Ex Parte Andresen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 30, 2017

13155618 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2017)

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. 13/155,618 06/08/2011 Bjorn ANDRESEN 2010P03237US 3380 22116 7590 09/01/2017 SIEMENS CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230 EXAMINER PARRIES, DRU M Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2836 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/01/2017 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): IPDadmin.us@siemens.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BJORN ANDRESEN, PER EGEDAL, and DRAGAN OBRADOVIC Appeal 2016-001625 Application 13/155,618 Technology Center 2800 Before CHUNG K. PAK, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges. WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s September 9, 2014 decision finally rejecting claims 14—33 (“Final Act.”). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Siemens Aktiengesellschaft (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2016-001625 Application 13/155,618 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants’ invention is directed to a method for controlling a power production entity, includes generating a plurality of electric power signals by a plurality of power production entities, measuring a plurality of power levels of the plurality of power signals, modifying the plurality of power signals, supplying the plurality of modified power signals at a common node, and adjusting an operation voltage of at least one power production entity of the plurality of power production entities based on the plurality of measured power levels such that a power loss of the power signals caused by the modifying and/or supplying is minimized. The independent claims recite the method described above, a system for controlling a power production entity using that method, and an electric power facility comprising that system. Independent claim 14 is representative and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief (emphasis added): 14. A method for controlling a power production entity, the method comprising: generating a plurality of electric power signals by a plurality of power production entities; measuring a plurality of power levels of the plurality of power signals; modifying the plurality of power signals; supplying the plurality of modified power signals at a common node; and adjusting an operation voltage of at least one power production entity of the plurality of power production entities based on the plurality of measured power levels such that a 2 Appeal 2016-001625 Application 13/155,618 power loss of the power signals caused by the modifying and/or supplying is minimized. REJECTIONS I. Claims 14, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, and 27—33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Cardinal ’817.2 II. Claims 15, 16, 19, 21, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cardinal ’817. III. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cardinal ’817 in view of Cardinal ’994.3 Appellants’ arguments are directed to limitations recited in independent claim 14 and common to the remaining independent claims (see Appeal Br. 6—7; Reply Br. 2-4). Accordingly, our discussion will focus on the anticipation rejection of claim 14 over Cardinal ’817. DISCUSSION “A prior art reference anticipates a patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) if it discloses every claim limitation.” In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1336—37 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). In this instance, with regards to independent claim 1, Appellants argue that Cardinal ’817 does not disclose a method with the following step: adjusting an operation voltage of at least one power production entity of the plurality of power production entities based on the plurality of measured power levels such that a power loss of the 2 Cardinal et al., US 2009/0218817 Al, published September 3, 2009. 3 Cardinal et al., US 2010/0025994 Al, published February 4, 2010. 3 Appeal 2016-001625 Application 13/155,618 power signals caused by the modifying and/or supplying is minimized. (Appeal Br. 7). Thus, according to Appellants, the claimed method requires adjustment of the operation voltage of the power production entity based on the plurality of measured levels of the plurality power signals {id.). The Examiner does not dispute this claim construction {see Ans. 2—5). The Examiner finds that this limitation is described in Cardinal ’817 at 127 which, according to the Examiner: explicitly teaches managing distribution of reactive power production (Q1-Q3) among the power production entities (generators 201—203; Fig. 5). That is, managing which power production entity (201-203) produces how much reactive power (Q1-Q3), hence the power commands 251-253) which adjusts the operation voltage of the power production entities. (Ans. 2, emphasis in original). After reviewing the findings and arguments set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action and the Answer, and Appellants’ arguments as set forth in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief, we determine that the preponderance of the evidence supports Appellants’ contention that the Examiner has not adequately demonstrated that Cardinal ’817 discloses minimizing power loss by adjusting an operation voltage of at least one power production entity based on the plurality of measured power levels, as recited in claim 14, essentially for the reasons set forth by Appellants. We add the following for emphasis. While Cardinal ’817 discloses that its system incorporates an algorithm whose technical effect is minimizing electrical losses for the windfarm system (Cardinal ’817 113), there is no teaching that this algorithm adjusts an operation voltage of at least one power production entity based on the measured power levels, as recited in claim 14. 4 Appeal 2016-001625 Application 13/155,618 Moreover, the disclosure of 127 of Cardinal ’817 does not disclose adjusting operation voltages of any type. In FIG. 7 and 46, Cardinal ’817 discloses that the power loss minimizing algorithm sends reactive power commands to the individual generators. However, Cardinal ’817 clearly distinguishes between voltages and reactive power commands (see, e.g. 113). Thus, it is not clear that Cardinal ‘817 discloses adjusting an operation voltage of an individual power production entity based on the plurality of measured power levels to minimize power losses.4 The Examiner has not demonstrated that the preponderance of the evidence of record supports a finding that Cardinal ’817 teaches “adjusting an operation voltage of at least one power production entity of the plurality of power production entities based on the plurality of measured power levels such that a power loss of the power signals caused by the modifying and/or supplying is minimized” as recited in claim 14. In re Hughes, 345 F.2d 184, 188 (CCPA 1965) (If a prior art reference is subject to two interpretations, then it is ambiguous and will not support an anticipation rejection). Accordingly, we determine that Appellants have demonstrated reversible error in the anticipation rejection of independent claims 14, 27, and 31.5 With regard to Rejections II and III which relate to various dependent claims, the Examiner has not made additional findings sufficient 4 The Specification defines “operational voltage” as “voltage level the individual power production entities supply.. .to the point of common coupling.” Spec. 1,11. 22—24. 5 Should prosecution of this application continue, the Examiner may wish to consider whether an obviousness rejection over Cardinal ’817 would be appropriate, particularly in view of the disclosures in || 14 and 25. 5 Appeal 2016-001625 Application 13/155,618 to overcome the lack of teachings in Cardinal ’817 about the adjustment of operational voltages based on measured power levels to minimize power loss. Accordingly, we also reverse these rejections. CONCLUSION We REVERSE the rejection of claims 14, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, and 27—33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Cardinal ’817. We REVERSE the rejection of claims 15, 16, 19, 21, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cardinal ’817. We REVERSE the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cardinal ’817 in view of Cardinal ’994. REVERSED 6