Ex Parte Dohmeier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 30, 2017

12964963 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2017)

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. 12/964,963 12/10/2010 Nicholas Dohmeier H0022593-0108 5807 94594 7590 HONEYWELL/CASCIO Patent Servcies 115 Tabor Road P.O. Box 377 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 EXAMINER WARD, THOMAS JOHN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/03/2017 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): patentservices-us @ honey well, com chj e w @ c sziplaw .com chuckjew@chjip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NICHOLAS DOHMEIER and KEITH McCORMICK Appeal 2015-004736 Application 12/964,963 Technology Center 3700 Before EDWARD A. BROWN, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Nicholas Dohmeier and Keith McCormick (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1— 10.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants submit the real party in interest is Honeywell ASCa, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2015-004736 Application 12/964,963 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants’ invention is directed to “methods for reducing crosstalk between induction heating coils” in induction heating apparatus. Spec. 12. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A method for controlling the angular phase of a plurality of alternating currents wherein each of the alternating currents is applied to a respective one of a plurality of adjacently disposed induction coils comprising the steps of: developing each one of the currents from a respective one of a plurality of power modules such that each one of the currents has a frequency substantially similar to the frequency of each other one of the currents; applying a synchronization pulse to each of the power modules; detecting continuously in each one of the currents developed by each respective one of the power modules whether a distortion has been induced in any one of the currents as a result of magnetic field interference in the respective one of the induction coils to which the current in which the distortion is detected is applied wherein the magnetic field interference results from a magnetic field developed by the current in an adjacent one of the induction coils; and shifting in the event a distortion is detected in one of the currents the phase of a selected one of the current in which the distortion is detected and the current which is applied to the adjacent one of the induction coils, wherein the phase of the current developed by each respective of the power modules is relative to the synchronization pulse applied to each of the power modules, until the distortion is substantially eliminated whereby magnetic field induced crosstalk between the adjacent ones of the induction coils is mitigated. 2 Appeal 2015-004736 Application 12/964,963 REJECTIONS Claims 1—10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sano (US 2009/0074442 Al, published Mar. 19, 2009) and Saynavajarvi (US 6,689, 993 B2, issued Feb. 10, 1992). DISCUSSION The Examiner finds that Sano discloses the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 6 except for Sano’s heating elements are not induction coils. Final Act. 2—A. The Examiner finds that Saynavajarvi teaches “induction coils have an advantage in use as they are compact and completely eliminate heating by means of heat transfer.” Id. at 4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to substitute Saynavajarvi’s induction coils for the heaters in Sano “[to] completely eliminate [] heating by means of heat transfer,” with the individual heaters “each having a phase and frequency relating to the current which is monitored and therefore distortion can be detected.” Id. Appellants contend that Sano does not disclose magnetic field interference or cross-talk caused by magnetic coupling between adjacent coils because the heating elements are resistive elements, not induction coils. Appeal Br. 12—13. Appellants also contend that Sano’s disclosure of timing and phase control is in connection with “preventing electric power from being simultaneously applied to ah the variously described heating units within the control period.” Id. at 11. Appellants also contend that merely substituting Saynavajarvi’s induction coils for Sano’s resistive heating elements would not result in Appellants’ claimed invention. Id. at 13. 3 Appeal 2015-004736 Application 12/964,963 The Examiner responds that the claim language “for reducing magnetic field induced crosstalk between adjacent coils is functional language and if an apparatus or method works the same way as does the combination of Sano [] and Saynavajarvi does then the functional language is considered moot.” Ans. 4. The Examiner also submits that Sano discloses: problems arising from line voltage interference, in which there is inherently a component of electromagnetic interference. Any time differential signal are used to propagate current or voltage there is electromagnetic interference. Sano would not only solve problems arising from line voltage interference but would also improve the resistance to electromagnetic noise caused in the same instance. Id. at 4—5. Appellants reply that neither Sano nor Saynavajarvi discloses the recited steps of “detecting continuously . . . whether a distortion has been induced” or “shifting in the event a distortion is detected ... the phase of a selected one of the current.” Reply Br. 3. Appellants also reply that the Examiner has not shown that electromagnetic interference is an inherent component of line voltage interference in Sano because the “current seen by each heating element in Sano has the exact same frequency and angular phase.” Id. at 4. Appellants’ Specification provides that “a high frequency current is applied to each work coil to develop the inductive field used to heat the work load.” Spec. 1 5. The Specification also provides that the “field developed by one work coil may in part pass through the core of a neighboring work coil causing magnetic interference or energy transfer between coils, thereby resulting in crosstalk between the coils,” and the crosstalk may “become more severe as the work coils are brought closer 4 Appeal 2015-004736 Application 12/964,963 together.” Id. 5—6. The Specification also indicates that “[w]hen the coils are exactly in phase, there is no crosstalk between the coils. Crosstalk is generally reduced to much more manageable levels as long as the phase difference between the coils does not exceed 90 degrees.” Id. 110. The Specification further provides that a synchronizing pulse “is applied to each one of power module sections 10[a-e] each of which is associated with a respective one of the work coils. A phase of the work coil current... is shifted such that the current applied to each respective one of the work coils is phase synchronized.” Id. 120. Sano discloses “an image forming apparatus such as a copying machine . . . including a plurality of heating units” wherein “large electric power is necessary.” Sano Tflf 3, 6. Sano further discloses that when the heaters are turned on and off, the current consumption causes “flicker, harmonic distortion, terminal noise, and the like in other electronic apparatuses that use the same power supply” and “it is necessary to take measures for suppressing the fluctuation in a power supply voltage.” Id. 17. Sano addresses the fluctuation in power supply voltage by turning the heating units on and off sequentially with the unit having the largest power consumption turned on first. See id. ]Hf 11—12, Figs. 10-13. Saynavajarvi discloses that “it is well known to use induction heaters for heating calendar rolls.” Saynavajarvi, col. 2,11. 34—35. The Examiner has not directed us to any disclosure in Sano of: i) the angular phase of the currents supplied to Sano’s plurality of heating elements, 5 Appeal 2015-004736 Application 12/964,963 ii) a synchronization pulse, as claimed, and as described in Appellants’ Specification, to synchronize the phase of the currents supplied to Sano’s plurality of heating elements, iii) detecting whether a distortion has been induced in any one of the currents as a result of magnetic field interference, or iv) shifting the phase of one of the currents in which distortion is detected. In the absence of disclosure in Sano of these features, the Examiner’s assertions in the Answer regarding functional claim language and Sano’s inherent disclosure of electromagnetic noise does not address all the claimed features. We appreciate the Examiner’s reference to Sano’s heater on signal Son. Final Act. 3. Sano, however, discloses that the heater on signal Son turns on the first heater 21 in the sequence. Sano 193, Figs. 9, 10. The Examiner has not directed us any disclosure in Sano that the heater on signal synchronizes the phase of the currents supplied to Sano’s heating elements and, thus, this signal is not the recited synchronization pulse. Further, although Saynavajarvi discloses the use of induction heaters, the Examiner has not directed us to any disclosure in Saynavajarvi of any of items i) to iv) noted above. As the rejection is based on unsupported and inadequate factual findings, the conclusion of obviousness cannot stand. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2—5 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, and claims 7— 10 depend directly or indirectly from claim 6. Appeal Br. 15—18 (Claims App.). We do not sustain the rejection of these dependent claims for the same reasons stated above for independent claims 1 and 6. 6 Appeal 2015-004736 Application 12/964,963 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—10 is reversed. REVERSED 7