Ex Parte Krishnamoorthy et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 21, 201714060361 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/060,361 10/22/2013 Ravishanker Krishnamoorthy MP4922 / MV1-0420US 1056 06/23/201711280 7590 Lee & Hayes , pile 601 West Riverside Ave., Suite 1400 Spokane, WA 99201 EXAMINER YODICHKAS, KHRISTOPHER J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2858 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/23/2017 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): lhpto@leehayes.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAVISHANKER KRISHNAMOORTHY, FOO LENG LEONG, YAYUE ZHANG, and EDY SUSANTO Appeal 2016-006884 Application 14/060,3611 Technology Center 2800 Before CHUNG K. PAK, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL SUMMARY Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—4, 6—11, and 13—15. We REVERSE. 1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Marvell World Trade Ltd. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2016-006884 Application 14/060,361 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 Appellants describe the invention as relating to a method of predicting potential failure of a fan. Spec. 1 5. The fan could be used, for example, to cool an electronic system. Id. at 14. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added to certain key recitations, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: during an operation phase, operating a rotating device at a first speed; during the operation phase, monitoring a first current consumed by the rotating device to operate at the first speed, wherein during a calibration phase, the rotating device is operated at a second speed and a third speed, wherein while the rotating device is operated at the second speed during the calibration phase, a second current is measured to be consumed by the rotating device, and wherein while the rotating device is operated at the third speed during the calibration phase, a third current is measured to be consumed by the rotating device; determining that the first speed is substantially equal to the second speed; in response to determining that the first speed is substantially equal to the second speed, comparing the first current to the second current; and based on comparing the first current and the second current, predicting a possible failure of the rotating device. Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App’x). 2 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated June 26, 2015 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed November 9, 2015 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated May 20, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed June 30, 2016 (“Reply Br.”). 2 Appeal 2016-006884 Application 14/060,361 REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims on appeal: Larson et al. US 2006/0176186 A1 Aug. 10, 2006 (hereinafter “Larson”) Hunter et al. US 2009/0115620 Al May 7, 2009 (hereinafter “Hunter”) Jeung et al. US 2010/0256820 Al Oct. 7, 2010 (hereinafter “Jeung”) REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal: Rejection 1. Claims 1—4, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Larson in view of Jeung. Final Act. 2. Rejection 2. Claims 8—11 and 13—15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hunter in view of Jeung and Larson. Id. at 6. ANALYSIS Rejection 1. The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over Larson in view of Jeung. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that Larson teaches current indicates fan wear (predictive of future failure) even while fan speed remains constant as illustrated by Larson Figure 4A (reproduced below). Id. at 4. 3 Appeal 2016-006884 Application 14/060,361 FAN A I SKfcED J r 40?. | CUItHIiNlT \ 40C 5 // ySCMSg? OF FAFUrft£ FAN SPEED FAILURE FR£l>lC'nON 403 ONSET OF WEAR ■MH ym- FIG. 4A Figure 4A is a graph showing monitoring of fan current consumption and fan speed over time in accordance with the monitoring techniques of Larson. Larson 134. Larson explains that an increase in current usage may be indicative of fan wear and that mathematical models can be applied to provide predictive information regarding fan failure. Id. The Examiner finds that Larson discloses many recitations of claim 1 but fails to disclose “comparing currents in response to speeds being substantially equal.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds, however, that Jeung teaches a calibration phase where current corresponding to different speeds are stored. Id. at 3^4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to compare a first current (current while the fan is operating) to a second current (calibrated current value stored during calibration) in response to first and second fan speeds being equal in order to detect the onset of wear as taught by Larson Figure 4A. Id. at 4. Appellants argue that the cited references do not disclose or suggest determining that the first speed is substantially equal to the second speed and, in response, comparing the first current to the second current. Appeal 4 Appeal 2016-006884 Application 14/060,361 Br. 7. The preponderance of the evidence cited in the present record supports Appellants’ position that neither Larson nor Jeung teaches this recitation of claim 1. The Examiner finds that Larson teaches comparing fan speeds at paragraph 36. Ans. 8. That paragraph, however, merely explains that comparing fan speeds (i.e., noticing that a fan is slowing) is a worse method for predicting fan failure than measuring current because “[t]he current measurement enables a longer time period between failure prediction 406 and failure 410 in comparison to the fan speed prediction 408.” Larson 136. The paragraph does not relate to comparing currents in response to determining that fan speeds are equal. Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner also elaborates on why comparing currents in response to determining that fan speeds are equal would have been obvious “based on Larson’s [FJigure 4A.” Ans. 8—9. While the Examiner is correct that Larson’s figure 4A and Larson’s corresponding text teach the relationship between changing current and predicting fan failure, neither figure 4A nor the text teaches first determining whether or not two fan speeds are the same and then, if they are, responding by comparing currents. Reply Br. 8. Rather, Larson is best understood as monitoring current on a periodic or continuous basis and assessing failure based on changing current alone. Larson 134, figure 4A. figure 4A and its teachings do not provide a reason why a person of skill would have modified the method taught by Larson to reach the method of comparing currents in response to determining fan speeds are equal. Moreover, the evidence does not support that a person of skill would combine Jeung’s calibration method (or Jeung’s comparisons of fan speed) 5 Appeal 2016-006884 Application 14/060,361 with Larson to reach this recitation because Jeung does not address comparing currents to predict fan failure. Appeal Br. 7, 9. Rather, Jeung determines current corresponding to various fan speeds in order to calibrate the motor to provide constant air flow. Id. at 7; see also Jeung Title, ]Hf 15— 16; see also Reply Br. 4, 9—10. Because the Examiner does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 ’s recitation “in response to determining that the first speed is substantially equal to the second speed, comparing the first current to the second current” would have been obvious, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-4, 6, or 7 because those claims depend from claim 1. Rejection 2. The Examiner rejects claims 8—11 and 13—15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Hunter in view of Jeung and Larson. Final Act. 6. Claim 8 is similar to claim 1 in that a module configured to “in response to determining that the first speed is substantially equal to the second speed, compare the first current and the second current.” Appeal Br. 15 (Claim App’x). The Examiner finds that Hunter does not disclose this recitation. Final Act. 8. The Examiner thus relies on the reasoning addressed above with respect to this recitation. Id. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 and the claims depending from claim 8 are thus in error for the reasons explained above. Appeal Br. 12. DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1^1, 6-11, and 13-15. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation