Ex Parte Yilmaz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 26, 2013

10597338 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte NAMIK YILMAZ and CEM KURAL
____________________

Appeal 2011-010141
Application 10/597,338
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: GAY ANN SPAHN, JOHN W. MORRISON, and HYUN J. JUNG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-010141
Application 10/597,338
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Namik Yilmaz and Cem Kural (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Maehara (US 5,091,617; iss. Feb. 25, 1992) and
Nilssen (US 4,956,581; Sep. 11, 1990). App. Br. 6. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are related to “a high-frequency heating device with an
increased operating efficiency wherein a magnetron driven by an inverter is
utilized.” Spec. 1, para. [001]. Sole independent claim 1, reproduced below,
is representative of the appealed subject matter:
1. A high-frequency heating device
comprising:
a magnetron generating microwave energy,
a filament circuit, and
an inverter comprising a wave multiplexer
coupled to a resonant circuit which ensures that the
magnetron is powered by high-frequency rectified
voltage obtained from a network coupled to the
resonant circuit and, wherein voltage obtained
from the high-frequency current coming from the
resonant circuit is multiplied by being raised and
rectified, and
wherein the inverter which includes a low-
pass filter placed between the wave multiplexer
and the ground, providing that low-frequency
noise is eliminated from the current without
decreasing the voltage and that the current applied
to the magnetron is smoothed.

Appeal 2011-010141
Application 10/597,338
3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Maehara discloses the subject matter of claim
1 except that Maehara fails to disclose a low-pass filter connected to the
ground. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner finds that “Nilssen discloses a low-pass
filter connecting to the ground” and concludes that “[i]t would have been
obvious to one [of] ordinary skill in the art . . . to utilize in Maehara to
replace a noise filter with a low-pass filter connecting to the ground as
taught by Nilssen in order to reduce noise from the feeding circuit.” Id. at 4.
The Appellants argue that “the Examiner provided no rationale to
support a legal conclusion of obviousness with this statement.” App. Br. 11;
see also Reply Br. 2-3. The Appellants further argue that “the Examiner has
not made any articulated reasoning nor has he identified a reason that would
have cause[d] the Applicant to combine Maehara and Nilssen” and that “the
Examiner is required to specifically state some reason for the elements of
the prior art to be combined” thus, “there is no such reasoning.” App. Br. 11
and Reply Br. 2-3.
These arguments are not persuasive as the Examiner has articulated a
reason with a rational underpinning that supports the legal conclusion of
obviousness with respect to the proposed combination of Maehara and
Nilssen, namely, “in order to reduce noise from the feeding circuit.” Ans. 4
(emphasis added). Moreover, the Examiner need not provide articulated
reasoning for the Appellants to combine Maehara and Nilssen; instead, the
Examiner needs to provide articulated reasoning for one of ordinary skill in
the art to combine Maehara and Nilssen.
The Appellants also argue that “the Examiner’s reasoning to combine
Maehara and Nilssen to render Applicant’s invention obvious is unclear”
and that the “conclusory, one sentence statement of the Examiner regarding
Appeal 2011-010141
Application 10/597,338
4
the combination of Maehara and Nilssen does not provide the Applicant
with an understanding of why a person of ordinary skill in the art would
combine the inventions to create Applicant’s invention.” App. Br. 11; see
also Reply Br. 2-3.
The Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner’s stated
reasoning for modifying Maehara with the teachings of Nilssen is “to reduce
noise from the feeding circuit.” Ans. 4. The record indicates that the
Examiner concludes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify
Maehara with the low-pass filter of Nilssen to reduce noise from a circuit
upstream of Maehara’s magnetron in view of Maehara’s teaching of a noise
dampening filter. See Ans. 3-4. Also, as indicated by the Appellants’
arguments regarding the low-pass filter of Nilssen, discussed infra, the
Examiner’s stated reasoning is not so unclear that the Appellants could not
argue why Nilssen would not be combined with Maehara. See App. Br. 12.
The Appellants assert that “the Examiner has impermissibly used
hindsight to find Applicant’s invention obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) and
has used the Applicant’s claims as a roadmap for formulating the
obviousness rejection.” App. Br. 11.
The argument is not persuasive. In this instance, the Examiner finds
that Maehara discloses a noise dampening filter for a magnetron and that
Nilssen teaches a low-pass filter connected to ground. Ans. 4 (citing
Maehara, col. 7, ll. 45-48); see also Nilssen, col. 7, ll. 18-22 (stating “[d]ue
to the filtering by capacitor C and inductor L . . . , the anode current
provided to the magnetron in that arrangement becomes continuous and
substantially constant in magnitude”) and fig. 2. Thus, because Maehara and
Nilssen articulate both a reason and a suggestion to make the proposed

Appeal 2011-010141
Application 10/597,338
5
modification, there is no basis to conclude that the Examiner improperly
relied upon hindsight to reach a conclusion of obviousness as the Appellants
suggest.
The Appellants argue that “the elements disclosed in Maehara and
Nilssen differ from the Applicant’s claims and cannot be combined to create
Applicant’s invention.” App. Br. 11. The Appellants’ terse and conclusory
argument is not persuasive as it does not coherently point out how the
elements of Maehara and Nilssen are different from the claimed elements
such that the Examiner’s findings are not supported by the cited references.
The Examiner finds that Maehara teaches a magnetron, a filament circuit, an
inverter, and a resonant circuit. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner also finds that
Nilssen teaches a low-pass filter connected to ground. Ans. 4. Without
further explanation, we have no basis to find error in the Examiner’s
findings.
The Appellants argue that “Maehara does not disclose Applicant’s
claim 1 and explicitly teaches away from the information cited therein as it
listed this information as ‘prior art,’ and Maehara discloses its invention to
solve these ‘problems’ that lead away from using a low pass filter.” App.
Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 3. The Appellants thus assert that “Maehara does
not disclose Applicant’s claim 1 and, in fact, teaches away therefrom.” App.
Br. 12.
The argument is not persuasive because Maehara’s description of the
prior art does not cause Maehara to fail to disclose what the prior art teaches.
Also, we do not find, nor do the Appellants point to, any portion of Maehara
that criticizes, discredits, or discourages the solution claimed or that, upon
reading, would lead a person of ordinary skill in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the Appellants. In particular, Maehara’s disclosed
Appeal 2011-010141
Application 10/597,338
6
invention includes a magnetron 39, a filament circuit 38, an inverter 33, and
a resonant circuit 36, 37, 56, and thus does not teach away from similar
elements of the prior art as described by Maehara. See Maehara, col. 4, ll.
63-65; col. 5, ll. 3-9 and 65; and fig. 7. Furthermore, the Examiner finds that
Maehara discloses a noise dampening filter for a magnetron (see Ans. 3-4),
and thus, does not teach away from such filters.
The Appellants argue that (1) “because Nilssen does not describe a
high-frequency heating where current is smoothed without decreasing the
voltage,” (2) because “it appears that both the current and voltage in Nilssen
would be decreased,” and (3) because “Nilssen is directed to an invention of
the ‘crest-factor’ of the current supplied to the magnetron . . . , it would not
have been obvious of the Applicant to look to Maehara as combined with
Nilssen to create the invention.” App. Br. 12 and Reply Br. 3.
The argument is not persuasive. First, obviousness is determined
from the view point of one of ordinary skill in the art, not the Appellants.
Second, the Examiner cites Nilssen for teaching a low-pass filter connected
to ground. See Ans. 4. While capacitor C and inductor L are only depicted
in Figure 2 of Nilssen, both the first and second preferred embodiments
shown in Figures 1 and 2 of Nilssen provide current to a magnetron at a
particular crest-factor. See Nilssen, col. 1, l. 61 to col. 2, l. 12. Thus, the
capacitor C and inductor L of Figure 2 are not necessary for achieving a
particular crest-factor. See also Nilssen, col. 7, ll. 18-22 (stating “[d]ue to
the filtering by capacitor C and inductor L in the circuit arrangement of FIG.
2, the anode current provided to the magnetron in that arrangement becomes
continuous and substantially constant in magnitude”). The Examiner is not
proposing to combine Maehara with other parts of Nilssen. See Ans. 4.
Appeal 2011-010141
Application 10/597,338
7
The Appellants argue that the Examiner did not address claims 2 and
3. Reply Br. 3-4. The argument is persuasive because, although the
Examiner’s rejection may be read as encompassing claims 2 and 3, the
Examiner does not make factual findings or provide reasoning as to how the
Examiner’s proposed combination of Maehara and Nilssen renders obvious
that “the current applied to magnetron has a sinusoidal form,” as recited by
claim 2, or that “the current applied to magnetron has been changed from a
square-wave form to a sinusoidal form,” as recited by claim 3.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Maehara and Nilssen, but are
constrained to reverse the rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Maehara and Nilssen.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 1 and reverse the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2 and 3.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

hh