Ex Parte StarkDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 15, 201814127185 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation