Siemens Aktiengesellschaft

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 29, 2021

2020003012 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 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. 14/943,739 11/17/2015 Juergen HESSENAUER 5029-1449/377435 6202 27799 7590 12/29/2021 COZEN O''CONNOR 3WTC, 175 Greenwich Street 55th Floor NEW YORK, NY 10007 EXAMINER FOLEY, SHON G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3668 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/29/2021 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): patentdocket@cozen.com patentsecretary@cozen.com patentsorter@cozen.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte JUERGEN HESSENAUER, MICHAEL JAENTSCH, and CARSTEN SPINDLER ________________ Appeal 2020-003012 Application 14/943,739 Technology Center 3600 ________________ Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–23, which constitute all claims pending in this application. Appeal Br. 5–9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Board conducts a limited de novo review of the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We reverse. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Siemens AG. Appeal Brief 2, filed November 27, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”). Appeal 2020-003012 Application 14/943,739 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant describes the present invention as follows: A plurality of sequentially consecutive sections of a linear drive are each controlled case by a respective control device that is assigned to a respective section of the plurality of sequentially consecutive sections, where converters that are controlled by the respective control device each individually apply current to a subsection of the respective section, and collectively to the respective section, control devices each specify new desired values to the converters they control, the respective control device controls each respective convertor of a plurality of converters, and where the control devices communicate, via respective peer-to-peer interfaces having real-time capability, with a number of other control devices that control sections. Abstract. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the subject matter of the appealed claims: 1. A control method for a linear drive, comprising: controlling, by a respective control device which is assigned to a respective section of a plurality of sequentially consecutive sections of the linear drive, the plurality of sequentially consecutive sections; applying, by a plurality of converters respectively arranged externally at an output of a respective control device and controlled by the respective control device, current individually to a subsection of a plurality of subsections of the respective section via a respective converter of the plurality of converters and collectively to the respective section via the respective converter of the plurality of converters; specifying, by control devices, new desired values to each of the converters controlled by a respective controller of the convertors; controlling, by the respective control device, each respective convertor of the plurality of converters; and Appeal 2020-003012 Application 14/943,739 3 communicating, by the control devices, with a number of other control devices that control sections of the plurality of sequentially consecutive sections via respective peer-to-peer interfaces having real-time capability. STATEMENT OF THE REJECTIONS Claims 1–4, 7–12, and 15–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nemeth-Csoka (US 2010/0185320 A1; published July 22, 2010), Mukai (US 2014/0292112 A1; published Oct. 2, 2014), Frantzheld (US 2016/0194182 A1; published July 7, 2016), and Suzuki (US 2014/0009093 A1; published Jan. 9, 2014). Final Act. 2–12. Claims 5 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nemeth-Csoka, Mukai, Frantzheld, Suzuki, and Hilscher (US 2009/0119437 A1; published May 7, 2009). Final Act. 12–13. Claims 6 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nemeth-Csoka, Mukai, Frantzheld, Suzuki, Hilscher, and Itaya (US 2014/0288725 A1; published Sept. 25, 2014). Final Act. 13–15. DETERMINATIONS AND CONTENTIONS The Examiner finds that Nemeth-Csoka teaches a control method for a linear drive that comprises many of the limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 3 (citing Nemeth-Csoka Fig. 1; ¶¶ 14, 23). The Examiner finds that Nemeth- Csoka does not teach applying, by the respective control device, current individually to a subsection of a plurality of subsections of the respective section and collectively to the respective section. Id. at 4. The Examiner finds that Mukai teaches this limitation, but not that the applying of this current is via the respective converter of the plurality of converters. Id. Appeal 2020-003012 Application 14/943,739 4 (citing Mukai, Fig. 1; ¶¶ 27, 28). The Examiner also determines that it would have been obvious “to have included the subsections and stator unit comprising a controller and converter for controlling the subsections[,] as taught by Mukai[,] in the control method for a linear drive of Nemeth- Csoka” because “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated . . . to achieve easy handling and changing of the linear drive. Id. (citing Mukai ¶ 96). The Examiner finds that “Nemeth-Csoka does not teach converters respectively arranged externally at an output of a respective control device.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Frantzheld teaches this claim limitation. Id. at 4–5 (citing Frantzheld Fig. 2; ¶¶ 37–40). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to have included the structural setup of Frantzheld in the linear drive of Nemeth-Csoka because doing so would have constituted using a known method of setting up the structure of the linear derive in order to produce predictable results. Id. at 5. The Examiner states again, “Nemeth-Csoka does not teach a plurality of converters, nor applying current individually to a subsection [of a plurality of subsections of the respective section] via a respective converter of the plurality of converters and collectively to the respective section via the respective converter of the plurality of converters.” Final Act. 5 (alteration in original). The Examiner finds that Suzuki teaches these claim limitations, including that the applying of this current is specifically via the respective converter of the plurality of converters. Id. at 5–6 (citing Suzuki, claim 1). And the Examiner determines it would have been obvious “to use the teaching of Suzuki in the control method for a linear drive of Nemeth- Appeal 2020-003012 Application 14/943,739 5 Csoka to utilize a known method of powering individual sections in order to produce predictable results of an operable drive.” Id. at 6. Appellant asserts, inter alia, Suzuki fails to teach or suggest a plurality of power converters connected in the manner of Appellants’ power converters of independent claim 1. Fig. 1 of Suzuki shows a single controller including, inter alia, an inverter section 60. The controller (ECU 10) of Suzuki is connected to winding sets of a multiple-phase rotating machine having winding sets that are magnetically coupled together. Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis omitted). According to Appellant, Suzuki relates to a “controller which is used for a multiple- phase rotating machine and capable of reducing heat generation and torque ripple in a failed system by reducing an electric current in a power converter and a winding set in the failed system” (see paragraph [0005]). In particular, Suzuki (paragraph [0006]) explains a “controller is used for driving a multiple-phase rotating machine having winding sets magnetically coupled together. Each winding set includes phase windings. The controller includes electrical power converters capable of supplying alternating current to the winding sets. Each electrical power converter includes legs. Each leg is constructed with switching devices and provided to a corresponding phase winding.” Suzuki (paragraph [0023]) additionally explains “[t]he ECU 10 includes a control section 65 and an inverter section 60. The inverter section 60 serves as an electrical power converter that controls electrical power supply to the motor 80 in accordance with a command from the control section 65.” Appeal Br. 6–7. Appellant contends, Thus, independent claim 1 of Suzuki recites “a plurality of electrical power converters capable of supplying alternating current to the plurality of winding . . .”, and Suzuki fails to Appeal 2020-003012 Application 14/943,739 6 teach or suggest that the invertor section 60 applies current individually to a subsection of a plurality of subsections of a respective section via the inverter section 60. Suzuki fails to teach or suggest the “applying” step of independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 7. ANALYSIS Appellant’s arguments are persuasive. Claim 1 of Suzuki does set forth a plurality of electrical power converters capable of supplying alternating current to the plurality of winding sets that are magnetically coupled together. Suzuki, claim 1. But the Examiner does not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the inverter section 60 applies current individually to a subsection of a plurality of subsections of a respective section via the inverter section 60, in the manner claimed. Furthermore, the Examiner’s conclusory motivation for combing Suzuki with Nemeth-Csoka and the other references is unclear and not supported by sufficient factual reasoning. The Examiner merely states, “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the teaching of Suzuki in the control method for a linear drive of Nemeth-Csoka to utilize a known method of powering individual sections in order to produce predictable results of an operable drive.” Final Act. 6. But the Examiner does not sufficiently explain how Suzuki’s circuitry is being combined with that of the other three cited references. Id. Nor does the Examiner reasonably state what predictable result would be achieved. Id. Nor does the Examiner provide sufficient evidence that one of ordinary skill would have understood that the problems addressed by Suzuki would be relevant for a linear drive, such as disclosed by Nemeth-Csoka. Appeal 2020-003012 Application 14/943,739 7 Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and of claims 2–4, 7–12, and 15–23, which either depend from claim 1 or otherwise recite similar language. Appeal Br. 10–17. With respect to the remaining rejections of dependent claims 5, 6, 13, and 14, the Examiner does not rely on the additional teachings of Hilscher or Itaya to cure the deficiency of the obviousness rejection explained above. Accordingly, we reverse these obviousness rejections for the same reasons as set forth in relation to claim 1. Final Act. 12–15. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: REVERSED Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 7–12, 15–23 103 Nemeth-Csoka, Mukai, Frantzheld, Suzuki 1–4, 7–12, 15–23 5, 13 103 Nemeth-Csoka, Mukai, Frantzheld, Suzuki, Hilscher 5, 13 6, 14 103 Nemeth-Csoka, Mukai, Frantzheld, Suzuki, Hilscher, Itaya 6, 14 Overall Outcome 1–23