Ex Parte Krishnamoorthy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2017

14060361 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2017)

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