Ex Parte Vogel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 27, 2013

11744533 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BERNARD J. VOGEL,
MICHAEL D. MADSEN and TODD G. BATZLER
____________

Appeal 2011-008970
Application 11/744,533
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LYNNE H. BROWNE and
MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-008970
Application 11/744,533

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Bernard J. Vogel et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-16 and 21-25. App. Br. 3.
Claims 17-20 have been canceled. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 12 and 21 are independent, claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. An inverter-based power source configured to
drive a welding-type system comprising:
a power input configured to receive
alternating current (AC) power;
a first rectifier configured to convert the AC
power to direct current (DC) power;
an inverter configured to receive the DC
power from the rectifier and convert the DC power
to AC power;
a controller configured to generate switching
signals according to a pattern of offsets from a
regular half period and communicate the switching
signals to one of the inverter and the rectifier to
control operation of the one of the inverter and the
rectifier; and
a second rectifier configured to receive the
AC power from the inverter and convert the AC
power to a welding-type power.

PRIOR ART
Moro US 5,748,462 May 5, 1998
Trzynadlowski US 2003/0002299 A1 Jan. 2, 2003
Geissler US 2004/0016724 A1 Jan. 29, 2004
Andrews ‘748 US 2004/0217748 A1 Nov. 4, 2004
Andrews ‘693 US 6,833,693 B2 Dec. 21, 2004
Appeal 2011-008970
Application 11/744,533

3
GROUNDS OF REJECTION

1. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Moro.
2. Claims 1-9 and 12-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Trzynadlowski.
3. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Trzynadlowski and Andrews ‘748.
4. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Trzynadlowski and Moro.
5. Claims 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Moro and Trzynadlowski.
6. Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Moro and Geissler.
OPINION
Anticipation
The Examiner finds that Moro discloses each and every limitation of
independent claim 21. Ans. 4. In particular the Examiner finds that Moro
discloses “a controller (40, figure 1) configured to inject a dither into the
switching signals to unfocus harmonics injected at the power input due to
switching of the inverter (column 6, lines 59-65).” Id (emphasis added).
Appellants argue that “Moro neither teaches nor suggests a controller
configured to inject a dither into the switching signals to unfocus harmonics
injected at the power input due to switching of the inverter.” App. Br. 11.
In support of this argument Appellants state
the controller of Moro either switches according to
a clock signal (creating the very problem the
Appeal 2011-008970
Application 11/744,533

4
present system is configured to prevent), or
switches randomly which may, depending upon
the characteristics of the welding process, also
generate harmonics and exacerbate the problem
being sought to be overcome by the claimed
invention.
App. Br. 12. Appellants further argue that Moro discloses a controller for
providing a new method of “current peak control” or “current limiter
control,” rather than “a controller configured to inject a dither into the
switching signals to unfocus harmonics injected at the power input due to
switching of the inverter.” See App. Br. 12. We note that Appellants have
not argued that Moro’s controller is not capable of injecting a dither into the
switching signals to unfocus harmonics as claimed.
In response to this argument, the Examiner states that the claim
terminology “’configured to’ is being deemed functional language.” Ans.
13-14. Then the Examiner finds that Moro discloses the structure and
“controllability” to perform the operations set forth in claim 21 and
concludes that Moro anticipates claim 21. See Ans. 14.
The Examiner correctly identifies the limitation “configured to inject
a dither into the switching signals to unfocus harmonics injected at the
power input due to switching of the inverter” as functional language and
reasonably finds that Moro would be capable of performing the function as
discussed supra. Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or
arguments to establish that this finding is in error. See, e.g., In re Schreiber,
128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (claims directed to an apparatus
must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than
function). Thus, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21.
Appeal 2011-008970
Application 11/744,533

5
Obviousness
Rejections based on Trzynadlowski: Claims 1-9 and 12-16
Claims 1-9:
The Examiner finds that Trzynadlowski discloses every limitation of
independent claim 1 except for “a second rectifier configured to receive AC
power from the inverter and convert the AC power to a welding-type
power.” Ans. 6. The Examiner additionally finds that “[t]he second rectifier
is used to convert the AC power leaving the inverter back to DC power,
which is often supplied as a welding-type current.” Id. Based on these
findings, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to utilize
a second rectifier.” Id.
Appellants argue that “the controller of Trzynadlowski is never
configured to generate switching signals according to a pattern of offsets
from a regular half period” as claimed. App. Br. 16 (emphasis added); see
also Reply Br. 5. In response to this argument the Examiner finds that
“Trzynadlowski et al. teach providing a randomly generated pattern of
offsets which is still deemed to be a ‘pattern of offsets’ even though the
pattern of offsets are generated randomly.” Ans. 16. However, the
Examiner does not identify where Trzynadlowski describes that the
switching signals are generated according to a pattern of offsets “from a
regular half period” as required by claim 1. App. Br., Clms. App’x.
Thus, the Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness and we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and
claims 2-9 which depend therefrom.
Appeal 2011-008970
Application 11/744,533

6
Claim 12:
Independent claim 12 does not include the limitation of a pattern of
offsets “from a regular half period” as found in claim 1. Here, the Examiner
finds that Trzynadlowski discloses every limitation of independent claim 12
except for “a second rectifier configured to receive AC power from the
inverter and convert the AC power to a welding-type power.” Ans. 7. The
Examiner further finds that rectifiers are used to convert AC power leaving
an inverter back to DC power and that DC power is often supplied as
welding power. See Id. Based on these findings the Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious “to utilize a second rectifier [in
Trzynadlowski’s power source].” Ans. 7.
Appellants argue that “Trzynadlowski describes an art that is
unrelated to that of the claimed invention.” App. Br. 23. Appellants’
argument is not persuasive because Trzynadlowski has to do with power
converters (i.e., power sources). Trzynadlowski, para. 0003. To the extent
that Appellants are arguing that Trzynadlowski is nonanalogous art,
Appellants’ argument is unconvincing. Just as an inventor considering a
hinge and latch mechanism for portable computers would naturally look to
references employing other “housings, hinges, latches, springs, etc.,” so a
person of ordinary skill in the art considering power sources, would consider
a reference describing improvements to power converters, such as
Trzynadlowski. See In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374,
1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Appellants further argue that “Trzynadlowski is never configured to
receive the clock signal and generate a series of control signals based on the
clock signal configured to cause the plurality of switches to switch at an
Appeal 2011-008970
Application 11/744,533

7
irregular frequency.” App. Br. 23; see also Reply Br. 5. However, the
Examiner finds that Trzynadlowski discloses a clock signal in paragraph
0030 and that generation of the series of control signals based on the clock
signal is also disclosed in this paragraph. Ans. 7. Although Appellants
dispute this finding, they provide no evidence in support of their position or
indicate where the Examiner misinterpreted Trzynadlowski. App. Br. 23.
Thus, Appellants have not apprised us of error.
Appellants similarly argue that Trzynadlowski “only ever describes
generating switching control signals at random . . . never discusses using a
clock signal to generate control signals . . . cannot describe using clock
signals to generate switches to switch at an irregular frequency, as called for
in the present claim.” App. Br. 23. Trzynadlowski’s paragraph 0030 relied
on by the Examiner discusses a control system that “generates reference
voltage signals” and the use of these signals “to determine a switching
pattern” to “generate[] switching signals.” Appellants do not elaborate on
how this disclosure in Trzynadlowski “cannot describe using clock signals”
to generate switching signals as asserted. App. Br. 23. Accordingly,
Appellants provide no persuasive evidence in support of their position and
thus, have not apprised us of error.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12.
Claims 13 and 14:
Claim 13 depends from independent claim 12 and adds the limitation
“wherein the set of programmable logic is configured to shift generation of
the control signals according to a pattern of offsets to cause the plurality of
switches to switch at an irregular frequency.” App. Br. A-4. Claim 14
depends from claim 13 and adds the limitation “wherein the pattern of
Appeal 2011-008970
Application 11/744,533

8
offsets is one of symmetric and asymmetric.” Id. Appellants do not present
separate arguments for claim 14. See App Br. 24-25. Accordingly, claim 14
stands or falls with claim 13.
Regarding claim 13, Appellants argue that Trzynadlowski “only
describes a random switching pattern. The random switching is just that,
random, and is never generated according to a known pattern of offsets
. . . .” App. Br. 24. We disagree. As discussed supra, the Examiner finds
that Trzynadlowski discloses a switching pattern in paragraph 0030. The
Examiner further references paragraphs 0038 and 0039 regarding offsets
(with respect to other claims also rejected solely under Trzynadlowski).
Ans. 6, 7. Appellants have not explained why one of ordinary skill in the art
would not understand these paragraphs to describe a “set of programmable
logic [that] is configured to shift generation of the control signals according
to a pattern of offsets to cause the plurality of switches to switch at an
irregular frequency” as required by claim 13. Accordingly, Appellants have
not apprised us of error.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 and
claim 14 which stands therewith.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 depends from independent claim 12 and adds the limitation
“wherein the set of programmable logic is configured to generate the control
signals according to a pattern of offsets selected to unfocus harmonics
injected at the power input due to switching the inverter, and generate an
output power signal free of audible tones.” App. Br. A-4. Appellants argue
that Trzynadlowski fails to disclose offsets that are selected to unfocus
harmonics injected at the power input in paragraph 0014. See App. Br. 25.
Appeal 2011-008970
Application 11/744,533

9
Appellants’ argument is not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the
Examiner and appears to be focusing on the wrong paragraph. The
Examiner finds “a pattern of offsets selected to unfocus harmonics injected
at the power input due to switching of the inverter, and generate an output
power signal free of audible tones (paragraphs [0010], [0012]).” Ans. 8.
Appellants have not explained why paragraphs 0010 and 0012 do not
describe the limitations at issue and thus have not apprised us of error.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15.
Claim 16:
Claim 16 depends from claim 12 and adds the limitation “wherein the
set of programmable logic is configured to generate the control signals
according to a pattern of offsets having an odd number of steps.” App. Br.
A-4. Appellants argue that Trzynadlowski fails to disclose offsets that have
an odd number of steps. App. Br. 25. We agree. The Examiner finds that
the “switching pattern is randomly generated.” Ans. 8 (citing
Trzynadlowski, para. 0014). However, this finding on its own is insufficient
to establish the correlation required in order to equate signal generation and
an odd number of steps. Thus, the Examiner has failed to set forth a prima
facie case of obviousness.
For these reasons, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
16.
Rejections based on Trzynadlowski and Andrews ’748: Claim 10
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and adds the limitation “wherein the
controller includes a field programmable gate array”. App. Br. A-3.
Andrews ’748 does not cure the deficiencies in Trzynadlowski discussed
supra. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10.
Appeal 2011-008970
Application 11/744,533

10
Rejections based on Trzynadlowski and Moro: Claim 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and adds the limitation “wherein the
welding-type power is configured to drive at least one of a welding process,
plasma cutting process, and induction heating process.” Id. Moro does not
cure the deficiencies in Trzynadlowski discussed supra. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11.
Rejections based on Moro and Trzynadlowski: Claims 22-24
Claims 22 and 23:
Claims 22 and 23 depend from independent claim 21. Claim 22 adds
the limitation “wherein the controller is further configured to inject the
dither into the switching signals having characteristics configured to not
inject audible tones into the welding-type power” and claim 23 adds the
limitation “wherein the controller is configured to inject the dither according
to a pattern of at least one of asymmetric offsets and a combination of
positive and negative offsets.” App. Br. A-5. Appellants limit their
arguments, with respect to claims 22 and 23, to disputing the teachings of
Trzynadlowski. App. Br. 26-27. Appellants argue that since Trzynadlowski
never “describes using a pattern when generating the switching signals . . .
Trzynadlowski cannot disclose the pattern of offsets as called for . . .” in
claims 22 and 23. App. Br. 27. We disagree. As discussed supra,
Appellants have not apprised us of error in the Examiner’s finding that
Trzynadlowski describes a pattern of offsets.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22 and 23.
Claim 24:
Claim 24 depends from claim 21 and adds the limitation
wherein at least one of the first rectifier and the
Appeal 2011-008970
Application 11/744,533

11
second rectifier is configured to receive a rectifier
switching signal and wherein the controller is
further configured to inject a dither into the
rectifier switching signals to unfocus harmonics
injected at the power input due to switching of the
at least one of the first rectifier and the second
rectifier.
App. Br. A-5. Again, Appellants limit their arguments, with respect to claim
24, to disputing the teachings of Trzynadlowski. App. Br. 27-28.
Appellants state that “the Examiner acknowledges that Moro fails to teach or
suggest injecting a dither to unfocus harmonics injected at the power input,
but maintains that the claim element is disclosed by Trzynadlowski.
Specifically, the Examiner states that the claim element is found in
paragraphs 0010 and 0030 of Trzynadlowski.” App. Br. 27. Appellants
argue that “[t]he cited portions of the reference, however, only describe the
generation of switching signals that are configured to adjust an output power
signal.” Id.
Appellants’ argument is not responsive to the rejection as articulated
by the Examiner. The Examiner finds that Trzynadlowski teaches a
controller “configured to inject a dither into the rectifier switching signals to
unfocus harmonics injected at the power input due to switching of the
rectifier (paragraph [0006]).” Ans. 11. Appellants have not disputed this
finding and thus have not apprised us of error. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 24.
Rejections based on Moro and Geissler: Claim 25
Claim 25 depends from independent claim 21 and adds the further
limitation of “a preregulator configured to receive a fixed-frequency
modulation signal and wherein the controller is further configured to inject a
Appeal 2011-008970
Application 11/744,533

12
dither into the fixed-frequency modulation signals to unfocus harmonics
injected at the power input due to operation of the preregulator.” App. Br.
A-6. Appellants have not presented separate arguments against the
patentability of claim 25. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 25.
DECISION

The Examiner’s rejections of claims 12-15 and 21-25 are
AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-11 and 16 are REVERSED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

tj