Ex Parte Schmiederer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 2013

10591890 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CLAUS SCHMIEDERER, MICHAEL HAERER, and TOBIAS KUECHEN ____________ Appeal 2011-002051 Application 10/591,890 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-002051 Application 10/591,890 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION The invention is directed to “an interference suppressor for suppressing high-frequency interference emissions from a direct current motor” (Spec. 1:8-9). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An interference suppressor (10) for suppressing high-frequency interference emissions of a direct current motor (26) that is drivable in a plurality of stages and/or directions, having a plurality of capacitors (16) located on a first side (12) of a printed circuit board (14) and having a plurality of first conductor tracks (18), located on the first side (12) of the printed circuit board (14), for putting the various capacitors (16) into contact with a ground terminal (20), and having a first terminal (22) and at least one further terminal (24) for the individual stages of the direct current motor (26), the first terminal (22) and the at least one second terminal (24) being put into contact with a first connection line (48) for the first stage and at least one second connection line (50) for the at least one second stage of the direct current motor (26), wherein a ground face (34) is located on a second side (32), diametrically opposite the first side (12), of the printed circuit board (14), and the first connection line (48) and the at least one second connection line (50) are fed through in insulated fashion relative to the ground face (34), and wherein the ground face (34) is electrically connected via through-plated holes (30) embodied as via-holes (36) to the ground terminals (20) of the capacitors (16) on the first side (12) of the printed circuit board (14), wherein the via-holes (36) are electrically conductive sleeves which are filled with a highly conductive metal. Appeal 2011-002051 Application 10/591,890 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Hönl Mizumoto DeDaran Anthony Migne US 5,299,088 US 5,883,335 US 2003/0048029 A1 US 2003/0231451 A1 FR 2 783 369 A1 Mar. 29, 1994 Mar. 16, 1999 Mar. 13, 2003 Dec. 18, 2003 March 17, 2000 (Pub. Date) REJECTIONS Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over DeDaran, Anthony, and Mizumoto. Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over DeDaran, Anthony, Mizumoto, and Migne. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over DeDaran, Anthony, Mizumoto, and Hönl. ANALYSIS Appellants contend the neither DeDaran, Anthony, nor Mizumoto discloses the claim 1 limitations “wherein the ground face (34) is electrically connected via through-plated holes (30) embodied as via-holes (36) to the ground terminals (20) of the capacitors (16) on the first side (12) of the printed circuit board (14), wherein the via-holes (36) are electrically conductive sleeves which are filled with a highly conductive metal” (Br. 9- Appeal 2011-002051 Application 10/591,890 4 10). Appellants further contend that “the references do not contain any hint, suggestion or motivation for such modifications” (Br. 11). Regarding claim 1, the Examiner makes specific factual findings (Ans. 3-5) and concludes that that the collective teachings of the references would have suggested the claimed invention (Ans. 5-6). Particularly, the Examiner finds DeDaran’s description of an interference suppressor does not disclose electrically connecting the ground terminals of the capacitors to a ground face of the printed circuit board via through-plated holes embodied as via-holes (Ans. 3-4), but relies on Anthony for disclosing a ground face, and on Mizumoto for disclosing via-hole connections through a printed circuit board to ground (Ans. 4-5, 10). Appellants’ arguments, however, do not address the Examiner’s specific citations to DeDaran, Anthony, and Mizumoto, and do not explain why the references fail to teach or suggest the limitations for which the Examiner relies upon them in the proposed combination (see Br. 9-10). Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments that the references fail to teach or suggest the argued limitations are not persuasive. See Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, 2009 WL 2477843, at *4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (“Informative”) (“Appellants’ argument . . . repeatedly restates elements of the claim language and simply argues that the elements are missing from the reference. However, Appellants do not present any arguments to explain why the Examiner’s explicit fact finding is in error”) (footnote omitted). Further, Appellants’ argument (Br. 11) that the references fail to provide a motivation to modify DeDaran in view of Anthony and Mizumoto fails to point out any deficiencies in the Examiner’s explicitly stated motivations to combine the references: Anthony’s metallized ground Appeal 2011-002051 Application 10/591,890 5 surface “provide[s] a significantly large ground plane which helps with attenuation of radiated electromagnetic emissions and provides a greater surface area in which to dissipate over voltages and surges” (Ans. 5, citing Anthony, ¶ [0075]); and Mizumoto’s via-holes “can be used to increase degree of freedom of the wiring between the two surfaces and/or between layers of the PCB and to shorten wiring length” (Ans. 5-6; Mizumoto, col. 1, ll. 59-61; col. 3, l. 64-col. 4, l. 3). Thus, Appellants’ motivation argument is also not persuasive. We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 5, and 7-12 not separately argued. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 5, and 7-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5, and 7-12 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED llw