US 7567049

I'll search for this patent and any related CAFC 2026 docket activity.

Let me run a few more targeted searches to check for any litigation or CAFC 2026 activity.

Summary of US Patent 7,567,049

Important note on scope: I searched for this exact number (7567049, literals preserved). I found no CAFC 2026 docket, no PTAB proceeding, and no litigation tied to this specific patent number. Details and caveats below.

---

Bibliographic data (from the authoritative full text)

Abstract (as granted): A controller for an electric motor in a blower system includes an input for receiving an air flow demand. The controller is configured for producing drive signals for the electric motor from the air flow demand using an equation having a plurality of terms. At least one of the terms includes a composite function S*CFM^n, where S is a speed of the electric motor, CFM is the air flow demand, and n>1. These teachings can also be applied to other types of fluid handling systems including, for example, liquid pumps.

Technical gist: The inventors reduced prediction errors in converting a fluid/air flow demand into a motor torque demand by adding a higher-order composite term S*(flow)^n (n>1) to the torque equation. Two worked examples:

• FIG. 3: Torque = K1 + K2*S + K3*CFM + K4*S*CFM² (four terms, one higher order)
• FIG. 4: Torque = K1 + K2*S + K3*CFM + K4*S*CFM² + K5*S*CFM (five terms)
  Constants K1–K5 are fitted per blower system via multiple regression / least-squares (Gaussian elimination); the specification reports a max error under 1.7% for the example blower. The specification distinguishes prior art U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,978,896 (multiple-slope algorithm) and 5,447,414 (Torque = K1*S*CFM + K2*S + K3*CFM + K4).

---

Independent claims — plain-language overview

There are four independent claims: 1, 11, 17, and 20.

• Claim 1 — Controller (blower system). A controller for an electric motor in a blower system has an input that receives an air flow demand. It includes (a) an air flow control module that converts the air flow demand into a torque demand stated "as a function of a speed of the electric motor multiplied by the air flow demand raised to a power greater than one," where the torque demand represents the demanded motor torque; and (b) a torque control module that converts the torque demand into drive signals for the motor to produce that demanded torque.

• Claim 11 — Method (blower system). A method of controlling an electric motor in a blower system: receive an air flow demand, and produce drive signals for the motor from the air flow demand by converting the air flow demand into a torque demand as a function of motor speed multiplied by the air flow demand raised to a power greater than one.

• Claim 17 — Motor assembly (blower system). An electric motor plus a controller, the controller having an input for an air flow demand; an air flow control module converts that demand into a torque demand for the motor as a function of motor speed multiplied by air flow demand raised to a power greater than one; a torque control module converts the torque demand into drive signals for the motor.

• Claim 20 — Controller (fluid handling system). Same structure as claim 1 but generalized: an input receives a fluid flow demand; a fluid flow control module converts it into a torque demand as a function of motor speed multiplied by fluid flow demand raised to a power greater than one; a torque control module converts the torque demand into drive signals. (This is the claim that captures the liquid-pump / general fluid-handling applications described in the specification.)

Notable dependents: Claim 2 (power ≥ 2); claims 3–4 (equation with at least four, then at least five, terms); claims 5 and 7 recite the specific four-term and five-term equations; claim 8 (blower system comprising a motor plus the claim 1 controller); claim 9 (adds a drive); claim 10 (adds a blower); claim 19 (drive in the assembly claim); claim 24 (fluid handling system comprising a motor plus the claim 20 controller).

Literalism/errata flags (per your no-auto-correct rule): The printed claim set contains apparent typographical artifacts that I am reporting verbatim, not correcting: claim 12 reads "The method of claim 2" although claim 12 is a method claim that logically depends from method claim 11; and claim 16 recites "CEM" rather than "CFM" in its equation, and its equation is rendered with superscript formatting artifacts. These discrepancies appear in the record as fetched. (Three certificates of correction were issued in 2009–2010, which may account for some of this, but I did not retrieve the correction documents to confirm which items they addressed.)

---

CAFC / litigation check (negative result)

• No CAFC 2026 docket for 7,567,049 was found. Searches of Federal Circuit 2026 activity, PTAB appeal statistics, and Federal Circuit patent-watch materials for June–July 2026 and March–May 2026 returned nothing referencing this patent number.
• No PTAB trial (IPR/PGR/CBM) for 7,567,049 was found.
• The closest litigation hits involved Nidec Motor Corporation but concerned different patents, which I am expressly not conflating with '049:
  • Nidec's infringement suits asserting U.S. 7,626,349 (e.g., against Broad Ocean / Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.), including Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. (Fed. Cir. No. 16-2321) and Broad Ocean Technologies, LLC v. Nidec Motor Corporation (Fed. Cir., Apr. 5, 2018, nonprecedential).
  • IPR2018-00598 involving U.S. 7,067,952 (Nidec Corporation / American Honda).
• Uncertainty statement: Because no public docket entry surfaced, I cannot affirmatively rule out a very recent or non-indexed filing. If '049 has been asserted or challenged, the activity is not indexed in the sources I could reach, and I would not assert that no such proceeding exists — only that my searches did not find one.

Bottom line: US 7,567,049 is a 2009 Nidec (originally Emerson) patent on adding an S×flowⁿ (n>1) higher-order term to a blower/fluid-handler torque-demand equation to cut flow-prediction error. Its adjusted expiration is Sept. 29, 2026. I found no 2026 Federal Circuit or PTAB activity for this patent number.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 7567049.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases.

Let me search more specifically for cases where this patent may have been asserted.

Litigation Search Report — U.S. Patent No. 7,567,049

Patent identified: U.S. Patent No. 7,567,049 B2 ("Fluid flow control for fluid handling systems"), filed April 21, 2006, granted July 28, 2009; application 11/408,755; original assignee Emerson Electric Co., current assignee Nidec Motor Corporation.

Search scope: I searched for the specific number 7567049 across patent-litigation aggregators and sources including Unified Patents, Justia Dockets, CourtListener/RECAP, Docket Alarm, UniCourt, the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, PTAB filings, and general docket references. Queries were restricted to the exact number (not "similar" numbers 7567048, etc.).

Finding

I could not identify any litigation — district court, Federal Circuit, or PTAB — in which U.S. Patent No. 7,567,049 was asserted or challenged. The searches returned no complaint, docket entry, case caption, IPR/PGR petition, or CAFC appeal tying this specific patent number to a party dispute. On the available evidence, no known litigation involves the '049 patent.

Important caveats

1. This is a negative result, not a certified clean bill. I was operating under tool-call limits and could not exhaustively query every docket system (e.g., a full PACER/DocketNavigator/Unified Patents caselist lookup by patent number). A definitive "no litigation" conclusion would require a direct run against Unified Patents' litigation caselist, DocketNavigator, or PACER for the patent number.

2. Related but distinct Nidec/Emerson litigation exists and should not be confused with this patent. The searches surfaced several Nidec/Emerson motor-controller cases, but in every instance the search results identified different patents:

   • Nidec Motor Corp. v. Broad Ocean Motor LLC et al., No. 4:2016-cv-00399 (E.D. Mo., filed Mar. 24, 2016) — concerning the '895 patent and '349 patent, not the '049 patent.
   • Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) — IPR appeal concerning the '349 patent.
   • Nidec Motor Corp. v. SNTech, Inc., No. 4:12-cv-00115 (E.D. Mo.).
   • Molon Motor & Coil Corp. v. Nidec Motor Corp., No. 2019-1071 (Fed. Cir.) — concerning the '915 patent.
   • Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Nidec Corp. et al., No. 1:17-cv-00299 (D. Del.).

   None of these results tied the '049 patent to the case. I flag them only to show I looked at the relevant corporate family's litigation and found no match — not to suggest the '049 patent was at issue.

3. No PTAB challenge identified. Unified Patents filings and other PTAB documents surfaced in the search did not reference the '049 patent.

Recommendation

To confirm with certainty, I recommend a direct patent-number query on:

• Unified Patents Litigation caselist (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) filtered to patent 7567049;
• DocketNavigator or LexMachina "patent" field = 7567049;
• PACER docket search / PTAB (PTAB E2E) for any IPR/PGR/reissue involving the patent.

If you would like, I can attempt those specific queries next, but on the evidence currently available I cannot report any litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 7,567,049, and I will not invent case details to fill that gap.

I'll verify the structured-data default against live sources before writing this up.

Nothing yet ties 7567049 to an AIA trial. Let me run a few more targeted checks before concluding.

One more check to make sure I'm not missing a proceeding indexed under a different phrasing.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 7567049: zero (0). The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block states verbatim: "The USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest." Breakdown by status is therefore 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied — every one of the patent's 24 claims is untested at the Board.

Bottom line for a defendant: there is no IPR roadmap and no IPR estoppel. No claim of 7567049 has ever been canceled or even construed by the PTAB, so you cannot piggyback on a prior petitioner's work — but you are also not barred by § 315(e)(2). The defensive posture is "clean slate, but the clock is the weapon": per Google Patents' own docketing, the patent carries an adjusted expiration date of 2026-09-29, which as of today (2026-10-01) has passed. (Flagged as an assumption, not a legal conclusion — see Recommended next steps for the confirmation step.)

I could not surface any recently-filed or un-indexed proceeding either. Targeted searches for "7567049" combined with IPR/PGR/CBM terminology and "Patent Trial and Appeal Board" returned no petition, institution decision, FWD, or appeal naming this patent.

---

Truth-in-labeling note: what people confuse this patent with

There is a real risk of citing the wrong proceeding. Two adjacent items look like hits and are not proceedings on 7567049:

• IPR2014-01121 (Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.) — this is a genuine, heavily-litigated Nidec IPR, but it targets US 7,626,349, not 7567049. Claims 1–3, 8, 9, 12, 16, and 19 of the '349 patent were held unpatentable under § 103 (Bessler + Kocybik) and § 102 (Hideji) in a FWD dated 2016-05-09; the Federal Circuit affirmed at Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017-08-18) (Dyk, J., concurring), appeal no. 16-2321. Same patent owner, different patent. CourtListener
• US 7,567,048 — a sibling patent granted the same day (2009-07-28) with an adjacent number, frequently co-cited with 7567049 in foreign search reports. Not this patent.

Do not import the '349 result into a 7567049 analysis. Different claims, different art, no preclusion.

{NONE} — no proceeding to report

Because the canonical list is empty, the fields prescribed by the template have no content:

• Type: N/A
• Filed: N/A
• Status: N/A (no verifiable status; nothing on file)
• Judge panel: N/A
• Petition grounds: N/A
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision: none issued — no claim-level verdict exists for any of claims 1–24
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: none arising from an AIA proceeding
• Defensive value: You must build invalidity from scratch. The upside is full freedom to choose your own primary reference and combination without any § 315(e)(2) estoppel shadow.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status. Claims 1–24 are all UNTESTED. Nothing is CANCELED; nothing is SUSTAINED on the merits by the Board. The only post-grant documents in the file wrapper are ordinary administrative items: three Certificates of Correction (2009-09-22, 2009-10-27, 2010-03-23) and maintenance-fee payments (2013-01-28, 2017-01-30, 2021-01-28 — 4th, 8th, and 12th year). Correcting certificates are not validity rulings and should not be cited as such.

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) estoppel is petitioner-specific and attaches only after an instituted IPR reaches a final written decision. With zero proceedings, no estoppel exists against anyone on any ground — § 102, § 103, or § 112. Any defendant can raise any prior-art ground, in any forum, without a "reasonably could have raised" trap. Symmetrically, you get no benefit from another party's win: there is no FWD to cite, no IPR record to hand an expert, and no PTAB claim construction to leverage in a Phillips or Yissum-style argument.

The dispositive fact is the calendar, not the Board. 7567049 was filed 2006-04-21, issued 2009-07-28, and Google Patents lists an adjusted expiration of 2026-09-29 under an "Active" legal-status flag. Its asserted term is therefore over. Note that the last maintenance fee on file is the 12th-year payment (2021-01-28), consistent with a term ending in 2026 rather than a 16th-year payment being due. This is a docketing assumption, not an adjudicated fact — confirm before relying on it in any filing.

Pattern signals. No petitioner has filed multiple IPRs against this patent (there are none). The patent owner has not pursued PTAB appeals for this patent (there is nothing to appeal). No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) appears anywhere in the chain — the absence of a Unified filing is notable, since HVAC blower-control patents are otherwise a favored aggregator target. The 13 forward citations (including Emerson/Nidec's own US 2010/0068070 and US 8,408,878 "Flow control for fluid handling system") are descendants and later filings, not challengers — do not mistake citation count for attack activity.

---

Recommended next steps

1. There is no FWD to link. The template asks me to link the FWD and quote its disposition if claims were invalidated. I cannot, because none was issued. Any document purporting to be a PTAB final written decision on 7567049 should be treated as mis-cited — check whether it actually concerns US 7,626,349.

2. Run the term check first — it likely ends the matter. Pull the file wrapper via USPTO Patent Center and confirm (a) the exact expiration date including any § 154 PTA or § 156 PTE, and (b) that no terminal disclaimer or reissue alters it. If expiration is confirmed at 2026-09-29, the damages exposure has already closed as of 2026-10-01, and a demand letter citing these claims has no prospective royalty theory. Note that past infringement within the 6-year § 286 lookback window could theoretically remain live — worth a discrete analysis, not an afterthought.

3. If the term is somehow extended, an IPR is still available. An expired patent remains reviewable at the Board, and there is no § 315(b) bar unless you have been served with a complaint more than one year ago. With no prior petition, you would face no discretionary-denial Fintiv backdrop from a parallel instituted IPR on this patent, and no § 325(d) "same or substantially the same art" problem. Statutory trial deadlines would then run from institution (FWD due within 12 months under § 316(a)(11)).

4. Verify against the canonical source before quoting anything above. I report "no PTAB activity on file" per the ODP ingest plus my own searches, and I found no older or newer proceeding. If your matter is high-stakes, a manual PTAB E2E search on the patent number and a Docket Navigator check on Nidec Motor Corporation as patent owner/AIA petitioner is the confirmatory step — the two records I could positively identify in the neighborhood both belong to the '349 patent.

Confidence disclosure: high confidence that no AIA trial proceeding names 7567049; moderate-to-high confidence in the 2026-09-29 adjusted expiration date (Google Patents docketing only — I did not independently verify against the USPTO term calculator).

I'll reconstruct the assignment chain. Let me first verify the recorded assignments and correspondent details.

Let me try to retrieve the correspondent-of-record details from the assignment records.

Let me make a final attempt to surface the recorded correspondent and any post-2011 records.

Assignment & Ownership Chain — U.S. Patent No. 7,567,049

Source of record: Google Patents "Legal Events" table for US 7,567,049 B2 (authoritative full text supplied). Attempts to pull the USPTO Assignment Center detail pages at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ via search returned no additional records beyond what the patent's own legal-events table already exposes. I could not retrieve the correspondent-of-record field for either assignment, so that column is reported as "not retrieved" rather than guessed.

---

Inventors

Pattern assessment — no red flags. All three inventors executed an assignment to Emerson Electric Co. with an effective date identical to the filing date (2006-04-21), i.e., a standard employee/employment-obligation assignment, not a negotiated later transfer. I found no evidence that any inventor departed Emerson within 12 months of filing; rather, the record indicates the entire Emerson motors & controls organization (engineers included) moved to Nidec in the fall of 2010 (see below). To the extent any inventor left, it coincided with the division-wide sale, which is a corporate divestiture pattern, not an inventor-abandonment/portfolio-fire-sale precursor.

Caveat: Individual employment histories are not in the assignment record; the division-level transfer is corroborated by a co-worker's sworn declaration in a sibling Nidec matter (Mark E. Carrier, IPR2014-01121, describing the fall-2010 Nidec acquisition of "Emerson's motors and controls division" and the resulting entity, Nidec Motor Corporation). I did not find per-inventor departure dates and will not assert them.

---

Original assignee

Emerson Electric Co., a Missouri corporation, 8000 W. Florissant Ave., St. Louis, MO.

• Business: Diversified industrial conglomerate (NYSE: EMR) — HVAC/R, motors, tools, automation.
• Product embodiment: Yes. The '049 subject matter — converting an air-flow demand into a torque demand for a variable-speed blower motor — was implemented in Emerson's variable-speed ECM blower-motor/control products sold into the HVAC OEM market. This is the same product family later sold by Nidec.
• Current status: Operating (public company). The motors & controls division that owned this patent was acquired by Nidec Corporation (Japan); the deal took effect ~September 2010, and the business was rebranded Nidec Motor Corporation (St. Louis, MO). (Nidec's own annual report separately records a January 2017 acquisition of Emerson's Leroy-Somer/Control Techniques businesses — a different later transaction that should not be conflated with the 2010 motors-and-controls purchase.)

---

Assignment timeline

Note: The '049 file shows exactly two recorded assignments. There are no post-2011 records. The three 2009–2010 "CC" events are certificates of correction, not ownership changes, and are excluded.

• 2006-04-21 (executed) / recorded 2006-07-19 — Reel 017961/0295

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Shahi, Prakash B.; Woodward, Arthur E.; Schock, Christopher D. (all three joint inventors)
  • Assignee: Emerson Electric Co. (Missouri)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved (could not confirm from available sources)
  • Context: Original employment/obligation assignment of the invention to the corporate employer at filing.

• 2010-09-24 (executed/effective) / recorded 2011-01-18 — Reel 025651/0747

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Emerson Electric Co.
  • Assignee: Nidec Motor Corporation (Missouri)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Corporate divestiture — transfer of Emerson's entire motors & controls business (people, products, and IP) to Nidec; a going-concern acquisition, not an IP-only or fire-sale transfer.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7567049
    2006 : Filed by Emerson Electric Co
         : Inventors assign rights to Emerson
    2009 : Patent granted to Emerson
    2010 : Emerson motors unit sold to Nidec
    2011 : Assignment recorded to Nidec Motor Corp

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Net count of strong signals: 0.

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The chain terminates at Nidec Motor Corporation, a large operating motor manufacturer that ships the very products embodying the claims (variable-speed HVAC blower motors and controls), via the recorded Emerson→Nidec assignment at Reel 025651/0747 (executed 2010-09-24, recorded 2011-01-18). There are zero shell-entity, known-asserter, cascading-LLC, fire-sale, privateering, or defensive-aggregator signals, and the only other record is the original inventor→Emerson assignment at Reel 017961/0295. Qualification on the "assertion" prong: I found no litigation or PTAB proceeding on the '049 patent specifically, so this is an operating-company-owned patent rather than a demonstrated operating-company assertion of this patent; the label reflects that the owner is a product-shipping competitor-facing manufacturer, not an NPE.

Two verification gaps (would require direct tool access I did not have):

1. Correspondent-of-record for both reel/frames — not retrieved; needed to fully test signal #3.
2. Absence of any later assignment — the patent's adjusted expiration is 2026-09-29 (now effectively at end of term), which is an additional reason no further transfers are expected.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 7567049) and the mirrored index https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html.

I'll research the prior art citations for US 7,567,049, focusing on the references cited on the face of the patent (and the examiner-cited references from the "Patent Citations" list).

Let me gather details on the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,567,049 B2

Note on tool limits: I hit the search-step ceiling before I could pull full-text detail on every one of the 17 references. Where I retrieved and verified a reference's text I say so; where I am working only from the citation line (title/assignee/date) I flag it explicitly. Per your standing rule, I have not auto-corrected any identifier.

---

1. USPTO / patent-record verification

Searching the literal number 7567049 confirms the following (consistent with the previously generated sections; I found no contradiction with the record already furnished):

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7567049/en ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/7567049

---

2. The § 102 touchstone for these claims

Every independent claim (1, 11, 17, 20) requires converting a flow demand into a torque demand "as a function of a speed of the electric motor multiplied by the air [fluid] flow demand raised to a power greater than one" — i.e. a term S·CFMⁿ, n > 1. A § 102 anticipation therefore requires a single prior reference disclosing that S-multiplied, higher-order flow term. That is the pivot for the analysis below. (Secondary limitations — the 4/5-term equations of claims 3–5, 7, 14–16, 22–23 — narrow further.)

---

3. Reference-by-reference analysis

3.1 US 4,978,896 A — the specification's lead background reference

• Citation: "Method and apparatus for controlling a blower motor in an air handling system," Shah, U.S. Patent 4,978,896.
• Dates: Filed July 26, 1989; issued Dec. 18, 1990. § 102(b) art.
• Assignee: General Electric Company.
• Description: Multiple-slope algorithm maintaining constant airflow over a static-pressure range. The '049 specification itself characterizes it: "different torque demand equations with different slopes are used depending upon the speed of the motor. At low speeds, torque is directly proportional to the square of the desired airflow rate. At speeds above the maximum operating speed, torque is reduced using a different equation." The claims recite a piecewise set, e.g. T = k1·A·S; T = −k3·A·S + C; and T = k2·A² (torque ∝ airflow²). (Source: freepatentsonline.com/4978896.html)
• § 102 analysis: No anticipation. It discloses a torque-vs-speed / torque-vs-flow² slope scheme, but the airflow² term (T ∝ A²) is not multiplied by speed S, and its S-multiplied term is k1·A·S (exponent 1). It therefore does not teach the claimed composite S·CFMⁿ, n>1. It is, however, highly material as the reference that frames the problem the '049 patent solves.

3.2 US 5,447,414 A — the closest cited reference

• Citation: "Constant air flow control apparatus and method," Nordby et al., U.S. Patent 5,447,414.
• Dates: Filed May 27, 1994; issued Sept. 5, 1995. § 102(b) art.
• Assignee: Emerson Electric Co. (same corporate family as the '049 patent).
• Description (verified against the patent PDF): Processor computes required motor torque as torque = (K1·S·C) + (K2·S) + (K3·C) + K4, where S = motor speed, C = desired airflow, and K1–K4 are blower-specific constants (K1 airflow, K2 torque, K3 pressure, K4 speed characteristics), fitted by least-squares/"double approximation." Explicitly claimed at claim 11. (Sources: patentimages US5447414.pdf; freepatentsonline.com/5447414.html)
• § 102 analysis: No anticipation of any claim, but it is the primary § 103 reference. It discloses the identical four-term architecture (K1·S·C + K2·S + K3·C + K4) — i.e. the three first-order terms K2·S, K3·CFM and offset K1 — but its flow term is first order (S·CFM¹), whereas the '049 claims require n>1. The '049 specification expressly distinguishes this reference for exactly that reason. Note the interesting structural overlap: '049 claim 7's five-term equation contains a K5·S·CFM term that reads on '414's K1·S·C, but claim 7 also requires the K4·S·CFM² term, which '414 does not disclose — so claim 7 is not anticipated either.

3.3 US 4,638,233 A

• Citation: "Method of establishing a preferred rate of air flow, method of determining torque, and apparatus," U.S. Patent 4,638,233.
• Dates: Filed Oct. 24, 1985; issued Jan. 20, 1987. § 102(b) art.
• Assignee: General Electric Company.
• Description (verified): Determines flow/torque by de-energizing an ECM, letting the rotor/blower coast, measuring deceleration, and computing torque = (d × i) − t (d = deceleration, i = combined inertia, t = residual torque), then looking up flow from stored torque/speed data. (Sources: patentimages US4638233.pdf; freepatentsonline.com/4638233.html)
• § 102 analysis: No anticipation. Torque is derived from deceleration/inertia, not from an algebraic S·CFMⁿ demand equation. It is a flow-determining/measurement technique, not a torque-demand-generating equation of the claimed form.

3.4 US 4,806,833 A

• Citation: "System for conditioning air, method of operating such, and circuit."
• Dates: Filed Sept. 22, 1986; issued Feb. 21, 1989. § 102(b) art. Assignee: General Electric Company.
• Description: (not full-text–verified) Per the cross-references in '896 and '757, this is the "Young" reference teaching that, for a squirrel-cage blower, motor speed varies directly with static pressure, and that blower speed is set to hold a preselected flow rate at an existing static pressure by altering speed in following relation with the static-pressure change.
• § 102 analysis: No anticipation. A single-slope speed-compensation scheme; it does not disclose an S-multiplied higher-order flow term. (I am relying on secondary descriptions here and flag it as unverified full text.)

3.5 US 5,019,757 A

• Citation: "Method and apparatus for controlling a blower motor in an air handling system to provide constant pressure," U.S. Patent 5,019,757.
• Dates: Filed Mar. 19, 1990; issued May 28, 1991. § 102(b) art. Assignee: General Electric Company.
• Description (verified): Constant-pressure (not constant-flow) control. Microprocessor implements S_T = k1·(k2 − P)·(T − T1) + S1, where T = duty cycle ∝ previous desired torque, P = preselected pressure, S_T = target speed. The speed/torque curves for constant pressure are a family of straight lines converging at a common point with slopes inversely proportional to pressure. The patent cautions that this "single slope algorithm, is still an approximation." (Sources: patentimages US5019757.pdf; everypatent.com/pat5019757.html)
• § 102 analysis: No anticipation. It generates a target speed from a pressure/torque algorithm, not a flow-demand-based S·CFMⁿ torque demand, and offers none of the composite higher-order term.

3.6 US 5,736,823 A

• Citation: "Constant air flow control apparatus and method."
• Dates: Filed May 27, 1994; issued Apr. 7, 1998. § 102(b) art. Assignee: Emerson Electric Co.
• Description: (not full-text–verified) The continuation/sibling of US 5,447,414 (same inventors/spec family — it is referenced as "Norby et al." in later art, e.g. US 6,504,338).
• § 102 analysis: No anticipation, for the same reasons as '414: it discloses the S·CFM¹ four-term form, not S·CFMⁿ with n>1. Its value is as corroborating § 103 art alongside '414.

3.7 US 5,692,385 A

• Citation: "System and method initiating defrost in response to speed or torque of evaporator motor."
• Dates: Filed Jan. 26, 1996; issued Dec. 2, 1997. § 102(b) art. Assignee: General Electric Company.
• § 102 analysis: No anticipation. Subject matter (defrost initiation) is in a different technical field from the claimed torque-demand equation; title alone shows no S·CFMⁿ conversion equation. Full text not retrieved.

3.8 US 5,818,194 A

• Citation: "Direct replacement variable speed blower motor."
• Dates: Filed Apr. 1, 1996; issued Oct. 6, 1998. § 102(b) art. Assignee: Emerson Electric Co.
• § 102 analysis: No anticipation. Directed to a retrofit/replacement motor architecture; no evidence of the claimed composite flow-to-torque term. Full text not retrieved.

3.9 US 2003/0011342 A1 (= US 6,504,338 B1), Eichorn

• Citation: "Constant CFM control algorithm for an air moving system utilizing a centrifugal blower driven by an induction motor," Ronald L. Eichorn, US 2003/0011342 A1 (granted as US 6,504,338 B1).
• Dates: Filed / priority July 12, 2001; published Jan. 16, 2003. § 102(b) art.
• Description (verified): Constant-mass-airflow control for an induction motor using a speed-only sensor and a stored family of curves of "proportionality constant of airflow to fan speed" vs. excitation voltage; a cascaded loop iterates on motor voltage and measures speed, deriving system constant K = CFM ∝ speed. The reference expressly criticizes prior art that "rely on an assumption of a linear relationship between fan … speed and mass air flow," and notes non-linearity requires a lookup table rather than an algebraic higher-order torque equation. (Sources: patentimages US6504338.pdf; freepatentsonline.com/y2003/0011342.html; uspto.report/patent/app/20030011342)
• § 102 analysis: No anticipation. It handles non-linearity via lookup tables and iterative voltage stepping, not via an S·CFMⁿ torque-demand equation. If anything it teaches away from the claimed closed-form composite term.

3.10 US 2003/0042860 A1, Sulfstede

• Citation: "System and method of controlling airflow in an air delivery system," Louis E. Sulfstede, US 2003/0042860 A1.
• Dates: Filed / priority Sept. 5, 2001; published Mar. 6, 2003. § 102(b) art.
• § 102 analysis: No anticipation. Airflow-control system, but no retrieved teaching of an S-multiplied higher-order flow term. Full text not retrieved — flagged.

3.11 US 2005/0280384 A1, Sulfstede

• Citation: "Air delivery system and method," Louis E. Sulfstede, US 2005/0280384 A1.
• Dates: Priority Sept. 5, 2001; published Dec. 22, 2005. § 102(b) art (published pre-filing).
• § 102 analysis: No anticipation. Same family/subject as 3.10; same caveat. Full text not retrieved.

3.12 US 7,246,997 B2

• Citation: "Integrated high efficiency blower apparatus for HVAC systems."
• Dates: Filed Aug. 8, 2003; issued July 24, 2007. § 102(e) art (as of its 2003 filing). Assignee: General Electric Company.
• § 102 analysis: No anticipation. A hardware/integration patent on a blower apparatus; no retrieved algebraic S·CFMⁿ torque conversion. Full text not retrieved.

3.13 US 2006/0265890 A1, Solan

• Citation: "Methods and systems for automatic rotation direction determination of electronically commutated motor," Stephen Solan Jr., US 2006/0265890 A1.
• Dates: Filed May 31, 2005; published Nov. 30, 2006. § 102(e) art (as of its 2005 filing).
• § 102 analysis: No anticipation. Rotation-direction determination for an ECM; unrelated to flow-to-torque conversion. Full text not retrieved.

3.14 US 2006/0290304 A1, Marcinkiewicz — control systems for permanent-magnet machines

• Citation: "Control systems and methods for permanent magnet rotating machines," Joseph G. Marcinkiewicz, US 2006/0290304 A1 (counterpart of US 7,208,895 B2).
• Dates: Filed June 24, 2005; published Dec. 28, 2006. § 102(e) art (as of its 2005 filing). Assignee: Emerson Electric Co.
• § 102 analysis: No anticipation. Motor-control (sensorless PM machine) subject matter; it is the incorporated-by-reference control family cited at col. "Exemplary systems and methods … U.S. application Ser. No. 11/293,743." Provides the drive-level context, not the claimed flow-demand-to-torque equation.

3.15 US 2006/0290302 A1, Marcinkiewicz — sensorless control

• Citation: "Sensorless control systems and methods for permanent magnet rotating machines," Joseph G. Marcinkiewicz, US 2006/0290302 A1.
• Dates: Filed June 24, 2005; published Dec. 28, 2006. § 102(e) art (as of its 2005 filing). Assignee: Emerson Electric Co.
• § 102 analysis: No anticipation — sensorless motor drive subject matter (the '049 specification's second incorporated application, Ser. No. 11/293,744).

3.16 US 7,208,895 B2

• Citation: "Control systems and methods for permanent magnet rotating machines."
• Dates: Filed June 24, 2005; issued Apr. 24, 2007. § 102(e) art (as of its 2005 filing). Assignee: Emerson Electric Co.
• § 102 analysis: No anticipation — granted counterpart of 3.14; motor-control teaching.

3.17 US 2007/0170880 A1, Shahi — starting permanent-magnet machines

• Citation: "Control systems and methods for starting permanent magnet rotating machines," Prakash B. Shahi, US 2007/0170880 A1.
• Dates: Filed June 24, 2005; published July 26, 2007. § 102(e) art (as of its 2005 filing). Assignee: Emerson Electric Co. (co-inventor Shahi is also a '049 named inventor.)
• § 102 analysis: No anticipation — motor starting control; unrelated to the flow-demand-to-torque composite term.

---

4. Summary table — anticipation potential

---

5. Conclusions

1. No cited reference anticipates any claim of US 7,567,049 under § 102. The single limitation that distinguishes the independent claims — the composite term S·CFMⁿ with n > 1 — is absent from every reference on the face of the patent. This is consistent with the examiner having allowed all 24 claims notwithstanding 17 citations.

2. The two references the '049 specification itself engages are the only meaningful § 102/§ 103 art:

   • US 4,978,896 (Shah, GE) — supplies the airflow-squared concept (but not speed-multiplied) via a multiple-slope scheme.
   • US 5,447,414 (Nordby et al., Emerson) — supplies the exact four-term architecture K1·S·C + K2·S + K3·C + K4, but only to the first power on flow. The '049 claims are best understood as adding a single higher-order term K4·S·CFM² to this '414 base equation — the classic § 103 combination of '414 (base equation) with '896 and/or basic non-linearity fitting (e.g. the resort to squared flow in '896) plus the per-system least-squares regression shown in '049's own Table 1.

3. The drive-control references (US 7,208,895; US 2006/0290304; US 2006/0290302; US 2007/0170880; US 2006/0265890) are § 102(e) art as to their 2005 filing dates but go to motor control / starting / sensorless operation, and are cited for enablement context rather than as flow-to-torque anticipation.

4. Caveats on my own coverage. I could not retrieve/verify the full text of US 4,806,833, US 5,692,385, US 5,818,194, US 2003/0042860, US 2005/0280384, US 7,246,997, US 2006/0265890 and the four PM-machine documents; for those my § 102 conclusions rest on titles, assignees and (where available) secondary descriptions, and I label them accordingly. If you want a definitive § 102 sweep, the next step would be to pull each of those eight full texts from USPTO PatentCenter/Patent Full-Text and re-run the S·CFMⁿ screen phrase-by-phrase.

5. Formatting/OCR flag (not a correction): The Google Patents "Definitions" extract and the OCR of the granted PDF both render the key limitation inconsistently — one instance shows "n=1" where the specification elsewhere says "n>1." This is almost certainly an OCR/rendering artifact (the abstract and claim 1 both read "power greater than one"), but under your literal-reading rule I am reporting it rather than silently normalizing it.

I'll research the cited prior-art references to ground the § 103 analysis, then build the obviousness case.

I've gathered the key reference texts. Note: the full text page identifies this as a case with no litigation found (per the prior sections), so the following is a prospective/defensive § 103 analysis, not a validity opinion in a live proceeding. It builds on — and does not repeat — the claim mapping already done above.

---

§ 103 Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Pat. No. 7,567,049 ("Fluid Flow Control for Fluid Handling Systems")

1. Framework and level of ordinary skill

Legal frame. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (scope/content of prior art; differences; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations), as modified by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (predictable combinations; "obvious to try" where a finite number of identified, predictable solutions; design incentives and market demand). The strongest ground here is a two-reference combination plus a third reference for the numeric limitations, reinforced by the known physical relationships in the blower arts.

PHOSITA. A person with a B.S. in electrical or mechanical engineering (or equivalent) and 2–4 years of experience in HVAC blower/motor controls, familiar with: (a) speed/torque/airflow characterization of squirrel-cage blowers; (b) the fan/affinity laws; and (c) least-squares regression fitting of blower test data. The '049 specification itself presumes exactly this skill set: it states the constants are "derived by performing a multiple regression from torque, speed and demanded air flow data … [using] a least squares fit," and that control modules "are implemented using digital signal processors."

2. The dispositive claim limitation

Every independent claim (1, 11, 17, 20) reduces to the same requirement, using claim 1's language:

"an air flow control module for converting the air flow demand into a torque demand as a function of a speed of the electric motor multiplied by the air flow demand raised to a power greater than one … and a torque control module for converting the torque demand into drive signals for the electric motor to produce the demanded motor torque."

Read against the specification (which defines the "composite function SCFM^n … where n>1") and the dependents (claims 2, 5, 7 specify n≥2 and the SCFM² equation), the only limitation that separates the claims from the art is: the torque-demand equation must contain a cross term in which speed is first order and flow is at an exponent greater than one (SCFM^n, n>1). Everything else — demand input, control module, torque-demand conversion, torque control module, drive signals — is old. That is the entire novelty.

3. The cited prior-art landscape (from the "Citations" section of this record)

Critically, the '049 specification admits two of these are its starting point, describing both and stating the objective: "improvements are needed to minimize prediction errors."

4. Ground 1 (primary): US 5,447,414 in view of US 4,978,896

4.1 What '414 discloses

US 5,447,414 (Nordby, Emerson) discloses an air-handling controller that:

• receives an air flow demand ("an input C from flow control means 22");
• has a processor ("processor means 18") that converts the demanded flow into a torque demand 65 times/second; and
• supplies a control signal to "switch means 16 … preferably a six-stage inverter" to produce the demanded torque — i.e., a torque control module producing drive signals.

Its equation (id., claim 11 and description):

torque = (K1·S·C) + (K2·S) + (K3·C) + K4

where S = motor speed and C = demanded airflow, and "K1-K4 are constants for the particular blower … K1 representing the blower's air flow characteristics, K2 the torque characteristics, K3 the pressure characteristics, and K4 the speed characteristics."

So '414 discloses every element of claim 1 except the exponent: its cross term is S·C¹ (n = 1), not S·C^n with n>1.

4.2 What '896 adds

US 4,978,896 (Shah, GE) discloses the same constant-airflow blower controller, and expressly teaches that the flow dependence is quadratic, not linear. Its algorithm (claim 15) includes the branch:

T = k₂A² for low-speed operation

and the description states: "the torque is directly proportional to the square of the desired air flow level," and "the proportionality constant k₂ is half the value of the constant k₁ at operating speeds." '896 also expressly motivates departing from a simple linear fit: "a more detailed or complex algorithm or table may be used to obtain a closer approximation … such a table could provide a nonlinear or closer approximation of the ideal speed torque characteristics for each preselected air flow rate."

Neither reference alone has S·CFM^n (n>1) — '414 has n=1; '896's A² term is not multiplied by S.

4.3 Motivation to combine

1. Same field, same problem, same solution space. Both are constant-airflow HVAC blower controls converting airflow demand into a torque command as a function of measured speed. Both characterize the same blower curves and fit coefficients to torque/speed/flow data.
2. Express problem-recognition in '896. '896 identifies that the true torque–flow relationship is nonlinear (quadratic) and that a "closer approximation" is desirable. That is a direct, articulated reason to add a second-order flow term.
3. The cross-term operator is already in '414. '414 already teaches that speed and flow enter multiplicatively (K1·S·C). A PHOSITA seeking to incorporate '896's quadratic-flow insight into '414's multiplicative structure would naturally produce the composite S·C². This is the "predictable variation" of a known term.
4. The specification admits the reason. The '049 spec: "the present inventors have succeeded in reducing prediction errors … by introducing a term … S*(FFD)ⁿ." Reducing regression error by adding a term is the quintessence of a predictable, results-driven improvement (KSR, "if a technique has been used to improve one device … a person of ordinary skill … would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way").

Result: the combination renders claim 1 (and claims 11 and 17) obvious. Dependent claims 2 (n≥2), 3 (≥4 terms), 5 (the K1+K2·S+K3·CFM+K4·S·CFM² equation), and 6 (constants "for the blower") fall directly out of the '414+'896 combination, since '414 already has the four-term skeleton and the blower-specific coefficients.

5. Ground 2: the fan/affinity laws as known in the art (design incentive)

The affinity/system-resistance relationships are textbook knowledge in this field and are also in the cited art:

• System resistance: "The static pressure necessary to cause flow is proportional to the square of the volume flow." (EASA / New York Blower, Fan Laws and System Resistance Curves.) Pressure ∝ Q².
• Fan laws: Q ∝ N; pressure ∝ N²; power ∝ N³; and torque = power/ω ⇒ torque ∝ speed².
• Cited-art confirmation: US 2001/0033147 A1 (Smith et al., Emerson; note common inventor C. Schock): "in a blower drive application the torque requirement varies almost as a square of the speed."

Because Q ∝ speed for a given system, a PHOSITA immediately appreciates that torque scales with the square of flow — i.e., a term in CFM². Because static pressure (hence the required torque at a given flow) also depends on the system/speed, the PHOSITA writes the demand-to-torque map as a surface T(S, Q). The single most natural polynomial surface is:

• T = (linear in S) × (quadratic in Q) ⇒
  T = K1 + K2·S + K3·Q + K5·S·Q + K4·S·Q²

This is the Figure 4 five-term equation of the '049, and it contains the Figure 3 four-term equation as a sub-case. The '049's own choice of S·CFM² is thus the telegraphed, expected result of combining the affinity-law quadratic-in-flow relationship with the already-known multiplicative S·Q term. This provides an independent, "design-incentive" motivation under KSR that does not even require '896.

6. Ground 3: US 2005/0280384 A1 (Sulfstede) as a secondary reference

Sulfstede (¶ [0034]) teaches discrete per-bin torque equations of exactly the polynomial form:

T = K·RPM² + K1·RPM + K2

and expressly states that "for other blower wheels or blower configurations, the discrete equations may be linear or of a higher order in form," while its quoted prior art ("In prior art, the mathematical formulae cover a continuum of airflows") confirms that single continuous polynomial models were already conventional. Sulfstede thus supplies: (a) explicit teaching that higher-order (quadratic) polynomial fits of the torque relation are appropriate and known; and (b) the known practice of determining coefficients "by fitting the selected equation (quadratic, for example)." Combined with '414 (which supplies the continuum model with S·Q cross term) and '896 (quadratic flow dependence), it is another route to the claimed equations — and it squarely supports claims 3 and 4 ("at least four/five terms") and claim 7.

7. Ground 4: US 2003/0011342 A1 / US 6,504,338 (Eichorn, Varidigm)

Varidigm criticizes prior systems that "rely on an assumption of a linear relationship between fan, or motor, speed and mass air flow," stating that "for readily available and inexpensive induction-motor driven systems the above assumption of linearity does not hold true, and systems based on this assumption may not yield adequate control stability or performance." This is explicit prior-art recognition that a linear speed/flow model is inadequate and that nonlinear characterization is required — supplying motivation to move beyond '414's purely first-order terms. (Note: it proposes a lookup-table/cascade approach rather than a polynomial, so it is a motivation reference, not the structural one.)

8. Claim-by-claim disposition (proposed obviousness grounds)

9. Rebuttal to the likely non-obviousness arguments

1. "The art taught piecewise/segmented solutions, not a unified higher-order equation." '414 uses a "double linear approximation" and '896 a "multiple slope algorithm," which could be argued to teach away from a single nonlinear term. Rebuttal: '896 itself says "a more detailed or complex algorithm or table may be used to obtain a closer approximation" and "could provide a nonlinear … approximation," and '384 discloses quadratic equations. The art is therefore at most ambivalent, which does not rise to teaching away. Moreover, a piecewise-linear approximation with a slope that increases with flow is the functional equivalent of adding a quadratic flow term; a PHOSITA would view the two as alternative implementations of one concept.
2. "Unexpected results (max error <1.7%)." Rebuttal: adding a term to a least-squares fit necessarily reduces residual error; the direction of the result is expected, and the magnitude (a percent or so on 20 data points) is the ordinary consequence of adding a regressor. No comparative data against a comparable-complexity piecewise model (e.g., '896's multiple slopes) is provided to show true unexpected superiority.
3. "Secondary considerations." No evidence in this record of commercial success nexus, licensing, copying, or industry praise tied to the S·CFMⁿ feature; the record instead shows only routine prosecution allowance.

10. Weakest link / candid caveats

• The conceptual jump to the composite S·CFM² (rather than an additive CFM² term) is the one gap. '896's teaching is T ∝ flow² without speed; the plain combination of '414 + '896 arguably suggests adding a standalone CFM² term. The strongest bridge is (a) '414's own multiplicative S·Q operator, (b) the affinity-law derivation (T ∝ Q², with S retained because static pressure varies), and (c) the natural linear-in-S × quadratic-in-Q polynomial surface. Under KSR's "predictable variations" standard this is sufficient, but it is the point a patentee would attack hardest.
• Prosecution history is unknown to me. The examiner cited '414 and '896 on the face of the patent, so the applicant must have argued something to secure allowance (most likely that neither reference discloses a term with flow raised to a power >1 while multiplied by speed). I did not retrieve the file wrapper, so I cannot say whether the applicant conceded or distinguished on this basis. That history could contain a narrowing statement or a teaching-away argument that materially changes the analysis.
• Claim-text artifacts. Per your literal-interpretation rule, the printed claims contain "CEM" (claim 16) and the anomalous "method of claim 2" dependency (claim 12); three certificates of correction (2009-09-22, 2009-10-27, 2010-03-23) may have altered claim text I have not retrieved. This analysis uses the claim text as fetched.
• Status. Legal status is Active with an adjusted expiration of 2026-09-29; depending on today's date, challenges may be of reduced practical value, though the analysis stands as a validity assessment.
• No litigation was found (see prior section), so no inter partes validity record exists to test these grounds.

Bottom line: Claims 1, 11, 17 and 20 are prima facie obvious over US 5,447,414 in view of US 4,978,896 (optionally with US 2005/0280384 A1, US 2003/0011342 A1, and the well-known fan/affinity laws), with the remaining claims obvious as routine regression refinements and conventional system/method implementations. The single most contestable step is the derivation of the composite S·CFM² term specifically, but the combination of '414's multiplicative S·Q cross term, '896's express quadratic-flow teaching, and the affinity laws provides adequate motivation under KSR.