Ex Parte HustedtDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 20, 201915180242 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2019) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation