Ex Parte Knudsen et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 29, 2019

12528169 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/528, 169 08/21/2009 Ivan Knudsen
570 7590 04/02/2019
P ANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP
TWO COMMERCE SQUARE
2001 MARKET STREET, SUITE 2800
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
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.
7911-93US (GP 1175US) 1021
EXAMINER
NICHOLS, CHARLES W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2019 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):
usptomail@panitchlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IV AN KNUDSEN and TORBEN THORSAGER DISSING
Appeal2017-005616
Application 12/528,169
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ivan Knudsen and Torben Thorsager Dissing ("Appellants") 1 appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims
13-15 and 17-24, which are all the pending claims. See Appeal Br. 2-3;
Final Act. 1 (Office Action Summary). We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on March 19, 2019.
We REVERSE.
According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Grundfos
Management A/S. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-005616
Application 12/528,169
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' disclosed invention "relates to a pump assembly with a
pump and an electric drive motor, as well as to an electric control device."
Spec. ,r 3. Claims 13 and 18, reproduced below with emphasis added, are
the only independent claims and are representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
13. A pump assembly comprising:
a centrifugal pump;
an electrical drive motor;
an electronic control device, wherein the electronic
control device comprises a rotation direction recognition
module for recognizing whether the correct rotation direction of
the drive motor and of the centrifugal pump is clockwise (CW)
or counter-clockwise (CCW), said rotation direction recognition
module configured to detect at least one performance
characteristic value selected from the group consisting of
pressure at an exit side of the centrifugal pump (H),
throughput (Q)[,] and power (P) of the pump assembly in a
manner such that on rotation of the drive motor, the rotation
direction recognition module detects the at least one
performance characteristic value (H, Q, P) and determines the
correct rotation direction (CW, CCW) by comparing the at
least one detected performance characteristic value (H, Q, P)
with a corresponding known predefined performance
characteristic value selected from the group consisting of a
known predefined pressure at the exit side of the pump, a
known predefined throughput, and a known predefined power
of the pump assembly; and
one of (i) a sensor for detecting the pressure (H) and/or
throughput (Q) of the pump assembly arranged at an exit side of
the centrifugal pump or, (ii) a sensor for determining the
power (P) supplied to the drive motor.
2
Appeal2017-005616
Application 12/528,169
18. A pump assembly comprising:
a centrifugal pump;
an electrical drive motor; and
an electronic control device, wherein the electronic
control device comprises a rotation direction recognition
module for recognizing whether the correct rotation direction of
the drive motor and of the centrifugal pump is clockwise (CW)
or counter-clockwise (CCW), said rotation direction recognition
module configured to detect at least one performance
characteristic value selected from the group consisting of
pressure (H), throughput (Q)[,] and power (P) of the pump
assembly in a manner such that on rotation of the drive motor,
the rotation direction recognition module detects the at least one
performance characteristic value (H, Q, P) and determines the
correct rotation direction (CW, CCW) by way of evaluation of
the performance characteristic value (H, Q, P), wherein the
rotation direction recognition module is designed in a manner
such that for recognizing the correct rotation direction (CW,
CCW), the rotation direction recognition module detects in
each case at least one performance characteristic
value (H, Q, P) on rotation of the drive motor in both
directions (CW, CCW), and recognizes the correct rotation
direction (CW, CCW) by way of comparison of the detected
performance characteristic values (H, Q, P).
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Struthers
Park
US 6,481,973 B 1
US 2006/0038529 Al
3
Nov. 19, 2002
Feb.23,2006
Appeal2017-005616
Application 12/528,169
REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review: Claims 13-15 and
17-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Struthers and Park. Final Act. 3-7.
ANALYSIS
All the claims require a pump assembly that includes a centrifugal
pump, an electrical drive motor, and an electronic control device with a
rotation direction recognition module for recognizing whether the correct
rotation direction of the drive motor for the pump is clockwise or counter-
clockwise. See Appeal Br., Claims App. The claims also explicitly recite
how the rotation direction recognition module makes the rotation direction
determination. See id. In particular, as emphasized above, independent
claim 13 ( and its associated dependent claims) recites that a particular
performance characteristic value is detected and compared with "a
corresponding known predefined performance characteristic value" to
determine the correct rotation direction, while independent claim 18 ( and its
associated dependent claims) recites that particular performance
characteristic values are detected "on rotation of the drive motor in both
directions," and these detected values are compared with one another to
determine the correct rotation direction. See id.
In rejecting the claims, the Examiner relies on Struthers for disclosing
a pump assembly that includes a centrifugal pump, an electrical drive motor,
and an electronic control device, and relies on Park for disclosing the
disputed limitations regarding a rotation direction recognition module for
recognizing whether the correct rotation direction of the drive motor for the
4
Appeal2017-005616
Application 12/528,169
pump is clockwise or counter-clockwise, as emphasized above. See Final
Act. 3-5; Ans. 6-9. We agree with Appellants that Park's rotation direction
recognition module, which admittedly teaches the general concept of
determining whether the correct rotation direction of the drive motor for the
pump is clockwise or counter-clockwise, does so in a manner that is distinct
from those explicitly recited in the claims. See Appeal Br. 5-8 (for
independent claim 13), 9-10 (for independent claim 18); see also Reply
Br. 1--4 (reiterating differences in how the rotation direction recognition
module makes the rotation direction determination).
In particular, Appellants correctly note that Park's rotation direction
recognition module includes first and second pressure sensors (installed at
an inlet and an outlet of the pump, respectively), and that recognition of
whether the correct rotation direction of the drive motor for the pump is
clockwise or counter-clockwise is determined by comparing these two
sensed pressures to one another (regardless of which direction the pump is
running when the measurements are taken). See, e.g., Park ,r,r 15, 46, 56-57.
With respect to independent claim 13, we agree with Appellants that Park's
system does not compare either pressure measurement to "a corresponding
known predetermined" pressure value, as the claim requires. See Appeal
Br. 5-8. Similarly, with respect to independent claim 18, we also agree
with Appellants that Park's system does not compare either pressure
measurement to a corresponding pressure measurement "on rotation of the
drive motor in both directions," as the claim requires. See id. at 9-10.
In short, for the reasons presented by Appellants regarding the
distinctions between the specific manners in which the rotation direction
recognition modules determine rotation (in other words, how the rotation
5
Appeal2017-005616
Application 12/528,169
direction recognition modules make the rotation direction determination),
between the systems of Park and those claimed, we agree with Appellants.
See Appeal Br. 5-10; Reply Br. 1--4.
Accordingly, because the Examiner's rejection is premised on
findings that are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, we do
not sustain it.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 13-15 and 17-24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Struthers and Park.
REVERSED
6