Ex Parte EL-Refaie et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 19, 2016

12949862 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/949,862 11/19/2010 Ayman Mohamed Fawzi EL-Refaie 131278 7590 07/21/2016 GE Ventures- Licensing C/O Meagher Emanuel Laks Goldberg & Liao, LLP One Palmer Square, Suite 325 Princeton, NJ 08542 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. 243956-1 6612 EXAMINER DUDA, RINA I ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2837 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/21/2016 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): vivian.brandon@ge.com gpo.mail@ge.com gedocket@meagheremanuel.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AYMAN MOHAMED FAWZI EL-REFAIE and ROBERT DEAN KING Appeal2014-008646 Application 12/949,862 Technology Center 2800 Before JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 16-19, 21-24, 26, 28, and 30-33. Claims 3-5, 7, 10, 14, 15, 20, 25, 27, and 29 have been canceled. See App. Br. 16-20 (Claims App'x). We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is General Electric Company. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-008646 Application 12/949,862 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 'Invention Appellants' invention generally relates to an electric machine and power converter integrated within a single cooling loop, wherein the power converter comprises silicon carbide metal-oxide-semiconductor field effect transistors (MOSFETs ). Spec. i-f 1. Representative claims 1, 2, 8, and 16 are reproduced below. 1. An electric drive system comprising: an electric machine comprising a rotor and a stator; a power converter electrically coupled to the electric machine and configured to convert a DC link voltage to an AC output voltage to drive the electric machine; and a housing that forms an enclosure, the housing having a coolant input and a coolant output that form a single cooling loop within the enclosure, wherein the electric machine and the power converter are both disposed completely within the enclosure and wherein both the electric machine and the power converter are cooled by a liquid coolant passing through the single cooling loop; wherein the single cooling loop is constructed to circulate the liquid coolant therethrough. 2. The electric drive system of claim 1 wherein the power converter comprises a plurality of silicon carbide (SiC) switching devices that comprise a plurality of SiC metal-oxide- semiconductor field effect transistors (MOSFETs ). 8. The electric drive system of claim 1 wherein the power converter further comprises plurality of diodes connected in an anti-parallel arrangement with the plurality of SiC MOSFETs. 2 Appeal2014-008646 Application 12/949,862 16. A vehicle drive system comprising: a motor comprising: a rotor; and a stator; a DC link; a power converter electrically coupled between the DC link and the motor to drive the motor, wherein the power converter comprises a plurality of silicon carbide (SiC) switching devices; and a housing that forms an enclosure, the housing configured to enclose the motor and the power converter entirely within the enclosure, wherein the housing comprises one cooling loop, and wherein the motor and the power converter are integrated within the one cooling loop; wherein the one cooling loop comprises a closed loop through which a liquid coolant is circulated to cool the motor and the po\x1er converter. Rejections Claims 1, 6, 24, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Iritani et al. (US 7,009,318 B2; Mar. 7, 2006) ("Iritani"). Final Act. 2-3. Claims 2, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16-19, 21, 22, 26, 28, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Iritani and Kitamura et al. (US 7,414,339 B2; Aug. 19, 2008) ("Kitamura"). Final Act. 3---6. Claims 11, 23, 30, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Iritani, Kitamura, and 3 Appeal2014-008646 Application 12/949,862 Yamaguchi et al. (US 2006/0086981 Al; Apr. 27, 2006) ("Yamaguchi"). Final Act. 6-7. Issues on Appeal Did the Examiner err in finding that Iritani discloses a housing that forms an enclosure, the housing having a coolant input and a coolant output that form a single cooling loop within the enclosure, wherein the electric machine and the power converter are both disposed completely within the enclosure and wherein both the electric machine and the power converter are cooled by a liquid coolant passing through the single cooling loop, as recited in claim 1? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Iritani and Kitamura teaches or suggests "wherein the power converter comprises a plurality of silicon carbide (SiC) switching devices that comprise a plurality of SiC metal-oxide-semiconductor field effect transistors (MOSFETs)," as recited in claim 2? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Iritani and Kitamura teaches or suggests "wherein the power converter further comprises plurality of diodes connected in an anti-parallel arrangement with the plurality of SiC MOSFETs," as recited in claim 8? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Iritani and Kitamura teaches or suggests a housing that forms an enclosure, the housing configured to enclose the motor and the power converter entirely within the enclosure, wherein the housing comprises one cooling loop, and wherein the motor and the power converter are integrated within the one cooling loop; 4 Appeal2014-008646 Application 12/949,862 wherein the one cooling loop comprises a closed loop through which a liquid coolant is circulated to cool the motor and the power converter, as recited in claim 16? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. Final Act. 2-7; Ans. 7-9. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Â§ 102 Rejection CLAIM l Appellants contend Iritani does not disclose a housing that forms an enclosure, the housing having a coolant input and a coolant output that form a single cooling loop within the enclosure, wherein the electric machine and the power converter are both disposed completely within the enclosure and wherein both the electric machine and the power converter are cooled by a liquid coolant passing through the single cooling loop, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 2---6; Reply Br. 2---6. Appellants contend Iritani fails to disclose the disputed limitation because: Iritani fails to teach or disclose a housing having a coolant input and a coolant output that form a single cooling loop within the enclosure, wherein the electric machine and the power converter are both disposed completely within the enclosure and wherein 5 Appeal2014-008646 Application 12/949,862 both the electric machine and the power converter are cooled by a liquid coolant passing through the single cooling loop. App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 4. Appellants contend "one skilled in the art would recognize[] a 'loop' is a structure or path of motion that is generally circular or curved over on itself' and "Iritani at best teaches that coolant flows straight from inlet 123 to compression mechanism 110 and then out from outlet 112." Id. (citing Iritani, Figs. 10, 1 lA); see also Reply Br. 4--5. We do not find Appellants' contentions persuasive. Iritani discloses "low-temperature gas refrigerant flows from the inlet 123, and cools the motor 120 while flowing in the motor housing 121." Iritani 7:57-59. Iritani further discloses "[a] part of refrigerant flowing from the inlet 123 toward the compression mechanism 110 flows through the upper part within the motor housing 121" to cool the inverter circuit 130. Iritani 7:64--67. Figure 11 A of Iritani depicts two arrows indicating a path of motion of the refrigerant that is generally circular or curved over on itself (e.g., a "loop" as acknowledged by Appellants (see App. Br. 5)) as the refrigerant flows around the motor 120 (not shown in Fig 1 lA, see Iritani 7:51-52) through the motor housing 121. Iritani Fig. 1 lA. As such, Iritani discloses "a housing that forms an enclosure, the housing having a coolant input and a coolant output that form a single cooling loop within the enclosure, ... wherein both the electric machine and the power converter are cooled by a liquid coolant passing through the single cooling loop." Appellants further contend Iritani fails to disclose the disputed limitation because "Iritani fails to teach a housing that forms an enclosure with a coolant input and a coolant output that form a single cooling loop within the enclosure, wherein the electric machine and the power converter 6 Appeal2014-008646 Application 12/949,862 are both disposed completely within the enclosure." App. Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 4. Appellants contend Iritani's housing 121 for enclosing the electric machine and casing 131 for enclosing the power converter together do not disclose the claimed enclosure because "the combination of the motor housing 121 and casing 131 does not provide an enclosure within which a single cooling loop is formed, as called for in claim 1." Id. Appellants contend "[a]s refrigerant is only present in the motor housing 121 oflritani- and not in the casing 131 that encloses inverter 13 0 - the motor housing 121 and casing 131 cannot be accurately characterized as a collective 'housing' that forms an enclosure having a single cooling loop there within." App. Br. 6. We do not find Appellants' contention persuasive. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Iritani discloses that housing 121 for enclosing the electric machine and casing 131 for enclosing the power converter are integrally molded and connected. Ans. 7 (citing Iritani 7: 1-17). We also agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7) that the claim does not exclude a housing formed by multiple, integrally connected components. Because a housing is formed by both Iritani's housing and casing, the "enclosure" formed by Iritani's housing includes the area within housing 121 and the area within casing 131. Iritani discloses that the cooling loop is within housing 121 and, therefore, within the larger enclosure formed by Iritani' s "housing." Iritani, Fig. 1 lA; 7:64--67. As such, Iritani discloses the claimed "housing." For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Iritani discloses the disputed limitation. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and claims 6, 24, and 31 which depend from claim 1 and are not argued separately. See App. Br. 3---6. 7 Appeal2014-008646 Application 12/949,862 Â§ 103 Rejections CLAIM2 Appellants contend the combination of Iritani and Kitamura does not teach or suggest "wherein the power converter comprises a plurality of silicon carbide (SiC) switching devices that comprise a plurality of SiC metal-oxide-semiconductor field effect transistors (MOSFETs)," as recited in claim 2. App. Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 6-7. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's findings regarding the teachings of Iritani and Kitamura but, instead, argue that the combination is improper. Id. Particularly, Appellants contend that the combination is based on impermissible hindsight (App. Br. 9) and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the teachings of Iritani and Kitamura because "Iritani specifically teaches away from the use of SiC MOSFETs and/or components having a high heat resistance, stating that such components are 'unnecessary"' (App. Br. 8). We do not find Appellants contentions' persuasive. "A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Here, although Iritani teaches that the cooling performance of the inverter circuit can be effectively improved and, therefore, it is unnecessary to use components having a high heat resistance (see Iritani 8:46-53), we find that this disclosure regarding high heat resistance being unnecessary in certain components is not a teaching away from using high heat resistance components. Gurley, 27 F.3d at 554. We are also not persuaded that the 8 Appeal2014-008646 Application 12/949,862 combination is based on impermissible hindsight. Using Kitamura's SiC MOSFETs in the inverter circuit of Iritani is a predictable use of known elements according to their established functions- an obvious improvement. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2. CLAIM 8 Appellants contend the combination of Iritani and Kitamura does not teach or suggest "wherein the power converter further comprises plurality of diodes connected in an anti-parallel arrangement with the plurality of SiC MOSFETs," as recited in claim 8. App. Br. 9--10; Reply Br. 8. In particular, Appellants contend Kitamura teaches an inverter module having SiC MOSFET transistors connected in parallel with a plurality of diodes and not connected in an anti-parallel arrangement, as required by claim 8. Id. (citing Kitamura, Fig. 3; 3:9-12). We do not find Appellants' contention persuasive. Figure 3 of Kitamura depicts a plurality of transistors connected in parallel with a plurality of diodes. Kitamura, Fig. 3. Figure 3 of Kitamura further depicts the plurality of transistors arranged such that their polarities are reversed with respect to the plurality of diodes. Id. As such, Kitamura teaches that the plurality of diodes are connected in an anti-parallel arrangement with the plurality of transistors. See IEEE 100: The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 587 (7th ed. 2000). Kitamura further teaches that the plurality of transistors can be SiC MOSFET transistors. Kitamura 10:12-13. As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Kitamura 9 Appeal2014-008646 Application 12/949,862 teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8. CLAIMS 9, 11, AND 30 Claims 9, 11, and 3 0 depend from claim 1. Because Appellants have not presented separate patentability arguments for these claims (see App. Br. 3---6), we sustain the Examiner's Â§103 rejection of claims 9, 11, 24, and 30 for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1. CLAIMS 12, 13, 26, 32, AND 33 Regarding the rejection of claims 12, 13, 26, 32, and 33, Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claims 1and2 above. See App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 6-7. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12, 13, 26, 32, and 33 for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claims 1and2. CLAIMS 16-19, 21-23, and 28 Appellants contend the combination of Iritani and Kitamura does not teach or suggest a housing that forms an enclosure, the housing configured to enclose the motor and the power converter entirely within the enclosure, wherein the housing comprises one cooling loop, and wherein the motor and the power converter are integrated within the one cooling loop; 10 Appeal2014-008646 Application 12/949,862 wherein the one cooling loop comprises a closed loop through which a liquid coolant is circulated to cool the motor and the power converter, as recited in claim 16. App. Br. 13-14. Appellants contend the combination of Iritani and Kitamura does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations because the combination of references fails to teach or suggest the claimed "housing" based on the contentions presented for claims 1, 2, and 12. Id. We find these contentions unpersuasive for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claims 1, 2, and 12. Appellants further contend the combination of Iritani and Kitamura does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations because the combination of references does not teach or suggest the claimed "cooling loop." App. Br. 14. In particular, Appellants contend the Examiner fails to address this limitation and Regardless of this, there is simply no teaching provided therein of a "closed loop" cooling loop through which a liquid coolant is circulated to cool the motor and the power converter. Instead, the electrical compressor 100 is constructed such that coolant flows into inlet 123, fills motor housing 121, and then flows to compression mechanism 110 and out from outlet 112. Such a construction of the electrical compressor 100 does not provide a closed loop cooling loop. App. Br. 14. We do not find Appellants' contentions persuasive. The Examiner finds Iritani teaches a closed loop cooling loop because Iritani teaches that the coolant that enters the housing via the inlet to cool both the motor and the inverter circuit 130 is the same as the coolant that is discharged from the housing via the outlet. Ans. 7-8 (citing Iritani, Figs. 10, 1 lA, 1 lB; 7:64--67, 8:7----67). Appellants' contention regarding one skilled in the art recognizing 11 Appeal2014-008646 Application 12/949,862 that "a 'loop' is a structure or path of motion that is generally circular or curved over on itself' (App. Br. 5) is not persuasive because Appellants' Specification depicts a cooling loop having a rectangular structure. See Spec., Fig. 3. Further, Appellants point to no specific wording in the Specification that shows a precise meaning a description of a closed loop cooling loop as used in the claims. Appellants also do not point to any type of general purpose or technical dictionary as interpretive guidance, nor do Appellants provide any evidence as to the meaning of a closed loop cooling loop as known to those of ordinary skill in the art. Based on the plain meaning of the terms, the Examiner's interpretation is reasonable and consistent with Appellants' Specification. See Spec., Fig. 3; i-fi-124--25 (cited by Appellants as supporting citations for the claimed "cooling loop" (App. Br. 3)). For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Iritani and Kitamura teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 16 and claims 17-19, 21-23, and 28, which depend from claim 16 and are not separately argued. See App. Br. 13-14. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 16- 9, 21-24, 26, 28, and 30-33. 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)(l )(iv). 12 Appeal2014-008646 Application 12/949,862 AFFIRMED 13