Ex Parte Stoltz

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 25, 2017

12343774 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2017)

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