Ex Parte Stark

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2018

14127185 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/127,185 12/18/2013 Michael A. Stark
87059 7590 06/19/2018
Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
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.
PA-0009971-US-AA 6373
EXAMINER
COOK, CORTEZ M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/19/2018 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):
usptopatentmail @cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL A. ST ARK
Appeal2018-000400
Application 14/127,185
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, and 11 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Tolbert, Jr. et al. (U.S. 2009/0324428 Al,
published Dec. 31, 2009) (hereinafter "Tolbert"), and claims 3-7 and 12-16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tolbert in view of
various other references (Final Action 5-11 ). We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Real Party in Interest is stated to be Carrier Corporation (Br. 2).
Appeal2018-000400
Application 14/127, 185
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention (emphasis added to
highlight key limitation in dispute):
1. A variable frequency drive system consisting of:
an alternating current electrical power source;
an alternating current motor;
a variable frequency drive operably connected to the power
source and the motor to provide electrical power to the motor, the
variable frequency drive including:
an active rectifier to convert a first alternating current from the
power
source to a direct current; and
an inverter to convert the direct current to a second alternating
current;
wherein a variable frequency drive output voltage is greater
than a variable frequency drive input voltage.
At the outset, we note that independent system claim 1 and
corresponding method claim 8 are not argued separately, nor are any
arguments directed to any dependent claims. Accordingly, claims 1 and 8
and all their dependent claims, including those separately rejected, stand or
fall together.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant's argument for patentability. However,
we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's
finding that the claimed subject matter of representative claim 1 (as well as
its corresponding method claim 8) is anticipated within the meaning of§ 102
in view of the applied prior art of Tolbert. Accordingly, we will sustain the
Examiner's rejections for essentially those reasons expressed in the
2
Appeal2018-000400
Application 14/127, 185
Examiner's Response to Argument section in the Answer, and we add the
following primarily for emphasis.
Appellant's sole argument is that Tolbert does not describe, within the
meaning of§ 102, "wherein a variable frequency drive output
voltage is greater than a variable frequency drive input voltage" as recited in
each of independent claim 1 and claim 8.
However, the Examiner points out in the Answer that Tolbert
explicitly describes this scenario in paragraph 16 of Tolbert when read as a
whole, since paragraph 16 states that the voltage supplied to the motor 106
may be greater than the "fixed line voltage" (i.e., the input voltage) ( e.g.,
Ans. 2). Appellant's mere assertion to the contrary (Br. 4 (stating that
Tolbert lacks "any disclosure that the output voltage is greater than the input
voltage")) is not persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner's anticipation
rejection. Rather, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's
position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily
recognized/inferred that the system depicted and described in Tolbert is
indeed encompassed by the claim language in dispute (Ans. 3; comparing
Tolbert's Fig. 2 to Appellant's Fig. 1). In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826
(CCPA 1968) (In determining whether a reference anticipates the subject
matter recited in a claim, "it is proper to take into account not only specific
teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art
would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.") Cf In re Schaumann,
572 F.2d 312, 317 (CCPA 1978) (In order to anticipate, a reference must
identify something falling within the claimed subject matter with sufficient
specificity to constitute a description thereof within the purview of§ 102.).
3
Appeal2018-000400
Application 14/127, 185
Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's
position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have at once envisaged or
inferred from Tolbert's disclosure that a variable frequency drive output
voltage may be greater than a variable frequency drive input voltage as
recited in each of claims 1 and 8 (Ans. generally; no responsive brief has
been filed by Appellant).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's anticipation rejection. No
further substantive arguments were made regarding the § 103 rejections.
Thus, we also affirm the § 103 rejections.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.
ORDER
AFFIRMED
4