Ex Parte StoltzDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 25, 201712343774 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/343,774 12/24/2008 Thomas J. Stoltz 66777-0028 5000 10291 7590 10/27/2017 FISHMAN STEWART PLLC 39533 WOODWARD AVENUE SUITE 140 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304-0610 EXAMINER GBLENDE, JEFFREY A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2838 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/27/2017 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): docketing @ fishstewip. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THOMAS J. STOLTZ Appeal 2016-004825 Application 12/343,7741 Technology Center 2800 Before CHUNG K. PAK, MARKNAGUMO, and WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s maintained rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claims 1-20 over Iwahori2 in view of Tang,3 of claim 21 in further view of Nielsen,4 and of claim 22 in still further view of Staab.5 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We REVERSE. 1 Eaton Corporation is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. 2 Iwahori, US 6,870,355 B2, issued March 22, 2005. 3 Tang et al., US 6,809,504 B2, issued October 26, 2004. 4 Nielsen, US 7,667,349 B2, issued February 23, 2010. 5 Staab et al., US 5,610,790, issued March 11, 1997. Appeal 2016-004825 Application 12/343,774 THE INVENTION The subject matter of the claims on appeal relates to a drive circuit including a supply that outputs a first voltage potential, an energy storage device that outputs a second voltage potential, a load, and switches controlling the flow of current through the load in a flow direction and in a direction opposite to the flow direction. Specification filed December 24, 2008 (“Spec.”), Abstract. Independent claims 1 and 14—reproduced below with emphasis—are representative. 1. A drive circuit comprising: a SUPPLY configured to output a first voltage potential, a first current generated by said first voltage potential being flowable through a LOAD; an energy storage device configured to output a second voltage potential, a second current generated by said second voltage potential being flowable through said LOAD, wherein each of said first and second currents is flowable through said LOAD in a flow direction and in a direction opposite to said flow direction', and a controller configured to determine which of the first voltage potential and the second voltage potential is of a highest potential and to control the first and second currents in response to the highest potential, wherein one of said first and second currents flows through said LOAD in response to the determination and the other of said currents does not flow through said LOAD. 14. A method of operating a drive circuit, the method comprising: flowing a first current through a LOAD in a flow direction or in a direction opposite to the flow direction, a first voltage source generating said first current; and thereafter, 2 Appeal 2016-004825 Application 12/343,774 flowing a second current through said LOAD in said flow direction or in said direction opposite to the flow direction, a second voltage source generating said second current, wherein said directions of said first and second current is determined based on which of a first voltage potential associated with the first voltage source and a second voltage potential associated with a second voltage source is of the highest potential. Appeal Brief filed March 13, 2014 (“Appeal Br.”), (Claims App’x) 18-20. DISCUSSION6 We are persuaded that the Examiner has erred reversibly in the stated ground of rejection of independent claims 1 and 14 and, accordingly, do not sustain the rejections of these claims. Likewise, finding the Examiner did not cure this error as to the dependent claims, we do not sustain the rejections of the dependent claims. Claim 1 requires, inter alia, “an energy storage device configured to output a second voltage potential, a second current generated by said second voltage potential. . . where each of said first and second currents is flowable through said LOAD in a flow direction and in a direction opposite to said flow direction.” The Examiner relies on Iwahori for disclosing, inter alia, a supply (AC and DB) configured to output a first voltage potential and an energy storage device (Cl) configured to output a second voltage potential wherein said first and second voltage potentials drive a first and second current, 6 In our discussion, we refer to the Specification, the Final Office Action issued August 5, 2013 (“Final Act.”), the Advisory Action issued November 12, 2013 (“Advisory Act.”), the Appeal Brief, the Examiner’s Answer issued July 25, 2014 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed November 21, 2014 (“Reply Br.”). 3 Appeal 2016-004825 Application 12/343,774 respectively, through a LOAD (LD) both in a flow direction and a direction opposite to the flow direction. Final Act. 3 (citing fwahori col. 26,1. 66- col. 27,1. 16, Fig. 26); Ans. 3—4. The Examiner relies on Tang for “disclosing] (see fig. 3) a controller which determines which of the first and second voltage potentials (voltage inputs to 312 and 314) is of the highest potential. . . Tang is not relied upon to disclose that the first and second currents flowing through the load is generated by the first and second voltage potentials because fwahori is relied upon to disclose this feature.” Ans. 3—4; see also Advisory Act. 3. The Examiner concludes that “it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the drive circuit of fwahori to include the controller of Tang et al. because the controller is used in protecting the load from undervoltage and overvoltage conditions, thus increasing efficiency.” Final Act. 4. Element Cl in fwahori is consistently identified as a smoothing capacitor. See, e.g., fwahori col. 26,1. 34. As described by Appellant, fwahori’s seventh embodiment converts AC power from an AC source into DC power and subsequently converts that DC power to AC power of rectangular wave of low frequency, fwahori col. 26,11. 26-30. While switched to drive current through the load in either a forward or reverse direction to alternate the current, additional switching—identical in both modes—provides three periods T1-T3 illustrated in Figures 28A-28C, respectively, fwahori col. 27,1. 38-col. 28,1. 14. As acknowledged by the Examiner, fwahori does not disclose a controller that switches between sources of voltage potential in response to the voltage potentials. Final Act. 3 (“fwahori does not disclose a controller 4 Appeal 2016-004825 Application 12/343,774 configured to determine which of the first voltage potential and the second voltage potential is of a highest potential and to control the first and second currents in response to the highest potential.”). As disclosed in Tang, comparator device 312 and comparator 314 compare a load voltage (Vload) to reference voltages (Vref) to identify overvoltage or undervoltage conditions, which are then corrected by sinking current from dynamic load 304 or sourcing current to dynamic load 304, respectively. Tang col. 7,11. 51-57, Fig. 3. This compensating current (Icomp), from sinking or sourcing current to dynamic load 304 is an adjunct to that supplied by the primary voltage regulator 302. See, e.g., Tang col. 5, 1. 50-col. 6,1. 8, Fig. 3. As highlighted by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 2), and as explained above, Tang does not disclose a controller that compares a first voltage potential and a second voltage potential, which provide for a first current and a second current flowable through the load, and then, based on which potential is highest, determines which of the first and second current flows through the load. The reference voltages Vref do not provide a current flowable through the load. In sum, neither fwahori nor Tang teach or suggest switching between two sources of voltage potential that can provide current to a load on the basis of which has the highest potential such that current from one source flows through the load and the other does not. Notwithstanding the potential breadth of the claims, on this record, we find lacking a sufficient articulated basis for a drive circuit configured according to claim 1. The proffered reasoning, “to modify the drive circuit of Iwahori to include the controller of Tang . . . [to] protect[] the load from 5 Appeal 2016-004825 Application 12/343,774 undervoltage and overvoltage conditions, thus increasing efficiency” (Final Act. 4), is insufficient because it fails to provide a sufficient basis for switching between two voltage sources based on which has the highest potential where current from one does not flow through the load where neither reference suggests or teaches doing so. On this record, accordingly, the Examiner’s articulated reasoning falls short of that necessary for a prima facie case. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not. . . resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.”); In re Sporck, 301 F.2d 686, 690 (CCPA 1962); see also In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Claim 14 requires, inter alia, “flowing a first current through a LOAD in a flow direction or in a direction opposite to the flow direction” and “flowing a second current through said LOAD in said flow direction or in said direction opposite to the flow direction.” The Examiner maintains that “Iwahori does not teach a method wherein the directions of said first and second current is determined based on which of a first voltage potential associated with the first voltage source and a second voltage potential associated with a second voltage source is of the highest potential.” Final Act. 7. The Examiner relies on Tang’s disclosure of activation or deactivation of a current source as disclosing a method in which the direction of said first and second currents is in a flow direction and in an opposite direction. Final Act. 7-8; Reply Br. 5-6. Specifically, the Examiner determines that, “deactivation of. . . either current source [308 and 310] represents a flow 6 Appeal 2016-004825 Application 12/343,774 direction (current not flowing) that is opposite from the flow direction (current flowing) of the activated current source.” Reply Br. 6. The Examiner’s rejection is, therefore, grounded on the premise that current not flowing is an opposite flow direction than current flowing. Final Act. 8; Ans. 6. The Examiner’s determination that “current not flowing” is a current flow in an opposite direction to “current flowing” is not well founded and we find Appellant’s argument to that effect persuasive. Appeal Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 5. In this regard, the Examiner fails to demonstrate that “current not flowing” is within the ordinary and accustomed meaning of current flowing in an opposite direction and we are not directed to the Specification, or to any evidence, for any contrary meaning of the claim terms as required to so interpret the claim. Notwithstanding the potential breadth of the claim, on this record, we find the Examiner’s articulated reasoning grounded on an unfounded premise falls short of that necessary for a prima facie case. See Warner, 379 F.2d at 1017; Sporck, 301 F.2d at 690; see also Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445. We decline to scour the record in the first instance for facts that might support a prior art rejection of the claim on appeal, as our primary role is review, not examination de novo. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-22 is REVERSED. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation