Ex Parte Alonso Sadaba et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 3, 2016

12863472 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/863,472
120954 7590
SF General
Polsinelli PC
FILING DATE
08/12/2010
11/07/2016
Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1350
San Francisco, CA 94111
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Oscar Alonso Sadaba
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
P/495-186 (V 16256) 6664
EXAMINER
WILSON, KIMBERLY LOVEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/07/2016 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):
adrury@polsinelli.com
cadocket@Polsinelli.com
ASkovmand@Polsinelli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OSCAR ALONSO SADABA, TERESA ARLEAN GABEIRAS,
RICARDO ROYO GARCIA, and MIGUEL NUNEZ POLO
Appeal2015-005901
Application 12/863,472
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-005901
Application 12/863,472
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 17, 19, 21, 23, 27, and 28. Final Act. 1. The remaining pending
claims 18, 20, 22, 25, and 26, have been indicated as allowable or have been
objected to for informalities but are otherwise allowable. Id. Claims 1-16
and 24 have been cancelled. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claims
Exemplary claim 17 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
17. Control method of a wind farm, the wind farm
comprising an array of wind turbines, each wind turbine of said array
of wind turbines comprising a rotor, a generator, a control unit and
means of connection to the wind farm, said wind turbines being
endowed with means for generating reactive power following
instructions of a control system of the wind farm, said method
comprising the step of calculating a global demand for reactive power
to be produced by the entire farm on the basis of a voltage at a
connection point or a po\~1er factor, \~1herein said method fi1rther
comprises the following steps:
•receiving one or several thermal parameters from each wind
turbine providing information on values of temperatures of electrical
components included in each wind turbine, at least one of the thermal
parameters from each wind turbine providing information on a value
of a temperature of an electrical component of the electrical
components that is closest to a temperature limit of the electrical
component;
• calculating, on the basis of the global demand for reactive
power and of the values of the thermal parameters received, the
instructions for reactive power production for the different wind
turbines which reduce the values of the temperatures of the electrical
components of those wind turbines displaying greater heating, the
instructions for reactive power production collectively satisfying the
global demand for reactive power and;
2
Appeal2015-005901
Application 12/863,472
• sending said instructions to each wind turbine.
Rejections
1. The Examiner rejected claims 17, 19, and 21under35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Bose et al. (US
7,983,799 B2; July 19, 2011), Avagliano et al. (US 2006/0273595 Al; Dec.
7, 2006), and Llorente Gonzalez et al. (US 2007 /0073445 Al; Mar. 29,
2007). 1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 23 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Bose and Avagliano. 2
3. The Examiner rejected claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Bose, A vagliano, and Rivas et al. (US
2008/0150283 Al). 3
Appellants ' Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[T]he Examiner fails to cogently explain how Bose satisfies the
step of "calculating, on the basis of the global demand for
reactive power and of values of the parameters received, the
instructions for reactive power production for the different wind
turbines, the instructions for reactive power production
collectively satisfj;ing the global demand for reactive power" as
1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 19 and 21. Except for our
ultimate decision, claims 19 and 21 are not discussed further herein.
2 Separate patentability is not argued for claim 27. Except for our ultimate
decision, claim 2 7 is not discussed further herein.
3 Separate patentability is not argued for claim 28. Appellants address this
claim only by referencing the arguments for claim 23. Except for our
ultimate decision, this claim is not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal2015-005901
Application 12/863,472
recited in claim 1 7. The Examiner essentially cites to multiple
independent passages and provides no analysis how these
individual passages satisfy the claimed feature quoted above.
App. Br. 6, emphasis added.
2. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
The examiner's interpretation of Avagliano is indeed incomplete
as what A vagliano was proposing and has a totally different
implication on the temperature of electrical components when
compared with the applicant's invention, especially concerning
the use of the thermal sensors to send instructions to the wind
turbines to produce power.
App. Br. 6.
3. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Appellants submit that a person of skill in the art would
never use the teachings of A vagliano if they are aiming at
reducing the temperature of any component. Furthermore,
Appellants submit that a person of skill in the art would not be
motivated to combine the teachings of Bose and Avagliano in
order to "reduce the values of the temperatures of the electrical
components of those wind turbines displaying greater heating,"
(claim 17) while maintaining a global demand for reactive power
since A vagliano merely teaches to enable a wind turbine
maximize the power it can produce by increasing its power
rating .... In fact, A vagliano further teaches that this stress must
be performed intermittently while monitoring thermal
parameters in order to ensure baseline life. Therefore, the
overstress of the electrical components taught by A vagliano
clearly teaches away from enabling those wind turbines,
comprising an electrical component with a temperature that is
closest to its corresponding limit, to reduce their temperature,
while those that are less thermally stressed compensate for the
remaining reactive power as provided in claim 17.
App. Br. 7, emphasis omitted.
4
Appeal2015-005901
Application 12/863,472
4. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Avagliano only refers to the production of active power, not
reactive power as in the claimed invention.
App. Br. 7.
5. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
All in all, A vagliano does not satisfy a global demand of reactive
power, while maintaining a reduced temperature in the electrical
components of several wind turbines within a wind farm as stated
in claim 1 7. Furthermore, its teachings would not in any case
lead to a reduction in temperatures of any kind of component.
App. Br. 7.
6. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Llorente teaches that a module may be deactivated to reduce its
heating and does not teach calculating instructions that lead to
power generation within a wind turbine that reduce the heating,
while maintaining the global reactive power generation of the
wind farm. Llorente deals with the problem of heating in a single
wind turbine, more precisely in a modular power converter of a
wind turbine. It is unclear how the teachings for a single wind
turbine can be applied to manage the reactive power production
of a whole wind farm and even less affect more than one wind
turbine (the wind turbines displaying greater heating).
App. Br. 8.
7. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because in Avagliano and Llorente Gonzalez:
[R ]eduction is not made only when an element reaches a
determined temperature limit, since it is made to prevent
reaching such a limit by equilibrating a wind farm permitting
those wind turbines containing a component having a
5
Appeal2015-005901
Application 12/863,472
temperature that is closest to its corresponding limit to be able to
reduce its temperature even before reaching the mentioned limit,
while those that are less thermally stressed compensate for the
remaining reactive power.
App. Br. 9, emphasis omitted.
8. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
The teachings of A vagliano and Llorente cannot be combined
since they intend to solve different problems.
App. Br. 9.
9. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
A vagliano is silent about sending instructions for reactive power
reduction which are inductive or capacitive, depending on the
thermal parameters for each wind turbine, as claimed in
independent claim 23.
App. Br. 10.
The Examiner's citation of inductive/capacitive commands to
switching devices in A vagliano [paragraphs 20 and 21] simply
does not match [the] claim language.
Reply Br. 10.
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 17 and 23 as being obvious?
6
Appeal2015-005901
Application 12/863,472
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
As to Appellants' above contention 9, covering claim 23, we agree.
In response to Appellants' argument, the Examiner asserts
Paragraphs [0020] and [0021] of Avagliano teach ...
sending commands to various switching devices such as
capacitors. The commands have to either be inductive or
capacitive those are the two options. One can either tell the
device to generate or to store.
Ans. 10. This is not relevant to the claimed invention. Rather, the claim
limitation "the instructions for reactive power production are inductive or
capacitive" would be understood by an artisan to reference a capacitive
(leading) reactive power or an inductive (lagging) reactive power. 4
As to Appellants' above contentions 1-8, we disagree with
Appellants' conclusions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur
with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following
additional points.
4 "[I]f the load on the network demands lagging or leading reactive power,
the PV solar farm inverter is controlled to support a leading (capacitive) or a
lagging (inductive) reactive power. FIGS. 7 (a) and (b) show the flow of
reactive power for a lagging power factor and for a leading power factor
load condition, respectively." Varma et al. (US 2012/0205981 Al; August.
16, 2012) ii 123.
7
Appeal2015-005901
Application 12/863,472
As to Appellants' above contention 1, covering claim 1 7, we disagree.
The Examiner's rejection cites to Bose at "column 3, line 38 - column 4,
line 5; column 4, lines 12---60; and column 5, line 30- column 6, line 15."
Final Act. 4. Appellants contention (that the Examiner provides insufficient
analysis) overlooks that these sections of Bose are self-explanatory, i.e., they
explain that power generation control signals are generated and allocated to
individual assets.
As to Appellants' above contentions 2 and 3, we disagree. First, the
Examiner correctly points out (Ans. 4--5) that Appellants are attacking
A vagliano singly for lacking a teaching ("reduce the values of the
temperatures") that the Examiner relied on a combination of references as
disclosing. Particularly, the Examiner points to Llorente Gonzalez for this
limitation. Final Act. 7. It is well established that one cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA
1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants argue
a finding the Examiner never made. This form of argument is unavailing to
show Examiner error.
Appellants also assert that the rise in temperature of A vagliano 's
control method teaches away from controlling wind turbines to reduce their
temperature as in the claimed invention. App. Br. 7. As the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has counseled:
A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from
following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a
direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.
... [I]n general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the
8
Appeal2015-005901
Application 12/863,472
line of development flowing from the reference's disclosure is
unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant.
In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Appellants have not
attempted to persuade us that, as to the argued limitation (reduction of
temperature), the reference suggests that the line of development flowing
from the reference's disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result
sought by the Appellants. "A reference does not teach away ... if it merely
expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not
criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention
claimed." DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d
1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted). Here, Appellants have
merely stated what the prior art discloses (App. Br. 7), but have not
identified how the cited art criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages
the claimed limitation. At most, Appellants have simply argued that
A vagliano does not teach the limitation. Even if we agree, that is not
sufficient to "teach away" from the combination.
As to Appellants' above contentions 4--8, we disagree for the reasons
set forth by the Examiner.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 17, 19, and 21
as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Appellants have established the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 23, 27, and 28 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) Claims 17, 19, and21 are not patentable.
(4) Claims 23, 27, and 28 have not been shown to be unpatentable.
9
Appeal2015-005901
Application 12/863,472
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 17, 19, and 21 is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 23, 27, and 28 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10