Lear Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 29, 2021

2020004171 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2021)

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.
16/174,361 10/30/2018 Antonio Leon Masich LEAR 61462 PUS 7481
34007 7590 06/29/2021
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION
1000 TOWN CENTER
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
AHMAD, SHAHZEB K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2839
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2021 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTONIO LEON MASICH and RUBEN MOLINA LLORENTE
Appeal 2020-004171
Application 16/174,361
Technology Center 2800

Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOUSEL, 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, 4–8, 11–15, and 18–23. 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 Lear Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.”) filed January 29, 2020, 2.
Appeal 2020-004171
Application 16/174,361

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to balancing phase currents of a multiphase
converter. Specification (“Spec.”) filed October 30, 2018, ¶ 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. We italicize the disputed
limitation.
1. A method for balancing phase currents of a plurality of
phases of a multiphase converter, the method comprising:
alternately connecting the phases during respective
intervals to an input current;
generating trigger signals at successive time instants
respectively for the phases, wherein the trigger signals are
synchronous in that the trigger signals are generated at a same
time following the connection of the phases to the input current;
sampling, at the time instants in response to the trigger
signals, at a node of the multiphase converter that is common to
the phases, the input current provided to the phases to obtain
respective input current samples for the phases; and
while the input current samples are unequal, adjusting the
intervals to minimize inequality of the input current samples.
Claim 8 recites a system for balancing phase currents of a plurality of
phases of a multiphase converter comprising a controller and a current
sensor, “wherein the trigger signals are synchronous in that the trigger
signals are generated at a same time following the connection of the phases
to the input current.”
Claim 15 recites a multiphasic converter for converting DC voltage
levels comprising a system similar to that of claim 8, “wherein the trigger
signals are synchronous in that the trigger signals are generated at a same
time following the connection of the phases to the input current.”
Appeal 2020-004171
Application 16/174,361

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Mir et al. (“Mir”) US 6,392,418 B1 May 21, 2002
Dong et al. (“Dong”) US 2008/0203985 A1 Aug. 28, 2008
Teh US 2014/0253066 A1 Sept. 11, 2014
Jang et al. (“Jang”) US 2015/0333629 A1 Nov. 19, 2015
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant requests our review of, the
following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
1. Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 18, and 21–23 as unpatentable
over Jang in view of Mir;
2. Claims 5, 12, and 19 as unpatentable over Jang in view of
Mir, and further in view of Dong; and
3. Claims 6, 13, and 20 as unpatentable over Jang in view of
Mir, and further in view of Teh.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). The dispositive issue
before us on appeal is whether the Examiner reversibly erred in finding Mir
teaches that “the trigger signals are synchronous in that the trigger signals
are generated at a same time following the connection of the phases to the
input current” (Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated October 28, 2019,
Appeal 2020-004171
Application 16/174,361

4
3–5), thereby supporting the conclusion that Appellant’s claimed invention
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. After
considering Appellant’s arguments and the evidence of record, we answer
this question in the affirmative and, therefore, reverse the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections based on the combination of Jang and Mir. We offer
the following for emphasis.
Rejection 1
The Examiner finds that Jang teaches a method for balancing phase
currents of a plurality of phases of a multiphase converter as recited in claim
1, except for
generating trigger signals at successive time intervals
respectively for the phases, wherein the trigger signals are
synchronous in that the trigger signals are generated at a same
time following the connection of the phases to the input current;
sampling, at the time instants in response to the trigger
signals, at a node of the multiphase converter that is common to
the phases[, the input current provided to the phases to obtain
respective input current samples for the phases].
Final Act. 3. However, the Examiner finds that Mir teaches a multiphase
converter including, inter alia, a controller configured to generate trigger
signals at successive time intervals respectively for the phases, wherein the
trigger signals are synchronous in that the trigger signals are generated at a
same time following the connection of the phases to the input current; a
current sensor configured to sample, at the time intervals in response to the
trigger signals, the input current provided to the phases; and wherein each
time interval at which a corresponding trigger signal is generated occurs
after M cycles of the phases, wherein M is an integer greater than one. Id. at
3–4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Appeal 2020-004171
Application 16/174,361

5
Jang’s method to incorporate a single sensor for sampling the input current
provided to the phases based on trigger signals as taught in Mir in order to
reduce the cost and complexity of the circuit and improve efficiency by
ensuring more accurate switching. Id. at 5.
Appellant argues that Mir fails to generate “trigger signals for the
phases at a same time following the connection of the phases to the input
current and, in response to the trigger signals, sampling the input current of
the phases at the same time.” Appeal Br. 7. As such, Appellant contends that
Mir does not sample the input current provided to the phases at the same
time following connection of the phases to the input current. Id. Instead,
Appellant asserts that Mir samples the input current at the peaks of the input
current. Id. Appellant also asserts that “any trigger signals generated for the
phases are generated upon detecting the peaks of the input current to be
sampled.” Id.
There is no dispute that Mir samples at the peaks of the input current
following connection of the phases to the input current. See Ans. 5–6.
However, the Examiner determines that the claim recitation, “at a same time
following the connection of the phases to the input current,” means “a time
interval or time period instead of an instance within time.” Id. The Examiner
states that this interpretation is consistent with the Specification’s
description of generating trigger signals according to a schedule that is
customized to provide a long enough duration to allow analog to digital
conversion of sampled input currents (Spec. ¶ 43) which, the Examiner
suggests, means that “there is a delay between the trigger signal being
generated and the respective phase being connected to the input current.” Id.
Appeal 2020-004171
Application 16/174,361

6
In rebuttal, Appellant contends that the Examiner’s interpretation is
incorrect because claim 1 further recites that sampling of the input current
provided to the phases occurs at the time instants in response to the trigger
signals. Reply Br. 2. As an example, Appellant indicates that “same time”
may refer to 2 mSec, wherein if phases A, B, C are connected successively
to the input current at times 0 mSec, 10 mSec, 20 mSec, then trigger signals
are generated at time instants 2 mSec, 12 mSec, 22 mSec. Appellant asserts
that the Specification paragraph 43 description of scheduling “entails
scheduling the trigger signals to be ‘generated at a same time [e.g., 2 mSec]
following the connection of the phases to the input current.’” Id. at 3.
Appellant also asserts that “the scheduling may also entail scheduling the
trigger signals to not be generated for a few cycles of input current so as to
allow analog-to-digital processing conversion of sampled input currents.” Id.
Nonetheless, Appellant still maintains that the sampling at the time instants
t1, t2, t3 (Fig. 2C) occurs at the same time following connection of the
corresponding phases to the input current. Id. at 4.
We have considered the respective positions articulated by the
Examiner and Appellant, and find a preponderance of the evidence favors
Appellant. It is axiomatic that during examination proceedings, claims are
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2007); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2004). An applicant seeking a narrower construction must either show why
the broader construction is unreasonable or amend the claim to expressly
state the scope intended. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In our view, the Examiner’s interpretation of “trigger signals are generated
Appeal 2020-004171
Application 16/174,361

7
at a same time following the connection of the phases to the input current” is
unreasonable because it is both inconsistent with the plain meaning of the
language of claim 1 and with Appellant’s Specification as would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Appellant’s proffered
interpretation, on the other hand, is both consistent with the plain meaning of
the language of claim 1 and with Appellant’s Specification as would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 1 recites that the trigger signals are generated at a same time
following the connection of the phases to the input current. Claim 1 does not
recite that this “at a same time” is within a same time period (or interval).
Further, as Appellant asserts, the Specification makes clear that this “at a
same time” refers to time instants after each phase is connected to the input
current, rather than a range of time within which the trigger signal may be
generated. See Spec. ¶ 8 (“generating trigger signals at successive time
instants respectively for the phases and sampling the input current provided
to the phases occurs at the time instants in response to the trigger signals”);
¶ 16 (“graph depicting synchronous trigger signals generated . . . for
sampling the input currents . . . respectively inputted to the phases of the
converter at respective time instants”); Figs. 2B and 2C. Appellant’s
interpretation of paragraph 43’s description of scheduling is consistent with
time instants in that nothing therein indicates that scheduling of the trigger
signals occurs within a time period rather than at time instants.
Applying this interpretation to Mir’s peak sampling, we note that the
Examiner fails to find that Mir’s peak sampling occurs at the same time (i.e.,
at the same time instants after connection) following the connection of the
phases to the input current. Although the Examiner is correct that claim 1
Appeal 2020-004171
Application 16/174,361

8
does not require that the sampling occur as soon as the connection of the
phases to the input current occurs, the Examiner has not shown that
sampling at the peaks occurs at the same time following the connection of
the phases to the input current. In other words, the Examiner has not shown
that each detected peak occurs at the same time following connection of the
phases to the input current. Indeed, if the peaks did occur at the same time
following connection (a fact the Examiner has not shown), detection of the
peaks would be unnecessary and sampling could occur at the same time
following connection of the phases to the input current as claim 1 requires.
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness based on an inherent or explicit disclosure of the claimed
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(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”). Meeting that burden requires that the Examiner supply the
requisite factual basis (rational underpinning) by showing that each and
every limitation of the claim is described or suggested by the prior art and
articulate reasoning based thereon that the applied prior art would have
provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason to modify
the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be
sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” (quoted with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007))); see also, In re Fine, 837 F.2d
1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Appeal 2020-004171
Application 16/174,361

9
The combination of Jang and Mir lacks the requisite rational
underpinning to support the obviousness conclusion for the reasons set forth
above. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of claim 1 based upon this combination. We note that independent claims 8
and 15 also include the same limitation at issue for claim 1, “wherein the
trigger signals are synchronous in that the trigger signals are generated at a
same time following the connection of the phases to the input current.” We
also note that the Examiner does not rely on Dong or Teh to remedy the
deficiencies in Mir discussed above. Therefore, we likewise do not sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 4–8, 11–15, and 18–23.
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the record and for the reasons set forth above
and in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims
1, 4–8, 11–15, and 18–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of
Jang and Mir, alone or further in view of either Teh or Dong, is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 7, 8,
11, 14, 15,
18, 21–23
103 Jang, Mir 1, 4, 7, 8,
11, 14, 15,
18, 21–23
5, 12, 19 103 Jang, Mir, Dong 5, 12, 19
6, 13, 20 103 Jang, Mir, Teh 6, 13, 20
Appeal 2020-004171
Application 16/174,361

10
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
Overall
Outcome
1, 4–8, 11–
15, 18–23
REVERSED