Ex Parte Hustedt

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 20, 2019

15180242 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
15/180,242 06/13/2016 Eric Hustedt
25006 7590 06/24/2019
DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
900 Wilshire Drive
Suite 300
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.
KSR-32602/08 205323-600 7588
EXAMINER
DUDA,RINAI
TROY, MI 48084 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/24/2019 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):
MichiganPatTM@dinsmore.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC HUSTEDT
Appeal2018-006874
Application 15/180,242
Technology Center 2800
Before N. WHITNEY WILSON, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3, and 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed June 13, 2016 ("Spec.");
the Final Office Action dated August 4, 2017 ("Final Act."); the Appeal
Brief filed December 29, 2017 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer dated
April 19, 2018 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed June 19, 2018 ("Reply
Br.").
2 Appellant is the Applicant, KSR IP Holdings, LLC, identified in the
Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-006874
Application 15/180,242
The invention relates to a power source for a multiphase electric
machine. Spec. ,r 2. The invention provides a three-phase voltage source
inverter which includes two sets of three-phase windings, offset by 60
degrees in phase relative to each other. Spec. ,r 12. The voltage source
inverter is designed for use with a six-phase machine, thus the phase offset
or difference between the two sets of windings may vary anywhere between
0 and 60 degrees. Spec. ,r 12.
In voltage source inverters, pulse width modulation is used to convert
DC voltage from DC energy storage devices-typically capacitors-to AC
voltage. Spec. ,r 13. However, according to Applicant, in the invention the
phase angle of the pulse width frequency between the two sets of windings is
offset between 80 and 100 degrees and, preferably, substantially 90 degrees
from each other, which is unlike previously known voltage source invertors.
Spec. ,r 14. Applicant states that this offset of phase between the two pulse
width modulation (PWM) frequencies used to modulate the power from the
DC storage device has been found to significantly reduce the ripple current
to the DC storage devices, i.e. capacitors, as opposed to other phase angle
differences between the two PWM frequencies, allowing less expensive DC
storage devices to be used without sacrificing performance. Spec. ,r 14.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief, illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. An electrical power system for a six-phase electric
motor comprising:
a first set of three-phase windings,
a second set of three-phase windings,
a first pulse width modulator operating at a conversion
frequency and a first phase which converts a DC power source
2
Appeal2018-006874
Application 15/180,242
to an alternating current, said first pulse width modulator being
electrically connected to said first set of three-phase windings,
a second pulse width modulator operating at said
conversion frequency and a second phase which converts said
DC power source to an alternating current, said second pulse
width modulator being electrically connected to said second set
of three-phase windings,
wherein said first and second phases are offset from each
other by between 80 and 100 degrees to thereby reduce ripple
current in said windings.
REFERENCE
The Examiner relies on Makoto Taniguchi, Rotary electric system
with neutral-point powering system, U.S. Patent No. 8,013,553 B2 (Sept. 6,
2011) ("Taniguchi") in rejecting the claims on appeal.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Taniguchi. Final Act. 3.
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Taniguchi teaches the limitations of claims 1,
3, and 4, except the reference does not teach the claimed offset values
("between 80 and 100 degrees" in claim 1, and "substantially 90 degrees" in
claim 3) or that the conversion frequency exceeds 10 kilohertz (claim 4).
Final Act. 3. The Examiner determines that one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention would have found it obvious to select an optimum
offset value between the two phases and a desired conversion frequency
3
Appeal2018-006874
Application 15/180,242
because discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves
only routine skill in the art. Id.
Appellant argues that the novelty of the claimed invention is that the
first and second set of pulse width modulators are offset from each other
between 80 and 100 degrees, and preferably 90 degrees. App. Br. 3.
Appellant contends that off-setting the phase angle between the two sets of
windings results in a substantial reduction of ripple current in the motor
windings. Id. at 4.
We agree with the Examiner's statement regarding the obviousness of
discovering an optimum value for a result effective variable. "[D]iscovery
of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is
ordinarily within the skill of the art." In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276
(CCP A 1980); see also In re Aller, 220 F .2d 454, 456 (CCP A 1955) ("where
the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine
experimentation."). The law is replete with cases in which the difference
between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other
variable within the claims. It is well settled that, generally speaking, it
would have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to develop
workable or even optimum ranges for result-effective parameters.
However, the law requires "[a] recognition in the prior art that a
property is affected by the variable" in order to find the variable result-
effective. In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir.
2012). Although optimization of a variable known to be result effective is
generally prima facie obvious, as the predecessor to our reviewing court
explained over thirty years ago, where "the parameter optimized was not
4
Appeal2018-006874
Application 15/180,242
recognized to be a result-effective variable" is an exception. See In re
Antonie, 559 F.2d 618,620 (CCPA 1977).
On the facts before us, we find nothing to indicate offset between first
and second phases of first and second pulse width modulators was known to
be a result-effective variable. On this basis, the Examiner erred reversibly in
determining claims 1, 3, and 4 to be obvious over Taniguchi.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4 is reversed.
REVERSED
5