Ex Parte Vogel et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 27, 201311744533 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2013) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation