Enphase Energy, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 14, 2021

2020006433 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 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. 15/623,969 06/15/2017 Mohammad Alkuran EE211 1926 54698 7590 12/14/2021 MOSER TABOADA 1030 BROAD STREET SUITE 203 SHREWSBURY, NJ 07702 EXAMINER MCCULLEY, RYAN D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2611 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/14/2021 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@mtiplaw.com llinardakis@mtiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MOHAMMAD ALKURAN, CASEY JOHN RUSSELL BLAIR, CHRIS EICH, and BENOÎT MENENDEZ Appeal 2020-006433 Application 15/623,969 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, RAE LYNN P. GUEST, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Enphase Energy, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-006433 Application 15/623,969 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application is directed “to determining energy flow information and, more particularly, to presenting a visualization of the energy flow information pertaining to a distributed energy resource (DER).” Spec. ¶ 2. According to Appellant, a home may use both a solar power energy source and a commercial electrical grid, and “[i]n order for an operator of the DER (such as a homeowner) to evaluate system operation and efficiencies, it is necessary to understand the various flows of energy between the energy sources and the energy recipients.” Spec. ¶ 3. Claims 1-20 are pending; claims 1, 8, 15 are independent. Appeal Br. 16-23. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (emphasis added): 1. A method for visualizing energy flows, comprising: obtaining, by a controller comprising at least one processor, a plurality of measured energy flow values for a plurality of energy flows between a plurality of energy sources and a plurality of energy sinks, wherein (i) the plurality of energy sources comprises a plurality of DC energy sources coupled to a plurality of DC-AC power conditioners in a one-to-one correspondence, and (ii) at least one measured energy flow value of the plurality of measured energy flow values is a measurement of energy flow from an energy source of the plurality of energy sources to two or more energy sinks of the plurality of energy sinks; computing, by the controller, a plurality of energy flow values based on the plurality of measured energy flow values and a set of energy priority allocation rules, wherein each computed energy flow value of the plurality of energy flow values represents energy flow between an energy source of the plurality of energy sources and an energy sink of the plurality of energy sinks, and wherein a number of types of computed energy flow values is greater than a number of types of measured energy flow values; and Appeal 2020-006433 Application 15/623,969 3 generating, by the controller, a display image representing at least one computed energy flow value of the plurality of energy flow values, the display image providing a visualization of energy flow between at least one energy source of the plurality of energy sources and at least one energy sink of the plurality of energy sinks. Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). References and Rejections Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shiokawa (US 2012/0228933 A1; Sept. 13, 2012) in view of Satake (US 2015/0229268 A1; Aug. 13, 2015). Final Act. 4. Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shiokawa, Satake, and Kubota (US 2013/0297084 A1; Nov. 7, 2013). Final Act. 7. Claims 5, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shiokawa, Satake, and Becattini (US 2016/0164299 A1; June 9, 2016). Final Act. 8. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner relies on Shiokawa for the majority of the claim limitations, but finds “Shiokawa does not disclose (i) the plurality of energy sources comprises a plurality of DC energy sources coupled to a plurality of DC-AC power conditioners in a one-to-one Appeal 2020-006433 Application 15/623,969 4 correspondence.” Final Act. 5; Shiokawa Figs. 1-4. The Examiner cites to Satake for teaching “a plurality of DC-AC power conditioners in a one-to- one correspondence,” and determines “substituting the combined DC-AC power conditioner of Shiokawa for the individual DC-AC power conditioners of Satake would amount to simple substitution of one known element for another” as well as “increase flexibility.” Final Act. 5; Satake Fig. 2. Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection is in error: [T]here is no logical reasoning why one skilled in the art would seek to use Satake’s DC-AC inverter configuration - which is required in order to provide DC power to the storage battery - in Shiokawa’s system - which does not need DC-AC conversion to provide DC power to the multiple DC loads - as proposed by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis added). In particular, Appellant contends “Shiokawa’s system comprises multiple DC loads” which do not require Satake’s teaching of “DC power that is converted to AC power and coupled to the AC power line.” Id. at 8, 9. Appellant further contends “Appellant respectfully maintains that the Examiner has not provided sufficient motivation for modifying Shiokawa’s system as proposed.” Appeal Br. 12. We are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error. We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner erred and adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner, to the extent consistent with our analysis below. We add the following primarily for emphasis. First, we note Appellant’s arguments focus on the specific design of an energy generation and consumption system, whereas the claim is directed to data visualization. Specifically, the disputed limitation recites “obtaining . . . a plurality of measured energy flow values,” and the DC-AC power Appeal 2020-006433 Application 15/623,969 5 conditioners are claimed to the extent they inform these obtained values. Appellant fails to show the Examiner’s combination of Shiokawa and Satake does not obtain a plurality of measured energy flow values-including values based on DC-AC power conditioners-within the meaning of the claim. In the Final Action, the Examiner finds one of ordinary skill would use Shiokawa’s data visualization teachings on a variety of systems, including systems with Satake’s plurality of DC-AC power conditioners. See Final Act. 5 (The combination “allow[s] the visualization software to control different kinds of energy management systems including known systems having power conditioners in a one-to-one correspondence with the energy sources.”); Shiokawa ¶ 51 (“a display control unit 60 for displaying the status of the operation of the power supply system”). We agree, as the use of known data visualization techniques on systems containing known electrical devices is no “more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). For at least this reason, we do not find the Examiner’s rejection is in error. Second, even with respect to the claimed use of a plurality of DC-AC conditioners in a distributed energy resource system, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We find the Examiner has presented sufficient reasoning to support the finding of obviousness. See Final Act. 5 (finding the substitution of the combined DC-AC power conditioner of Shiokawa for the individual DC-AC power conditioners of Satake yielded “predictable results because the two techniques perform the same general and predictable function of converting DC energy from a plurality of DC energy sources to Appeal 2020-006433 Application 15/623,969 6 AC energy for a plurality of energy sinks.”); see MPEP 2143 (Providing examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness.). In response, Appellant argues the Examiner has not shown the combination is “the most logical and efficient technique.” Appeal Br. 12. Such argument “is unpersuasive from a legal standpoint because it . . . relies on the mistaken premise that the prior art must teach that a particular combination is preferred, or ‘optimal,’ for the combination to be obvious.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201-02 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Based on the record before us, we do not find error in the Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill would use Satake’s power conditioners in the system of Shiokawa as claimed, particularly in light of the cited references’ teachings of power conversion and both DC and AC sinks.2 See Final Act. 5; Shiokawa Fig. 1 (items 5, 6, and 7); Satake Fig. 2 (items 120, 132, 142, 152). Third, Appellant’s argument is not responsive to the Examiner’s rationale. Appellant’s argument refers to the DC-AC converter used for Satake’s storage battery (see Appeal Br. 9), but does not address the Examiner’s citation to the DC-AC converters used for Satake’s solar cells and fuel cells (see Final Act. 5). See Satake ¶¶ 51, 55, Fig. 2 (describing DC-AC converters of Figure 2). As acknowledged by Appellant, “in today’s solar market where both module-level microinverters and central inverters 2 We further note claim 1 recites “energy sinks” without specifying whether these sinks are DC or AC loads. Thus, the claim encompasses either type of load and any accompanying power conditioning required to meet either type of load. Accordingly, we note Shiokawa’s “energy sinks” are not limited to DC power loads, but rather “bi-directional AC/DC converter 44” also “converts DC power obtained, for example from solar cell 3, into AC power and supplied the power to the AC distribution board 11.” Shiokawa ¶ 38. Appeal 2020-006433 Application 15/623,969 7 are both known, some solar power systems are microinverter-based and some solar power systems are central inverter based.” Appeal Br. 12. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the reason for combining the teachings of Shiokawa and Satake is no more than “simple substitution of one known element (i.e. individual DC-AC power conditioners) for another known element (i.e. a combined DC-AC power conditioner) for producing a predictable result.” Final Act. 6. In the Reply brief, Appellant raises new arguments. See, e.g, Reply Br. 3 (“[T]he proposed modification would result in Shiokawa’s DC loads receiving AC power rather than the required DC power” and “Satake’s bi- directional DC-AC converter does not perform a ‘double conversion.’”). These arguments could have been-but were not-raised in the Appeal Brief. See Ans. 4. Thus, Appellant’s new arguments are not timely raised, and will not be considered. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2); see also Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473-74 (BPAI 2010) (informative opinion). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding the limitations of claim 1 to be rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Shiokawa and Satake. We sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, and the rejections of the remaining claims, which are not separately argued. See Appeal Br. 12-14. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed. Appeal 2020-006433 Application 15/623,969 8 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, 19, 20 103 Shiokawa, Satake 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, 19, 20 3, 10, 17 103 Shiokawa, Satake, Kubota 3, 10, 17 5, 12, 18 103 Shiokawa, Satake, Becattini 5, 12, 18 Overall Outcome 1-20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED