Yuichi Katsuki et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 4, 2019

14839261 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 4, 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.
14/839,261 08/28/2015 Yuichi KATSUKI 167587 3895
25944 7590 09/04/2019
OLIFF PLC
P.O. BOX 320850
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-4850
EXAMINER
AHMAD, SHAHZEB K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2838
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/04/2019 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):
OfficeAction25944@oliff.com
jarmstrong@oliff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YUICHI KATSUKI and
TAKESHI ITOH
____________

Appeal 2018–008311
Application 14/839,2611
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, and
GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 DENSO Corporation is the Applicant and real party in interest. (See Br. 1).
Appeal 2018–008311
Application 14/839,261

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the June
29, 2017 Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appellant’s invention is directed generally to a voltage converter
control apparatus capable of detecting abnormal operation of the voltage
converter, due to failure of a switching element or a voltage sensor.
(Spec. 1, ll. 16–19). Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal
and is reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief below:
1. A voltage converter control apparatus comprising a
voltage step-up control section and an abnormality detection
section for respectively controlling a voltage converter and
detecting abnormal operation of the voltage converter, the
voltage converter being connected between a battery and a power
inverter, the voltage step-up control section controlling the
voltage converter for executing conversion between a terminal
voltage of the battery as an input-side voltage (Vin) and a
terminal voltage of the power inverter as an output-side voltage
(Vsys),
the voltage converter comprising an inductor and a voltage
step-up section connected in series between the battery and the
power inverter, the voltage step-up section comprising switching
elements controlled by the voltage step-up control section for
on/off switching to repetitively store and discharge electrical
energy into and from the inductor;
the voltage step-up control section comprises circuitry
configured to calculate a duty ratio of switching to be executed
by the switching element, based on information including a

2 The Examiner has indicated claims 2, 5, and 6 contain allowable subject
matter. (Final Act. 5–6).
Appeal 2018–008311
Application 14/839,261

3
command value (Vsys*) for an output voltage of the output-side
voltage, and
the abnormality detection section comprising circuitry
configured to determine a normal duty ratio range (Dnr) as a
range of values of the duty ratio, based on information
indicative of the output-side voltage and information
relating to the input-side voltage, and to detect that there is an
abnormality in the voltage converter based on the normal duty
ratio range (Dnr) in relation to duty ratio values calculated by the
voltage step-up control section;
wherein the voltage converter control apparatus is
characterized in that:
the circuitry of the abnormality detection section is
configured to acquire the command value (Vsys*) for the output
voltage, and to determine the normal duty ratio range (Dnr) based
on a function of power of the battery and the command value (V
sys*) for the output voltage as the information indicative of the
output-side voltage of the voltage converter.
The following rejection is presented for our review.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Makoto3 (JP2009148116 A; published July 2, 2009) in
view of Jenkner (US 2011/0019315 A1; published Jan. 27, 2011) and in
further view of Tokizaki (US 5,375,429; issued Dec. 27, 1994).

3 We refer to the English language translation that was entered into the
record on September 4, 2015.
Appeal 2018–008311
Application 14/839,261

4
OPINION

We REVERSE.
We limit our discussion to independent claim 1, the only independent
claim on appeal.
The Examiner finds Makoto teaches a voltage converter control
apparatus including a voltage step-up control section and an abnormality
detection section. (Final Act. 2–3). The Examiner also finds the
abnormality detection section of Makoto does not detect that there is an
abnormality in the voltage converter based on the normal duty ratio range in
relation to duty values calculated by the voltage step-up control section. The
Examiner finds Jenkner teaches an over current protection system wherein
the abnormalities in the voltage converter is determined based on the normal
duty ratio range in relation to duty values calculated by the controller. (Final
Act. 4; Jenkner ¶ 26). The Examiner finds Tokizaki teaches a method of
controlling a switch wherein the duty cycle range is determined based on a
value of power and voltage. (Final Act. 4). The Examiner further
determines that it would have been obvious to modify the abnormality
detection scheme of Makoto to incorporate the abnormality detection
scheme as taught by Jenkner and Tokizaki. (Final Act. 4).
Appellant argues the claimed invention is not obvious over the
teachings of Makoto, Jenkner, and Tokizaki. Specifically, Appellant argues
none of the cited references teach (1) the command value (Vsys*) for an
output voltage of the output-side voltage and (2) the abnormality detection
section is configured to acquire the command value (Vsys*) for the output
voltage, and to determine the normal duty ratio range (Dnr) based on a
Appeal 2018–008311
Application 14/839,261

5
function of power of the battery and the command value (Vsys*) for the
output voltage as the information indicative of the output-side voltage of the
voltage converter. (Br. 6).
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner states:
The voltage step up control section controls the switches
based on the sensed value determined by the sensor (Figure 1
Component 34). Based on the sensed value the controller
determines the right duty cycle to control the switches thus
controlling the output side voltage (See Translation Paragraphs
0025 and 0035 of Makoto). By the manner of how sensor 34
controls the duty cycles the Examiner believes that Component
34 teaches being “a command value (Vsys*) for an output
voltage of the output-side voltage” as defined by the Examiner.

(Ans. 4).

We cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection for reasons discussed
below. The Examiner considers the claim language the “command value
(Vsys*) for an output voltage of the output-side voltage” to be the same as
the sensed value determined by the sensor. The claimed invention, however,
is not limited to the detected output voltage. According to the Specification,
utilizing the output voltage determined by the sensor would make it difficult
to ensure that the normal duty ratio determination is free from errors.
(Spec. 3). Therefore, the claimed invention utilizes the command value
(Vsys*) — the target value of the output-side voltage— to determine the
output voltage without relying on the output sensor.
The Examiner cites Tokizaki for establishing that the use of a power
parameter to determine a duty ratio range was known to persons of ordinary
skill in the art. (Ans. 6). The Examiner, however, has failed to establish that
the power parameter described by Tokizaki is the same as the command
Appeal 2018–008311
Application 14/839,261

6
value (Vsys*) required by the claimed invention. The knowledge that other
parameters could have been utilized in the determination of a duty ratio
range does not necessarily suggest the use of the command value (Vsys*)
required by the claimed invention. Thus, we find the Examiner has failed to
make a prima facia case that the use of a power parameter to determine a
duty ratio range was known to persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 for the reasons presented by Appellant and given above. We,
likewise, reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject dependent claims 3 and 4
since the rejection of these claims is premised on the Examiner’s reliance on
the combination of Makoto, Jenkner, and Tokizaki.

ORDER
The rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.

REVERSED