Ex Parte Damsgaard et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 2, 2019

12847582 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/847,582 07/30/2010 35301 7590 01/04/2019 MCCORMICK, PAULDING & HUBER LLP CITY PLACE II 185 ASYLUM STREET HARTFORD, CT 06103 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Torben Damsgaard 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 6495-0420 4213 EXAMINER JOSEPH, DEVON A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2837 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2019 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): patentdocket@ip-lawyers .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TORBEN DAMSGAARD, ROBERT EHMSEN, FLORIN LUNGEANU, RASMUS FINK, LARS BERTHELSEN, MELISSA DRECHSEL KIDD, WILLIAM JAMES GENA W, MICHEAL ROBERT PASCHE, and GARY THOMAS BAASE II Appeal2018-002946 Application 12/84 7,582 Technology Center 2800 Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, DONNA M. PRAISS, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. REN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2018-002946 Application 12/847,582 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection2 of claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 9-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method for starting a single-phase induction motor. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for starting an electric motor, comprising: driving said electric motor at least in part and/or at least at times with two electric supply conductors; during a start-up interval of the start-up cycle for starting said electric motor from a shut-down state to an operational state, setting the frequency (fref) of the electric current for driving said electric motor to at least one frequency (fstart), and later to the operating frequency (frun) of said electric motor; wherein said at least one frequency (fstart) during the start- up interval and/or during the start-up cycle is at least in part and/or at least at times higher than said operating frequency (frun); measuring the electric current (I) consumed by said electric motor, and determining the success of the start-up interval and/or the start-up cycle by checking whether a decrease in the current drawn by the motor occurs in response to the 1 The real parties in interest are identified as "DANFOSS CUSTOMISED POWER ELECTRONICS A/S." Appeal Brief of May 24, 2017 ("App. Br."), 2. In this opinion, we also refer to the Non-Final Action of February 24, 2017 ("Non-Final Act."), the Examiner's Answer of November 30, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief of January 26, 2018. 2 The record before us shows the Examiner previously issued Non-Final Actions on June 7, 2013, February 5, 2015, and November 17, 2016, as well as Final Actions on November 21, 2013, March 27, 2014, and August 14, 2015. 2 Appeal 2018-002946 Application 12/847,582 change in frequency ( fref) from the frequency ( fstart) to the operating frequency (frun), wherein a decrease in the current drawn by the motor is indicative of the success of the start-up interval and/or start-up cycle to start the electric motor from the shut-down state to the operational state. App. Br. 16 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal are: Potter MacMinn us 6,150,776 us 4,642,543 REJECTIONS Nov. 21, 2000 Feb. 10, 1987 Claim 1, 2, 5-7, and 9-12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as anticipated by Potter. Non-Final Act. 3. 3 Claim 1, 2, 5-7, and 9-12 are alternatively rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Potter and MacMinn. Non-Final Act. 3. OPINION Anticipation Rejection of Claim 1 Appellants argue that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated because Potter does not disclose a method such that "at least one frequency (fstart) during the start-up interval and/or during the start-up cycle is at least in part and/ or at least at times higher than ... operating 3 Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph as being indefinite. Non-Final Act. 2. Claims 3 and 4 have been canceled. App. Br. 9. 3 Appeal 2018-002946 Application 12/847,582 frequency (frun)." App. Br. 9. More specifically, Appellants argue that while Figure 3 of Potter (reproduced below) shows the start-up frequency of 60 Hz drops to 28 Hz in Potter, the frequency of 28 Hz is below the recited operating frequency as it "may optionally be used during time interval tz--t3 to enable the motor to reach a synchronous speed before increasing to a final operating frequency of 60 Hz." Id.; Reply Br. 5 (citing Potter 4:35-38, 4:56---67, 6:15-18, and 6:50----59). FIG. 3 60 34 f(Hz) \ .J 28 .- t1 t2 t3 ~ TIME Potter Figure 3 showing "an example of frequency as a function of time of the AC power output signal generated by the variable frequency motor starting systems" described in the reference. Potter 2:29-31. Potter, however, describes the frequency of 28 Hz as being "below the typical operating frequency[.]" Potter 4:59----60, 4:64----65 (cited in Reply Br. 5). The claim limitation "operating frequency" does not require a specific frequency range and is not restricted to only a typical operating frequency. We discern no reversible error in the Examiner's finding (Non Final Act. 4; Ans. 3---4) that Potter's frequency change teaches or suggests a method such that "at least one frequency (fstart) during the start-up interval and/or during 4 Appeal 2018-002946 Application 12/847,582 the start-up cycle is at least in part and/or at least at times higher than ... operating frequency (frun)" as recited in claim 1. Appellants next argue that Potter does not disclose "determining the success of the start-up interval and/or the start-up cycle by checking whether a decrease in the current drawn by the motor occurs in response to the change in frequency ( fref) from the frequency ( fstart) to the operating frequency (frun)" as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11. The Examiner, on the other hand, cites to Potter at 3:25-27 and finds that it discloses "if a motor has ramp up, that [sic] inherently the motor has already started." Non Final Act. 4. "Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it anticipates." In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ( citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, we find that while Potter undisputedly discloses "[a]s the frequency is adjusted to a frequency below the typical AC line frequency, the surge current is decreased and the starting torque is increased" (Potter 3 :25-27), the reference does not inherently disclose "determining the success of the start- up interval and/or the start-up cycle by checking ... " as recited in claim 1. We reverse the anticipation rejection of claim 1 as a result. The anticipation rejection of 2, 5-7, and 9-12 is reversed based on their dependencies from claim 1. See App. Br. 11. Obviousness Rejection of Claim 1 Appellants' arguments for the obviousness rejection are based on the two limitations discussed with regard to the anticipation rejection supra. See App. Br. 12-14. Because we find that reversible error has not been 5 Appeal 2018-002946 Application 12/847,582 identified in the Examiner's finding for the recited "operating frequency," the dispositive issue is therefore whether the combined teaching of Potter and MacMinn teaches or suggests "determining the success of the start-up interval and/or the start-up cycle by checking whether a decrease in the current drawn by the motor occurs in response to the change in frequency (fref) from the frequency (fstart) to the operating frequency (frun)" as recited in claim 1. Appellants do not dispute that Potter's teaching that "[a]s the frequency is adjusted to a frequency below the typical AC line frequency, the surge current is decreased .... " Compare Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Potter 3:25-27), with App. Br. 12-14. Appellants do not address the Examiner's findings based on various portions of MacMinn, such as Figure 1, 2:32-35, 4: 18-29, 4:44--46, and 6:61-7:2. Compare Non-Final Act. 4, with App. Br. 14 (only discussing MacMinn 3:43--47). Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding based on these cited portions that MacMinn teaches changes in current is indicative of whether a motor has been successfully started. Compare Non-Final Act. 4, with App. Br. 12-14. No reversible error has therefore been identified in the Examiner's finding that, based on the combined prior art teaching, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to "use the change in motor current value that is detected as an indication to detect the success of a motor start up cycle as clearly taught by MacMinn" as Potter teaches changes in frequency and current are correlated. Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 6. We sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1. Because Appellants do not raise separate arguments for the obviousness rejection of claims 2, 5-7, and 9-12 (App. Br. 15), the obviousness rejection of these claims is also sustained. 6 Appeal 2018-002946 Application 12/847,582 DECISION The Examiner'sÂ§ 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 9-12 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7