Ex Parte FRAUENEDER et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 25, 2018

14217702 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/217,702 03/18/2014 513 7590 10/29/2018 WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P. 1030 15th Street, N.W., Suite 400 East Washington, DC 20005-1503 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR HaraldFRAUENEDER 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. 2014-0328A 5454 EXAMINER ILIYA,BART ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2838 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/29/2018 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): eoa@wenderoth.com kmiller@wenderoth.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HARALD FRAUENEDER and GERHARD DIMMLER Appeal2017-011231 Application 14/217, 702 Technology Center 2800 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, BRIAND. RANGE, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 In our Decision, we refer to the English language translation of the Specification filed March 18, 2014 ("Spec."); the Final Office Action mailed August 4, 2016 ("Final Act."); the Appeal Brief filed April 20, 2017 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed August 8, 2017 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed August 30, 2017 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appellant is the Applicant, Engel Austria GMBH, which is identified in the Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2). Appeal 2017-011231 Application 14/217, 702 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The invention relates to power supply devices for moulding3 machines. Spec. 1, 11. 4--5. Generic power supply devices have an intermediate circuit to which a supply module is connected. Id. 1, 11. 13-15. According to Appellant, generic energy supply devices have the disadvantage that high fluctuations and peaks occur in the intermediate circuit voltage. Id. 2, 11. 10-12. Closed loop control of the intermediate circuit on its own does not suppress the fluctuations and peaks. Id. 2, 11. 18- 22. To address this problem, the inventors incorporated a closed loop control device in such a way that the energy content of the energy storage device does not go outside a range in which a power input and/or a power output of the energy storage device is essentially constant. Id. 2, 1. 34-3, 1. 2. The claims are directed to power supply device for an injection moulding machine. Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief with the disputed limitation italicized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A power supply device for a moulding machine, compnsmg: an intermediate circuit connected with at least one drive of the moulding machine and suitable for supplying the at least one drive with electrical energy; a supply module connected to the intermediate circuit; an energy storage device connected to the intermediate circuit, and a closed loop control device for closed loop controlling an energy content of the energy storage device, 3 The Specification employs the British spelling, "moulding," which we also use for consistency. 2 Appeal 2017-011231 Application 14/217, 702 wherein the energy storage device is closed loop controlled by the closed loop control device so that the energy content of the energy storage device does not go outside a range, in which a power input or a power output of the energy storage device is essentially constant. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Dai et al. ("Dai") Ochi Wahler et al. ("Wahler")4 US 8,044,631 B2 US 2012/0009297 Al DE 10 2010 023 536 Al REJECTIONS Oct. 25, 2011 Jan. 12,2012 Dec. 15, 2011 The Examiner maintains and Appellant seeks review of the following rejections: 1. Claims 1-10,5 13-15, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C Â§ I02(a)(l) as anticipated by Wahler; 2. Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as obvious over Wahler in view of Dai; 4 We refer to the English machine translation of record in the instant Application, to which Appellant has not objected. 5 The Examiner does not include claims 9 and 10 in the heading for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I02(a)(l), but includes an explanation of how these claims are anticipated by Wahler in the analysis. See Final Act. 5. Appellant concedes that claims 9 and 10 are included in the anticipation rejection. See App. Br. 3. Because claims 9 and 10 depend from claim 1 and Appellant does not argue for patentability of these claims over Wahler separately from claim 1, claims 9 and 10 will stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 U.S.C. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). 3 Appeal 2017-011231 Application 14/217, 702 3. Claims 12 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as obvious over Wahler in view of Ochi. Final Act. 3-8; App. Br. 3---6. OPINION Rejection of claims as anticipated by Wahler Appellant argues claims 1-10, 13-15, 17, and 18 as a group. App. Br. 6. Claims 1, 13, and 1 7 are independent. Id. at 8-10. We select claim 1, which includes the limitation at issue in all of the claims and is the focus of our opinion, as representative of the group. Claims 2-10, 13-15, 17, and 18 will stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner must establish a prima facie case of anticipation under Â§ 102 by showing, as a matter of fact, that all elements arranged as specified in a claim are disclosed within the four comers of a reference, either expressly or inherently, in a manner enabling one skilled in the art to practice an embodiment of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. Cf ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1083 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Examiner finds that Wahler teaches all elements of claim 1. Final Act. 3. Appellant argues that Wahler does not disclose controlling the flywheel storage so that the energy content therein does not go outside a range in which a power input or a power output of the energy storage device is essentially constant. App. Br. 5. In response, the Examiner finds that Wahler discloses that the processor regulates to a target rotational speed of the flywheel, that this implies that the speed of the flywheel is controlled within a range, and that because "the rotational speed is regulated to be at a 4 Appeal 2017-011231 Application 14/217, 702 relatively constant target, the energy content of the storage device will be relatively constant within a small range whereby leading to the power input or power output of the accumulator drive being essentially constant." Ans. 4. The Examiner cites to paragraph 29 of Wahler as support for the findings. Wahler (in translation) states as paragraph 29: According to the embodiment shown in Figure 1 a, the device 100 for intelligent network services regulation which comprises a flywheel energy storage 150 with an electric motor 160, the concept of "Kinetic buffering" realized. The electric motor 160 is electrically connected via a first interface 170 to the intermediate circuit 110. The intermediate circuit 110 is connected via a second interface, the 130 may be the Versorgungsnetzschrtittstelle [ network supply interface] to the utility grid 120th. This can be prepared 140 via the second interface, an electrical connection between the supply network 120 and the drives, so that an electric power of the supply network 120 to the drives 140 is carried out, wherein a Energiezwischenpufferung [ intermediate energy buff er] can be carried out by a current flow through the first interface 170. Further, the DC voltage intermediate circuit 110 is still connected via the first interface 170 with an optional buffer capacity 180 ( or a parallel circuit of a plurality of parallel- connected buffer capacities) to allow rapid storage of electrical energy, when buffered electrical power or within a short period of time to be delivered which cannot absorb or release the flywheel storage. We give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed, Cir. 2004). Under this standard, we cannot agree that Wahler discloses energy content of an energy storage device that does not go outside a range at all, much less a range "in which the power input or power output of the energy storage device is essentially constant." See App. Br. 8 (Claim App.). Consequently, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as 5 Appeal 2017-011231 Application 14/217, 702 anticipated by Wahler. Because claims 2-10, 13-15, 17, and 18 each contain this limitation, and are argued in a group with claim 1, we also do not sustain the rejection of these claims. Rejection of claims as obvious over Wahler in combination with other references The Examiner rejects claim 11 as obvious over Wahler in view of Dai. Final Act. 7. The Examiner rejects claims 12 and 16 as obvious over Wahler in view of Ochi. Id. at 8. Each of these claims includes the limitation on the energy storage device discussed above in relation to claim 1. App. Br. 9, 10 (Claims App.). For each of these claims, the Examiner relies on Wahler for teaching the limitation ( the energy content of the energy storage device does not go outside a range, in which a power input or a power output of the energy storage device is essentially constant). Final Act. 7-8. The additional references, Dai and Ochi, do not cure the deficiency in Wahler. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 11, 12, and 16 as obvious. DECISION The rejection of claims 1-10, 13-15, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Wahler is reversed. The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as obvious over Wahler in view of Dai is reversed. The rejection of claims 12 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as obvious over Wahler in view of Ochi is reversed. REVERSED 6