JOY MM DELAWARE, INC.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 27, 20212020005746 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 13/842,707 03/15/2013 Peter M. Dalton 051077-9227-US01 2789 23409 7590 12/27/2021 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Mke) 790 N WATER ST SUITE 2500 MILWAUKEE, WI 53202 EXAMINER JOSEPH, DEVON A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2846 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/27/2021 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): mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PETER M. DALTON and MICHAEL JORDAN Appeal 2020-005746 Application 13/842,707 Technology Center 2800 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 3–14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Joy Global Underground Mining LLC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-005746 Application 13/842,707 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER2 Appellant describes the invention as relating to methods and systems for controlling drive systems such as a variable frequency drive system used in mining equipment. Spec. ¶ 1. The Specification explains that variable frequency drives allow alternating current motors to operate at different speeds by generating AC voltage other than a fixed 50 Hz or 60 Hz. Id. ¶ 2. The Specification explains that at low speed, current generated by a ground fault is lower than normal and difficult to detect. Id. To address this problem, the Specification describes adding a common voltage to all power phases to allow reliable detection of ground faults at low speeds. Id. ¶ 3. Claims 1, 8, and 11 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative, and we reproduce it below while adding emphases to certain key recitations: 1. A mining machine comprising: a motor; and a ground fault relay including a ground fault relay controller and at least one current sensor; and an adjustable speed drive including a variable frequency drive controller configured to control the adjustable speed drive to provide a voltage to the motor, the voltage having an excitation component including a magnitude and a frequency for operating the motor at a desired speed, the voltage further including an additional voltage component for use in detecting a ground fault condition, the additional voltage component modifying the ground fault current by increasing a magnitude of the ground fault current; 2 In this Decision, we refer to the Non-Final Office Action dated September 20, 2019 (“Non-Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed February 18, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated June 11, 2020 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed August 5, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2020-005746 Application 13/842,707 3 wherein the variable frequency drive controller receives an indication from the ground fault relay controller when the at least one current sensor detects a ground fault current that exceeds a predetermined threshold. Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims on appeal: Name Reference Date Konrad et al. (“Konrad”) US 5,945,802 Aug. 31, 1999 Johansson et al. (“Johansson”) US 2009/0160454 A1 June 25, 2009 Weems II et al. (“Weems”) US 2012/0112758 A1 May 10, 2012 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal: A. Claims 1, 3–11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Konrad in view of Johansson. Non-Final Act. 3. B. Claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Konrad, Johansson, and Weems. Id. at 7.3 OPINION The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 3 The Office Action Summary for the Non-Final Office Action refers to claims 1 and 3–40, but the text of the Non-Final Office Action only refers to Appeal 2020-005746 Application 13/842,707 4 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.”). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art or the inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would have employed. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). To resolve the issues before us on appeal, we focus on the Examiner’s findings and determinations that relate to the error Appellant identifies. Rejection A, claims 1 and 3–7. The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 3–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Konrad in view of Johansson. Non-Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Konrad teaches, for example, a motor with a variable speed drive. Non-Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Konrad does not disclose certain additional voltage component recitations of claim 1. Id. The Examiner relies on Johansson as teaching aspects of claim 1 relating to the additional voltage component and provides a reason for combining the teachings of Konrad and Johansson. Id. at 4–5. Appellant persuasively identifies two errors in the Examiner’s position. First, Appellant argues that the Examiner does not adequately establish that the cited references teach claim 1’s recited “the additional voltage component modifying the ground fault current by increasing a claims 1 and 3–14. The Appeal Brief further clarifies that only claims 1 and 3–14 are pending. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2020-005746 Application 13/842,707 5 magnitude of the ground fault current” (hereinafter the “increasing magnitude recitation”). Appeal Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 2–3. In view of the Specification, “increasing a magnitude of the ground fault current” refers to increasing voltage as compared to ground. Spec. ¶¶ 22, 26, 28. The Examiner relies solely on Johansson as teaching the increasing magnitude recitation. Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 3–5. The cited portions of Johansson describe injection of a voltage whose frequency is modified as compared to the electrical machine’s frequency. Johansson ¶¶ 40–45. The Examiner does not, however, adequately explain how Johansson teaches choosing a voltage for the injected frequency or how the voltage is increased to meet the increasing magnitude recitation. Second, Appellant argues that the Examiner does not adequately establish that the art teaches “detect[ing] a ground fault current that exceeds a predetermined threshold” (the “predetermined threshold recitation”). Appeal Br. 11–12; Reply Br. 2–3. In view of the Specification, the recited “predetermined threshold” refers to a fixed value that ground fault measurements are compared against. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 25, 28. Johansson teaches comparing measurements from at least two currents. Johansson ¶¶ 45–46. The Examiner does not, however, adequately explain how or where Johansson suggests determining that ground fault measurements exceed a predetermined threshold. Due to both of the errors identified above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and of the claims depending from claim 1. Rejection A, claims 8–10. Independent claim 8 recites, among other things, “at least one current sensor detects a ground fault current that exceeds a predetermined threshold.” Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). The Appeal 2020-005746 Application 13/842,707 6 Examiner addresses this recitation similarly to claim 1’s similar predetermined threshold recitation. Non-Final Act. 3–5. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 8 and claims depending from claim 8 because, as we explain above, the Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited art teaches this recitation. Rejection A, claims 11 and 14, and Rejection B, claims 12 and 13. Independent claim 11 recites, among other things, “the additional voltage signal added onto each phase of the three-phase voltage to increase a magnitude of a ground fault current.” Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). The Examiner addresses this recitation similarly to claim 1’s similar increasing magnitude recitation. Non-Final Act. 6–7. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 11 and claims depending from claim 11 because, as we explain above, the Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited art teaches this recitation. We also note that the Examiner’s use of the Weems reference to address dependent claims 12 and 13 does not cure the error with regard to claim 11. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–11, 14 103(a) Konrad, Johansson 1, 3–11, 14 12, 13 103(a) Konrad, Johansson, Weems 12, 13 Overall Outcome 1, 3–14 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation