
rectifier.” Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 10–11. We do not find this argument
persuasive because the Examiner relies on Wejrzanowski solely for teaching
a memory that stores information related to the efficiency of the engine and
on Datta, Peterson, and Dengler for the rest of the recited limitations. Final
Act. 22–23; Ans. 8–9 (“[T]he Examiner provided . . . Wejrzanowski for the
whole purpose of explicitly teaching a simple and well known memory
storing efficiency data and give the proper patentable weight to the term
‘memory’ for storing efficiency data/information.”). Appellant’s argument,
therefore, do not address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner.
Moreover, we agree that the combination of Wejzanowski with the other
references teaches the recited limitation.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 13
as obvious over the combination of Datta, Peterson, Dengler, and
Wejrzanowski.
Rejection of Claims 21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner finds that claims 21, 23, and 24 would have been
obvious over the combination of Datta, Peterson, Dengler, and Alston. Final
Act. 24–28. For these claims, Appellant relies on the same arguments made
for independent claims 10 and 14. See Appeal Br. 14. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21, 23, and 24 as obvious over the
combination of Datta, Peterson, Dengler, and Alston.
Appeal 2018-008060
Application 13/705,509

10
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10–14 and 16–24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
10, 11, 14,
16–20, 22–24
103 Datta, Peterson,
Dengler
10, 11, 14,
16–20, 22–24

12, 13 103 Datta, Peterson,
Dengler,
Wejrzanowski
12, 13
21, 23, 24 103 Datta, Peterson,
Dengler, Alston
21, 23, 24
Overall
Outcome
10–14, 16–24
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED