Ex Parte Seger

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 28, 2014

11486884 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte RONALD NEIL SEGER ____________________ Appeal 2012-006295 Application 11/486,884 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN C. KERINS, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Ronald Neil Seger (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2012-006295 Application 11/486,884 2 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. An intake air heating system for an internal combustion engine, comprising: an electric heater that heats the intake air; and a control module that switches a voltage to the electric heater based on a control signal, the control module comprising a gate drive module that includes a bootstrap charge pump module and generates a gate drive signal based on the control signal and that is referenced to the voltage; and a power module that switches the power to the electric heater based on the gate drive signal. EVIDENCE The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Kim Kadah US 5,943,226 US 6,118,239 Aug. 24, 1999 Sep. 12, 2000 Prust WO 2005/012807 A2 Feb. 10, 2005 REJECTIONS Claims 1–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Prust. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Prust and Kadah. OPINION Independent claim 1 requires “a gate drive module that includes a bootstrap charge pump module and generates a gate drive signal based on the control signal and that is referenced to the voltage.” The Examiner finds Appeal 2012-006295 Application 11/486,884 3 that Prust’s “MOSFET[s] 50 make up a charge pump. The MOSFETs 50 together form a charge pump which perform the same function as the present application.” Answer 5. The Examiner relies on Kim to show “a bootstrap charge pump containing at least two MOSFETs.” Id. According to the Examiner, Kim shows a bootstrap charge pump “made of NMOS transistors which are MOSFETs and does not require the use of a capacitor since the MOSFETs also function as a capacitor.” Answer 6–7. The Examiner asserts that “[a] charge pump could be considered and [sic] circuit which boosts a voltage. MOSFET[s] include a dielectric layer of silicon dioxide which allows the MOSFET to store a charge thus functioning as a capacitor.” Answer 7. Appellant cites the following as an “art-recognized definition of a charge pump”: A power supply which uses capacitors to store and transfer energy to the output, often stepping the voltage up or down. Charge is transferred from one capacitor to another under control of regulator and switching circuitry. Appeal Br. 13–14 (citing http://www.maxim-ic.com/glossary/ definitions.mvp/term/charge pump/gpk/55). Appellant takes issue with the Examiner’s determination that the presence of MOSFETs in both Prust’s controller circuit and Kim’s bootstrap charge pump circuit shows that Prust’s MOSFETs form a bootstrap charge pump module. Appeal Br. 11, 13. Appellant identifies differences between the two parallel MOSFETs 50 of Prust and the charge pump circuits of Kim, and urges that the two parallel MOSFETs 50 of Prust are unrelated to the charge pumps disclosed in Kim. Appeal Br. 11–12. Appellant points out Appeal 2012-006295 Application 11/486,884 4 that, even if Prust’s MOSFETs 50 were connected as shown in Kim, and had similarly arranged capacitors, the MOSFETs would not function as a charge pump unless they were controlled properly. Appeal Br. 13. Unlike Kim’s MOSFETs, which are controlled by PHASE 1 and PHASE 2 signals, which are 180 degrees out of phase with each other, to create a charge pumping action, Prust’s MOSFETs are simply switched on or off (with pulse-width modulation) to allow current to flow from the battery to the air heater. Id. (citing Prust, Figs. 2A, 2B; ¶ 25). Appellant’s arguments are convincing. On the record before us, the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the two parallel MOSFETs 50 of Prust’s controller form a bootstrap charge pump module, as that terminology is understood by those of ordinary skill in the art. Appellant further asserts that, even assuming that Prust’s MOSFETs 50 form a charge pump to generate a gate drive signal, “there would be no corresponding components in Prust that would operate in response to that gate drive signal. In other words, no component of Prust would correspond to the power module of claim 1, which switches power to the electric heater based on the gate drive signal.” Reply Br. 6. The Examiner appears to rely on Prust’s ignition switch 52 as the “power module.” Answer 4–5 (alluding to “power module that switches on and off 52”). However, the Examiner does not address Appellant’s argument that Prust lacks a power module that switches the power to the electric heater “based on the gate drive signal” generated by Prust’s controller 26 with MOSFETs 50. Prust discloses that “[a]s the ignition switch 52 is turned on, power is sent to the controller 26 and the engine ECM 42.” Prust ¶ 37. In other words, Prust’s ignition switch Appeal 2012-006295 Application 11/486,884 5 performs its switching function, thereby powering the controller, independent of the signals output by the controller. The Examiner does not explain how this satisfies the claim language “a power module that switches the power to the electric heater based on the gate drive signal” in claim 1. For the above reasons, Appellant persuades us that the Examiner fails to set forth a sound basis that the subject matter of claim 1 is anticipated by Prust. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2–16 as anticipated by Prust. The Examiner’s application of Kadah to provide Prust with an optoisolator does not cure the aforementioned deficiency in the rejection of claim 1. See Answer 6 (stating, “[i]t would have been obvious to adapt Prust in view of Kadah to provide the optoisolator for receiving the gate pulses . . .”). Thus, we also do not sustain the rejection of claim 17, which depends from claim 1, as unpatentable over Prust and Kadah. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–17 is reversed. REVERSED Klh