Ex Parte Wu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2018

14671076 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/671,076 03/27/2015
34814 7590 12/04/2018
NXP-LARSON NEWMAN, LLP
6501 William Cannon Drive West
Austin, TX 78735
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chongli Wu
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.
MU15256ZC 2738
EXAMINER
GLASS, ERICK DAVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2018 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHONGLI WU, JIE JIN, and YIZHONG ZHANG
Appeal 2018-001748
Application 14/671,076
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1-5, 9-13, 17, 18, and 20. 3 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm.
1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed March 27, 2015
("Spec."), the Final Office Action dated September 7, 2016 ("Final Act."),
the Appeal Brief filed May 10, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), the Examiner's Answer
dated October 3, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed December 4, 2017
("Reply Br.").
2 Appellants are the Applicants, Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., and NXP
USA, Inc., which according to the Appeal Brief, are the real parties in
interest. Appeal Br. 1. This appears to be consistent with the USPTO's
assignment records. We note, however, that Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
is the only entity listed in the Bib Data Sheet as the Applicant.
3 Claims 6--8, 14--16, and 19 are objected to as being dependent on a rejected
base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form
Appeal2018-001748
Application 14/671,076
The subject matter of the claims on appeal relates to a method and
device for identifying a zero-crossing event. See Spec. ,r,r 12-13. Claims 1,
11, and 17, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claims on appeal.
1. A method, comprising:
receiving a first signal from a first energized motor
winding;
receiving a second signal from a second energized motor
winding;
receiving a third signal from an unenergized motor
winding;
communicating the first and second signal to a first node
to generate a fourth signal at the first node;
isolating the third signal from the first node; and
determining a zero-crossing event at the third signal
based on the fourth signal.
11. A device, comprising:
a first terminal to receive a first signal from a first motor
winding;
a second terminal to receive a second signal from a
second motor winding;
a third terminal to receive a third signal from a third
motor winding;
a first switch to selectively couple the first terminal to a
first node;
a second switch to selectively couple the second terminal
to the first node;
a third switch to selectively couple the third terminal to
the first node;
including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Final Act. 5.
2
Appeal2018-001748
Application 14/671,076
a first comparator including a first input coupled to the
first terminal, a second input coupled to the first node, and an
output to provide a signal indicating a zero-crossing event at the
first signal.
1 7. A method, comprising:
selectively communicating each of a plurality of motor
winding signals to a first node at an integrated circuit in
response to determining that the corresponding motor winding
is energized; and
determining a zero-crossing event at an unenergized
motor winding signal based on the unenergized motor winding
signal and based on a signal at the first node.
Appeal Br. 8, 9, 10 (Claims App.).
DISCUSSION
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1-5, 9-13, 17, 18, and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Menegoli (US 5,866,998,
issued February 2, 1999). Final Act. 2.
After review of the cited evidence in light of Appellants' and the
Examiner's opposing positions, we determine that Appellants have not
identified reversible error in the Examiner's rejection. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejection for reasons set forth below, in the Final Action, and in
the Examiner's Answer. We add the following.
Appellants present arguments for the separate patentability of
claims 1, 11, 12, and 17. We will address Appellants' arguments regarding
each of those claims in tum. Each dependent claim, claims 2-5, 9, 10, 13,
18, and 20, will stand or fall with the independent claim from which it
depends.
3
Appeal2018-001748
Application 14/671,076
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Menegoli teaches a method that includes
receiving first signal OUT A from first energized motor winding 26A,
receiving second signal OUTB from second energized motor winding 26B,
receiving third signal OUTC from unenergized motor winding 26C. Final
Act. 2 (citing Menegoli 5:62----67, Fig. 5a). The Examiner also finds that
Menegoli teaches communicating the first and second signal (OUTA,
OUTB) to a first node (left side of 15) to generate a fourth signal at the first
node, isolating the third signal (OUTC) from the first node (left side of 15),
and determining a zero-crossing event at the third signal (OUTC) based on
the fourth signal. Id. (citing Menegoli 7:34--55); see also Menegoli 3:30-48.
Appellants argue that Menegoli's switch circuit 15 is not isolating the
unenergized winding (floating coil) (e.g., OUTC) from the non-inverting
input of comparator 65. Appeal Br. 5. Instead, Appellants argue that
Menegoli teaches connecting the unenergized winding to the first node (left
side of 15). Id. Therefore, Appellants argue that Menegoli does not disclose
"isolating the third signal from the first node." Id.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Menegoli teaches that output nodes OUT A, OUTB, and OUTC are
connected to comparator 65 through switches 56a, 56b, and 56c that open
and close. Menegoli 7:34--36. Menegoli teaches that the term "floating"
refers to the coil that is not in the instantaneous current path (i.e.,
unenergized). Menegoli 3:41--43. Appellants' arguments do not identify
reversible error in the Examiner's finding that Menegoli reasonably teaches
that switch (56c) opens after the zero cross is found, isolating Menegoli's
third signal OUTC from the first node (left side of 15). Ans. 2 ( citing
4
Appeal2018-001748
Application 14/671,076
Menegoli 7:34--55); see also Menegoli 5: 12-13 ("The switch is opened to
disconnect the coils from the second current source.") We, therefore, sustain
the anticipation rejection of claims 1-5, 9, and 10.
Claim 11
The Examiner finds that Menegoli teaches a device that includes first
terminal OUT A to receive a first signal from first motor winding 26A,
second terminal OUTB to receive a second signal from second motor
winding 26B, and third terminal OUTC to receive a third signal from third
motor winding 26C. Final Act. 4 (citing Menegoli 5:62-67). The Examiner
also finds that Menegoli teaches first switch 56a to selectively couple the
first terminal to a first node (left side of 15), second switch 56b to selectively
couple the second terminal to the first node, third switch 56c to selectively
couple the third terminal to the first node, and first comparator 65 including
a first input coupled to first terminal OUT A, a second input coupled to the
first node (left side of 15), and an output to provide a signal indicating a
zero-crossing event at the first signal. Id. (citing Menegoli 7:34--55).
Appellants argue that inputs of Menegoli' s comparator 65 are coupled
to the node at the left side of switch circuit 15 and to center tap 28. Appeal
Br. 6. Therefore, Appellants argue that Menegoli does not disclose a first
comparator including a first input coupled to the first terminal, and a second
input coupled to the first node. Id.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. As the
Examiner explains, there is nothing in claim 11 that requires that there is a
direct connection from the first terminal to the comparator. Ans. 3.
Appellants' arguments do not identify reversible error in the Examiner's
finding that Menegoli teaches that center tap 28 connects first terminal
5
Appeal2018-001748
Application 14/671,076
OUTA to comparator 65 through center tap 28 (first input), and a second
input (floating coil) coupled to first node. Id.; Menegoli 5:62----67, 7:38--47,
Fig. 5a. We, therefore, sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 11
and 13.
Claim 12
Claim 12 depends from claim 11. Claim 12 recites that the device of
claim 11 further comprises "a switch control module to close the first switch
if the first motor winding is energized, and to open the first switch if the first
motor winding is not energized."
The Examiner finds that Menegoli teaches switch control module 15
that opens and closes switches 56a, 56b, and 56c based on when
windings 26a, 26b, and 26c are energized or not energized. Ans. 5 ( citing
Menegoli 3:23-58).
Appellants argue that Menegoli teaches closing the switch
corresponding to the unenergized winding. Appeal Br. 6. Therefore,
Appellants argue that Menegoli fails to disclose opening the first switch if
the first motor winding is not energized. Id.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because they are not
supported by sufficient factual evidence. Menegoli teaches switches 56a,
56b, and 56c that open and close. Menegoli Fig. 5a (showing switches both
open and closed). Appellants' arguments do not identify reversible error in
the Examiner's finding that Menegoli reasonably teaches that Menegoli's
switch control module 15 would close first switch 56a when first motor
winding 26a is energized and open first switch 56a when first motor winding
26a is not energized. Ans. 5 (citing Menegoli 3:23-58); see also Menegoli
5: 12-13. Nor do Appellants direct us to any disclosure in Menegoli that
6
Appeal2018-001748
Application 14/671,076
teaches closing a switch when a motor winding is not energized. We,
therefore, sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 12.
Claim 17
The Examiner finds that Menegoli teaches selectively communicating
each of a plurality of motor winding signals (26a-c) to a first node (left side
of 15) at an integrated circuit based on whether the corresponding motor
winding is energized, and determining a zero-crossing event at an
unenergized motor winding signal based on the unenergized motor winding
signal and based on a signal at the first node. Final Act. 5 ( citing Menegoli
5:58, 7:34--55).
Appellants argue that Menegoli's switch circuit 15 is configured to
select the unenergized one of terminals OUT A, OUTB, or OUTC. Appeal
Br. 6. Therefore, Appellants argue that Menegoli does not disclose
communicating a first node at an integrated circuit in response to
determining that the motor winding is energized. Id.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. As
discussed with respect to claim 12 above, Appellants do not direct us to any
disclosure in Menegoli to support their argument that Menegoli's switch
circuit 15 is configured to close a switch when a motor winding is
unenergized. We, therefore, sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 17,
18, and 20.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-5, 9-13, 17, 18, and 20 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).
7
Appeal2018-001748
Application 14/671,076
AFFIRMED
8