Goeran Schubert et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 27, 2019

14759051 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/759,051 07/02/2015 Goeran SCHUBERT 1800P82475 5933
24131 7590 09/27/2019
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
P O BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
EXAMINER
O TOOLE, COLLEEN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2842
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2019 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):
boxoa@patentusa.com
docket@patentusa.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GOERAN SCHUBERT, ANDREAS PSCHORR,
DIEGO ANTONGIROLAMI, and ULRICH BLEY

Appeal 2018-009041
Application 14/759,051
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to finally reject claims 17–27 and 29–342 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Lalithambika (US 8,411,468 B2, iss.
Apr. 2, 2013). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Conti Temic
Microelectronic GmbH, which is a daughter of Continental AG. Br. 1.
2 The Examiner states that pending claim 35 is allowed in the Advisory
Action dated July 27, 2017, but indicates, in error, that this claim is rejected
in the Notice of Panel Decision from Pre-Appeal Brief Review dated
January 8, 2018.
Appeal 2018-009041
Application 14/759,051

2
We AFFIRM.3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to methods for switching an electronic
component on or off under the control of a pulse-width-modulation
(“PWM”) signal. Spec. 1:2–3. Appellant discloses that inductive electrical
loads such as DC motors are often controlled by PWM in order to adjust
current and/or voltage for the respective electrical load. Id. at 1:4–6. For
this purpose, the load is often coupled in a resonant full- or half-bridge
circuit to metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect transistors (MOSFETs) or
insulated-gate bipolar transistors (IGBTs) which are switched on and off
under the control of the PWM signal to adjust the current and/or voltage of
the load. Id. at 1:6–11. However, when such components are switched on
and off, undesired parasitic oscillations of the current and voltage can occur,
which can negatively affect the electromagnetic compatibility of the circuit
and cause switching losses. Id. at 1:11–14. According to Appellant, the
inventive method addresses this problem and leads to a reduction in parasitic
oscillations. Id. at 1:24–26.
Claim 17, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
17. A method of switching an electronic component on or off
under the control of a pulse-width-modulation signal, the electronic
component being configured to output an output signal controlled by
way of a control signal, the method comprising:

3 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed July 2, 2015, the
Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated May 5, 2017,
Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.”) filed Mar. 8, 2018, and the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.”) dated July 10, 2018.
Appeal 2018-009041
Application 14/759,051

3
initiating the switching on or off within a pulse-width-
modulation clock period at a level-change instant by a change in the
pulse-width-modulation signal;
calculating at least one amplitude magnitude of an oscillation of
the output signal during each clock period of the pulse-width-
modulation signal;
predefining at least one first control value and one second
control value of the control signal;
adjusting the control signal to the first control value within each
pulse-width-modulation clock period between the level-change instant
and a first switchover instant and adjusting the control signal to the
second control value between the first switchover instant and a second
switchover instant and adjusting the control signal to a third control
value from the second switchover instant until a gate voltage end
value of a gate voltage is reached at a control connection of the
electronic component; and
determining each of the first and second switchover instants of
a pulse-width-modulation clock period on a basis of an amplitude
magnitude associated with the pulse-width-modulation clock period
and calculated during a preceding pulse-width-modulation clock
period, to thereby limit oscillation amplitudes of an oscillation of the
output signal.

Remaining independent claim 34 recites a similar method to claim 17
except that the method requires that the electronic component is repeatedly
switched on and off.

ANALYSIS
After review of the Examiner’s and Appellant’s opposing positions
and the appeal record before us, we determine that Appellant’s arguments
are insufficient to identify reversible error in the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly,
we affirm the stated anticipation rejection for substantially the fact findings
Appeal 2018-009041
Application 14/759,051

4
and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer and the
Final Office Action. We offer the following for emphasis only.
Appellant presents substantially the same arguments against the
rejection of both claims 17 and 34. Compare Br. 7–9 and Br. 9–11. In
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), the claims subject to the
anticipation rejection stand or fall with claim 17, which we select as
representative in our opinion below.
The Examiner finds that Lalithambika teaches a method of switching
an electronic component on or off under the control of a PWM signal as
recited in claim 17, wherein the component is configured to output a signal
controlled by a control signal. Final Act. 3–4 (citing Lalithambika Figs. 15
and 20, Spec. 12:3–4, 12–18, 58–67, 13:1–6).
Appellant argues that Lalithambika’s Figure 15 fails to show a
calculation of a magnitude of an oscillation. Br. 7. Appellant asserts that
Lalithambika instead shows a peak detector, which measures a voltage
across capacitor Cpeak, and an Error Amplifier 1204, which compares a
reference voltage VREF to the voltage across capacitor Cpeak. Id. Appellant
further asserts that a value is obtained and, based on the value relative to the
reference value, a signal (0 or 1) is sent to the PWM 610. Id. Appellant
contends that Lalithambika uses this value not to determine switchover
instants of a PWM clock period, but to apply a base current. Id. at 8.
Appellant also asserts that, though having a cycle to cycle memory that
determines a base drive, Lalithambika does not calculate amplitude
magnitude of an oscillation of the output during each cycle. Id.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner’s explanation that
Lalithambika uses the amplitude magnitude of an oscillation signal to
Appeal 2018-009041
Application 14/759,051

5
determine switchover instants of a PWM clock period is an
oversimplification of Appellant’s argument and claimed invention. Br. 9.
Appellant urges that Lalithambika’s leaky peak detector, as shown in Figure
15, feeds its output signal to an op-amp 1204, which essentially is a gate that
drives the PWM 610 does not anticipate claim 17 which requires calculation
of the amplitude magnitude and limits the next following oscillation
amplitude on the basis of this amplitude magnitude. Id.
The Examiner responds that Lalithambika teaches calculating at least
one amplitude magnitude of an oscillation of the output signal during each
clock period of the PWM signal via the leaky peak detector of Figure 15
because this detector calculates the peak amplitude of the output of the
sensing element 212. Ans. 2. The Examiner further responds that
Lalithambika teaches using the amplitude magnitude of an oscillation signal
of the output signal, again via the leaky peak detector of Figure 15, to
determine switchover instants of a PWM clock period. Id. at 3, citing to
Lalithambika, Fig. 20, 19:23–25. In addition, the Examiner finds that
Lalithambika teaches that peak detector maintains a level of the base drive
so that in a subsequent cycle, the base drive is applied soon enough in the on
period to sustain heavy loads later, which the Examiner determines is a
calculation of the amplitude magnitude during each clock period of the
PWM signal. Id., citing Lalithambika 12:16–18, 12:64–67; 14:19. Finally,
the Examiner finds that Lalithambika provides a wider range of control and
reduces problems associated with inductive loads. Id.
During examination, the Examiner bears the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). On appeal, the initial burden is on Appellant to
Appeal 2018-009041
Application 14/759,051

6
identify reversible error. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[E]ven assuming that the examiner had failed to make a prima facie case,
the Board would not have erred in framing the issue as one of ‘reversible
error.’”); cf Shinseki v. Sanders, 129 S.Ct. 1696, 1706 (2009) (citations
omitted) (“Lower court cases make clear that courts have correlated review
of ordinary administrative proceedings to appellate review of civil cases in
this respect. . . . [T]he party seeking reversal normally must explain why the
erroneous ruling caused harm.”) As a result, the burden is on Appellant to
come forward with persuasive arguments and/or evidence to rebut the prima
facie case of anticipation. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Here, Appellant merely repeats the same arguments raised to the
Examiner during prosecution without explaining or elaborating why the
Examiner’s response to those arguments in the Answer is incorrect or
otherwise in error. For example, Appellant fails to establish reversible error
in the Examiner’s finding that Lalithambika’s leaky peak detector does not
calculate the amplitude magnitude of each oscillation by determining the
peak amplitude of the output of the sensing element. Appellant also fails to
explain why the Examiner’s finding that Lalithambika teaches using the
amplitude magnitude of an oscillation signal of the output signal, via the
leaky peak detector, to determine switchover instants of a PWM clock
period as shown in Figure 20 is erroneous. Under these circumstances,
Appellant has not carried their burden to identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s finding of anticipation.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claims 17–27 and 29–34.

Appeal 2018-009041
Application 14/759,051

7
DECISION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 17–27 and 29–34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Lalithambika is affirmed.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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).

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
17–27, 29–34 § 102(a)(1);
Lalithambika
17–27, 29–34

AFFIRMED