Ex Parte Cardinal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 18, 2016

12606028 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 12/606,028 13077 7590 Sutherland GE Suite 2300 999 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 10/26/2009 Mark Edward Cardinal 03/22/2016 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. 19441-0414 1993 EXAMINER GAMI, TEJAL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2127 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2016 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): patent. docket@sutherland.com pair_sutherland@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARK EDWARD CARDINAL, JIGNESH GOVINDLAL GANDHI and ANDREAS KIRCHNER Appeal2014-006063 Application 12/606,028 Technology Center 2100 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JOHNNY A. KUMAR and MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20, which are all the claims pending in the application. Claims 2, 9 and 16 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. Appeal2014-006063 Application 12/606,028 Invention The claimed invention on appeal is directed to "controlling power ramp rates in renewable variable power generation systems." (Spec. i-f 1 ). Illustrative Claim 1. A method for regulating collective power output of a plurality of variable energy sources, the method comprising: monitoring collective power output of the plurality of variable energy sources; [LI] predicting future collective available power levels of the plurality of variable energy sources based at least in part on a first desired collective power ramp rate over a first time duration and a second desired collective power ramp rate over a second time duration, wherein the predicting of the future collective available power levels comprises: [L2] establishing an average ramp rate for each time duration calculated as follows (Xn- Xn-N+ I), wherein Xn is a power output at nth time period and lv is the total number of time periods in the time duration; [L3] determining the future collective available power levels based on the average ramp rate; [L4] comparing the future collective available power levels to a settable ramp rate limit; [L5] based on the comparison, modifYing, using at least one modifYing function, the predicted collective available power levels based at least in part on limiting the rate of change of the predicted collective available power levels depending upon a direction of power change, wherein the at least one modifYing function provides for faster slew rates when reducing power, to rapidly correct a transient condition, and slower slew rates when increasing power, wherein the at least one modifYing 2 Appeal2014-006063 Application 12/606,028 function includes a low pass filter and a slew rate limiter; [L6] determining a power regulation setpoint based on the modified predicted collective available power levels; [L 7] selecting a minimum of the collective available power levels and the power regulation setpoint; based at least in part on the selection, generating a net power command signal based at least in part on the modified predicted collective available power levels; generating a plurality of power control signals based at least in part on the net power command signal; and controlling collective power output of the plurality of variable energy sources with the plurality of power control signals to allow different collective rates of change of power output depending upon the direction of power change or upon previous power changes, wherein the collective rate of change of power output of the variable energy sources does not exceed a first desired collective power ramp rate over a first duration. (Emphasis added regarding the contested limitations, labeled as "L 1" through "L 7"). Rejection Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as anticipated by Liu et al. (US 2010/0057267 Al; published March 4, 2010). Contentions Regarding the anticipation rejection of claim 1, Appellants contest the Examiner's rejection of limitation LI. (App. Br. 7-8.) Appellants particularly contend, inter alia: 3 Appeal2014-006063 Application 12/606,028 Liu does not disclosure predicting future collective available power levels. The Examiner equates the terms "future collective available power levels" of independent claim 1 and Liu 's "desired collective output power." Even though Liu does not provide any guidance as to the meaning of "desired collective output power" (the term is used in Liu 's claims only), Liu 's specification appears to suggest that "desired collective output power" is a predetermined value set by system operators (see paragraph [0038] of Liu, for example) and is not a value calculated or predicted by Liu. Thus, "future collective available power levels" of independent claim 1 cannot be reasonably characterized as "desired collective output power" of Liu. Accordingly, "predicting future collective available power levels of the plurality of variable energy sources based at least in part on a first desired collective power ramp rate over a first time duration and a second desired collective power ramp rate over a second time duration" recited by independent claim 1 is not disclosed in Liu. (App. Br. 7.) The Examiner disagrees: Appellant claims, "predicting future collective available power levels." Just as a "ramp rate prediction algorithm" is used to "predict the pov,rer output" in appellant's specification paragraphs [0032]- [0033], prior art Liu paragraph [0042] uses an algorithm to "estimate" a ramp rate and power output/level. Also see, prior art Liu paragraph [0039] for "calculated" control based on output power level; and prior art Liu paragraph [0041] for algorithm to "compute" an output power ramp rate. Under such considerations, the prior art discloses predicting (e.g., "calculated," "compute," "estimation"). (Ans. 22.) ISSUE Issue: Under Â§ 102, did the Examiner err by finding Liu expressly or inherently discloses contested limitation L 1, within the meaning of claim 1? 4 Appeal2014-006063 Application 12/606,028 ANALYSIS We focus our analysis on contested limitation L 1, and need not reach contested limitations L2-L 7 to decide this appeal. Limitation L 1 recites: [L 1] predicting future collective available power levels of the plurality of variable energy sources based at least in part on a first desired collective power ramp rate over a first time duration and a second desired collective power ramp rate over a second time duration, wherein the predicting of the future collective available power levels comprises: [L2-L4] (Claim 1 ). The Examiner responds to Appellants' contentions regarding limitation L 1, and refers generally to paragraphs 39, 41, and 42 of Liu. (Ans. 22). The Examiner finds "prior art Liu paragraph [0042] uses an algorithm to 'estimate' a ramp rate and power output/level. Also see, prior art Liu paragraph [0039] for 'calculated' control based on output power level; and prior art Liu paragraph [0041] for algorithm to 'compute' an output power ramp rate." (Ans. 22). However, Liu (i-f42) does not disclose estimation of "power output/level" as alleged by the Examiner. Instead, Liu discloses the estimation pertains to a ramp rate, not a power level. Specifically, Liu describes (i-f42): Actual output power ramp rate 142 of the collective PV subsystems 42 is established by a ramp rate estimation module 122. In one embodiment, ramp rate estimation module 122 may comprise an algorithm adapted to determine a rolling average of rate of change of sensed collective PV subsystem power output. (Emphasis added). No mention is made of an estimated power output or level. The Examiner further points to "Liu paragraph [0039] for 'calculated' control 5 Appeal2014-006063 Application 12/606,028 based on output power level; and prior art Liu paragraph [0041] for [an] algorithm to 'compute' an output power ramp rate." (Ans. 22). Liu (i-f39) describes: "According to one embodiment, subsystem level control of output power ramp rate may be achieved via limiting of a power command by the rate limiting signal. Output current set points are then calculated based on output power level settings and applied to the respective PV subsystems 42." However, we find calculation of current set points based on output power level settings does not anticipate "predicting future collective available power levels," as recited in claim 1. (Emphasis added). Moreover, as acknowledged by the Examiner (Ans. 22), Liu (i-f4 l) discloses the computation of an output power ramp rate, not a power level. We additionally note Liu describes a ramp rate algorithm 98 (i-f 41, Fig. 4), and a ramp rate estimation module 122 (i-f 42, Fig. 4). The ramp rate algorithm monitors collective subsystem power output and computes an output power ramp rate request. (i-f 41 ). The ramp rate estimation module comprises an algorithm to determine a rolling average rate of change of sensed collective output power. (i-f42). No estimation or prediction of "future collective available output power levels" (claim 1) is disclosed in either instance. Nor does the Examiner provide any supporting factual evidence or technical reasoning explaining how limitation L 1 is inherently disclosed by Liu. '"In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily Â±1ows from the teachings of the applied prior art:' Ex: parte Levy, l 7 USPQ2d 1461 ~ 1464 (BPAI 1990) (emphasis added). 6 Appeal2014-006063 Application 12/606,028 The Examiner suggests that a prediction or estimation of power output/level occurs via an algorithm (Ans. 22, Liu i-f 42), however, there is no evidence provided that contested limitation L 1 necessarily flows from the relied-upon features of Liu's disclosure. 1 Remaining independent claims 8 and 15 each recite contested limitation L 1 in commensurate form. Therefore, for the aforementioned reasons, we reverse the Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 over Liu. Because we have reversed the rejection of each independent claim on appeal, we also reverse the anticipation rejection of each associated dependent claim. Conclusion On this record, and by a preponderance of the evidence, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 under Â§ 102( e ), for at least the reasons argued on pages 7-9 of the Brief, as further discussed above. 1 "Inherency ... may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient." In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, (Fed. Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted). 7 Appeal2014-006063 Application 12/606,028 DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 under Â§ 102( e ). REVERSED 8