Ex Parte White

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2019

14231802 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/231,802 04/01/2014
113529 7590
Kinney & Lange, P.A.
312 South Third Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
02/04/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Adam Michael White
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.
PA0027848U-Ul00.12-639KL 4527
EXAMINER
CARRASQUILLO, JORGE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/04/2019 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):
USPatDocket@kinney.com
amkoenck@kinney.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADAM MICHAEL WHITE
Appeal 2018-002863
Application 14/231,802
Technology Center 2800
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed April 1, 2014
("Spec."), the Final Office Action dated September 16, 2016 ("Final Act."),
the Appeal Brief filed July 31, 2017 ("Br."), and the Examiner's Answer
dated October 13, 2017 ("Ans.").
2 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hamilton Sundstrand
Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-002863
Application 14/231,802
The subject matter on appeal relates to matrix converters, and in
particular to a matrix converter that includes both normally-on and
normally-off switches. Spec. ,r 1. Matrix converters provide AC-to-AC
conversion, and are often utilized to achieve three-phase AC power
conversion in a single stage without the use of intermediate energy storage
elements. Id. ,r 2. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis to highlight a
key disputed limitation, is illustrative of the claims on appeal.
1. A power conversion system comprising:
a power source configured to produce an input power;
a matrix converter configured to convert the input power
to output power, the matrix converter comprising:
a plurality of normally-on switches configured to
conduct current from the input power to the
output power based upon a first respective
control voltage, wherein each of the
plurality of normally-on switches conducts
current when the first respective control
voltage is zero; and
a plurality of normally-off switches configured to
conduct current from the input power to the
output power based upon a second
respective control voltage, wherein each of
the plurality of normally-off switches does
not conduct current when the second
respective control voltage is zero; and
a controller configured to control the plurality of
normally-on switches and the plurality of
normally-off switches to control the output power,
wherein the plurality of normally-on switches
provide the input power directly as the output
power when the controller is inactive.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2018-002863
Application 14/231,802
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal (Final
Act. 2-15; Ans. 3):
Rejection 1: Claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(l) as being
anticipated by Kuzumaki et al. (US 2012/0087167 Al, published April 12,
2012) ("Kuzumaki");
Rejection 2: Claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sakakibara
(US 2009/0257261 Al, published October 15, 2009) and
Ueno (US 2014/0169045 Al, published June 19, 2014);
Rejection 3: Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sakakibara, Ueno,
and Takeda et al. (US 2014/0117917 Al, published May 1, 2014)
("Takeda");
Rejection 4: Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sakakibara, Ueno,
Takeda, and Kitanaka (US 2011/0062908 Al, published March 17, 2011);
Rejection 5: Claims 10-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Takeda and
Ueno; and
Rejection 6: Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Takeda, Ueno, and Kitanaka.
DISCUSSION
After review of the cited evidence in light of the Appellant's and the
Examiner's opposing positions, we determine that Appellant has not
identified reversible error in the Examiner's rejections. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejections for the reasons set forth below, in the Final Office
Action, and in the Examiner's Answer.
3
Appeal2018-002863
Application 14/231,802
Rejection 1
The Examiner finds that Kuzumaki's Figure 1 teaches a power
conversion device that meets all the limitations of claim 1 's power
conversion system, including a matrix converter (Kuzumaki' s inverter main
circuit 3). Final Act. 13-14; see also Kuzumaki ,r,r 24--25.
Appellant contends that a matrix converter is an AC-AC converter
that receives a multi-phase AC input and provides a multi-phase AC output.
Appeal Br. 5. Appellant argues that Kuzumaki's inverter main circuit 3 is
not an AC-AC converter, but rather is a DC-AC converter that receives a DC
input and converts the DC input to AC output. Id.
Appellant's argument is persuasive of reversible error. Appellant's
Specification teaches that matrix converters provide AC-to-AC conversion.
Spec. ,r 2; see also Ueno ,r,r 7, 49 (disclosing that a matrix converter
performs AC-to-AC power conversion). Kuzumaki, however, teaches that
inverter main circuit 3 converts DC power to AC power. The Examiner's
response that the claims do not define or require that the main converter is
an AC-to-AC converter (Ans. 4) is inadequate because a preponderance of
the evidence supports Appellant's contention that a matrix converter is
generally understood in the art as an AC-to-AC converter, and thus the claim
need not define or recite that the matrix converter is an AC-to-AC converter.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l).
Rejections 2-6
Appellants argue claims 1-15 as a group. Appeal Br. 6-10. We
choose claim 1 as representative and claims 2-15 will stand or fall with
claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal2018-002863
Application 14/231,802
The Examiner finds that Sakakibara teaches a power conversion
system that includes a matrix converter including a plurality of on and off
switches, Sur, Sus, Sut, Svr, Svs, Svt, Swr, Sws, Swt. Final Act. 2-3 ( citing
Sakakibara, Fig. 1); see also Sakakibara ,r,r 49-50.
In addition, the Examiner finds that Ueno teaches a matrix converter
that employs a plurality of on and off switches. Final Act. 4 (citing Ueno,
Figs. 1, 2, 7).
Appellant argues that Sakakibara and Ueno fail to teach or suggest a
matrix converter that includes both normally-on and normally-off switches
such that the normally-on switches "provide the input power directly as
output power when the controller is inactive." Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis
omitted).
Appellant's argument is not persuasive of reversible error. As the
Examiner explains, it is well known in the art that normally-on switches are,
by default, in conductive state (closed) so current will continue to flow
through the switches even when the control voltage is zero until a control
signal is received to change the state of the switch to an open state. Ans. 6-
7. Likewise, normally-off switches will, by default, remain open until a
control signal is received to change the state of the switch to a closed state,
and thus will remain in non-conductive state when control voltage is
zero. Id.
In addition, the recitation "wherein the plurality of normally-on
switches provide the input power directly as the output power when the
controller is inactive" ( emphasis added) is similar to the conditional
limitations discussed in Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013---007847, 2016 WL
6277792 (PT AB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential) (holding that in a method
5
Appeal2018-002863
Application 14/231,802
claim, a step reciting a condition precedent does not need to be performed if
the condition precedent is not met). Although the limitations at issue in
Schulhauser were rendered conditional by the recitation of "if," see
Schulhauser, 2016 WL 6277792, at *3-5, on this record, we discern no
meaningful distinction between the recitation of "if' and the recitation of
"when" recited in claim 1. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
claim 1 encompasses a power conversion system where the controller is not
inactive. See Schulhauser, 2016 WL 6277792, at *3--4 ( concluding that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim encompassed situations in
which conditional method steps "need not be reached"). As such, we find no
reversible error in the Examiner's finding and reasoning that Sakakibara and
Ueno renders claim 1 's power conversion system obvious. Schulhauser,
2016 WL 6277792, at *4 ("The Examiner did not need to present evidence
of the obviousness of the remaining method steps of claim 1 that are not
required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the
claim.").
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejections of claims 1-15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(l) based on
Kuzumaki is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over
Sakakibara and Ueno is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Sakakibara, Ueno,
and Takeda is affirmed.
6
Appeal2018-002863
Application 14/231,802
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Sakakibara, Ueno,
Takeda, and Kitanaka is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 10-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Takeda and
Ueno is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Takeda, Ueno,
and Kitanaka is affirmed.
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
7