Ex Parte Crites

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2018

13017002 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/017,002
98262 7590
David E. Crites
15900 Rochin Terrace
Los Gatos, CA 95032
01129/2011
05/02/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David E. Crites
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.
CI Pl 5734
EXAMINER
CLARKE, ADAMS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2867
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2018 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):
critesd@umich.edu
davidcrites@frontier.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID E. CRITES
Appeal2016-004561
Application 13/017 ,002
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, GEORGE C. BEST, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
February 20, 2015 decision finally rejecting claims 25-27 and 32-36 ("Final
Act.") and maintained in the Examiner's Answer. 2 We have jurisdiction over
the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as the inventor/applicant David E.
Crites (Appeal Br. 2).
2 Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14--19, and 29-31 have been allowed (Final
Act. 1 7) and are not part of this appeal.
Appeal 2016-004561
Application 13/017,002
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's disclosure is directed to a photovoltaic (PV) monitoring
system which measures the health of PV installations by measuring, calculating,
and reporting the passive (dark) and active (illuminated) electrical characteristics
of the PV strings, substrings, and modules that comprise the installation
(Abstract). Details of the claimed invention are set forth in claims 25, 27, 32,
and 35, which are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix:
25. An apparatus for in-situ monitoring of a PV installation
comprising one or more PV modules coupled in a circuit
topology, said apparatus comprising:
a sensor circuit configured to record at least one
characteristic of one or more installed modules of said PV
installation;
a switch configured to temporarily alter said topology of
said PV modules; and a processor configured to trigger said
switch by causing a signal to be propagated through an
electrode of at least one of said PV modules[;].
27. An apparatus for in-situ monitoring of a PV installation
comprising one or more PV modules coupled in a circuit
topology, said apparatus comprising:
a sensor circuit configured to record at least one
characteristic of one or more installed modules of said PV
installation;
a plurality of switches configured to alter said topology
of said PV modules; and
a control conductor configured such that a non-oscillating
signal on said control conductor initiates a temporally
sequential actuation of said switches.
32. A method for in-situ monitoring of a PY installation
comprising one or more PY modules coupled in a circuit
topology, said method comprising:
selecting a time to trigger a switch;
2
Appeal 2016-004561
Application 13/017,002
triggering said switch at said time by driving a signal
through an electrode of at least one installed module of said PY
installation, wherein said triggering alters said topology of said
PY modules; and
recording at least one characteristic of said one or more
modules.
35. An apparatus for in-situ monitoring of a PV installation
comprising one or more PV modules, said apparatus
compnsmg:
a stimulus circuit configured to apply, in-situ, a non-PY
electrical stimulus through one or more installed modules of
said PV installation, wherein said stimulus circuit is coupled to
a power circuit that provides electrical energy to said stimulus
circuit, and said power circuit is configured to be coupled to a
positive and negative electrode of at least one of said PV
modules;
a sensor circuit configured to measure at least one
passive response of said installed modules to said stimulus; and
a means for computing one or more passive electrical
parameters of said installed modules from said measure.
REJECTIONS AND GROUPING OF CLAIMS
I. Claims 25-27 and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Berry3 in view of Hightower, 4 and further in view of Wolfs. 5
II. Claims 35 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Jungerman. 6
3 Berry, US 2003/0159728 Al, published August 28, 2003.
4 Hightower et al., US 2011/0073150 Al, published March 31, 2011.
5 Wolfs, US 2008/0303503 Al, published December 11, 2008.
6 Jungerman et al., US 2011/0273163 Al, published November 10, 2011.
3
Appeal 2016-004561
Application 13/017,002
Appellant argues the claims in the following four groups: (1) claims 25
and 26; (2) claims 32 and 33; (3) claims 27 and 34; and (4) claims 35 and 36
(Appeal Br. 5).
DISCUSSION
Claims 25 and 26. Appellant argues that the proposed combination
"does not teach 'a processor configured to trigger said switch by causing a
signal to be propagated through an electrode of at least one of said PV
modules"' (Appeal Br. 5). The Examiner finds that this element is disclosed
by Wolfs (Final Act. 8). According to the Examiner, Wolfs teaches a
processor configured to trigger said switch by causing a signal to be
propagated through an electrode of at least one of said PV modules, and
further discloses that the control signal comes across the terminals of the PV
cell (id., citing Wolfs, Figs 6 and 7, i-fi-1 44 and 57). In particular, the
Examiner finds that processor 34 in Fig. 6 causes a control signal which
comes across Elements X and Y, as shown below:
30 ·--------------·
I
A ~-------4-X-B.-A.S-12-5\,-, -------i-...---____,,x
D2 36 D3 37 D4 38 I Cl D1 JS
+
~":1)hlr Generat(Jr i
[ ________ _l
M:S1'430
34
B
!:b33
l
L__
I
I
43
r> .. ,
f---+---1 --+-1-'
TLC.3702-
I
i
I
I
l
I
I
!
l
Ql 31 l
l
FDS9!:>26A
y I
Q2 32 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L ______ !
FIG. 6 of Wolf '503 is a diagrammatic view of a preferred embodiment of
4
Appeal 2016-004561
Application 13/017,002
the invention.
As persuasively explained by Appellant, however, Elements X and Y
are connected to the drain terminal of Q 1 and the drain terminal of Q2 (see
also, i-f 44 ("the output terminals of the solar generator/MPPT device are the
drain terminal of Q 1, point X and the junction of the source terminal of Q 1
and the drain terminal of Q2, point Y")). That is, again as explained by
Appellant (Reply Br. 2), Wolfs's circuit is to output a voltage through the X
and Y terminals of the PV generator, by triggering switches Q 1 and Q2
(Wolfs, Abstract i-f 44). Wolfs does not teach that switches QI and Q2 are
triggered by a signal through terminals X and Y of the PV generator, as is
required for purposes of the rejection.
Thus, Appellant has demonstrated reversible error in the Examiner's
finding that Wolfs teaches "a processor configured to trigger said switch by
causing a signal to be propagated through an electrode of at least one of said
PV modules."
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness based on an inherent or explicit disclosure of the claimed
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the
prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability."). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the
Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described
or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the
knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
107 4 (Fed. Cir. 198 8). In this instance, as discussed above, the Examiner
has not shown that at least one of the limitations in claim 25 is taught,
5
Appeal 2016-004561
Application 13/017,002
suggested, or otherwise rendered obvious by the cited art. Accordingly, we
reverse the rejection of claims 25 and 26.
Claims 32 and 33. The arguments set forth by Appellant in support
of the patentability of claims 32 and 33 are essentially the same as those for
claims 25 and 26, and are persuasive for the same reasons.
Claims 27 and 34. Appellant provides arguments for reversal of the
rejection of claims 27 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, which was
set forth in the Final Action. The Examiner then withdrew this rejection (Ans.
4). However, claims 27 and 34 were also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Berry in view of Hightower and further in view of Wolfs (Final
Act. 7, 9, and 12). Appellant offers no argument in support of reversing these
rejections (see, Appeal Br. 9-11) and, therefore, we summarily affirm them.
Claims 35 and 36. "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, Appellant contends that "Jungerman does not teach "said
power circuit is configured to be coupled to a positive and negative electrode
of at least one of said PV modules'" (Appeal Br. 11 ).
6
Appeal 2016-004561
Application 13/017,002
The Examiner finds that this element is shown by the following
annotated version of Jungerman's FIG. 1:
(!>''·~·•••••- J 'J"••-~•••• "-'••N•""•"'''~'''•••• "•""''''"""'°"""""'•"~.--••••.•~·- ••"•'··'· ••••••••••••••"• .. ,.,,, .... ,,. .... ,.,, .... ~·-••"'"'
Fioure 1 ·c.,
An annotated version of Jungerman's Figure 1 showing the
Examiner's findings with respect to why claim 35 is anticipated by
Jungerman.
In this interpretation of Jungerman's circuit, the Examiner finds that
power supply 5 is connected to one electrode of solar device 2 through
processor 5 and component Vl, while simultaneously being connected to
other electrode of solar device 2 through component C.
Appellant argues that "the path highlighted by the examiner presumes
that the connection between the processor and charger extends to the power
supply, yet there is no connection drawn to the power supply" and contrasts
the lack of a connection between the power supply and processor with the
direct connection which is clearly shown from the power supply to output 0
7
Appeal 2016-004561
Application 13/017,002
via switch SC (Appeal Br. 11-12). This argument is persuasive. The
Examiner explicitly states in the Answer that:
Jungerman discloses that the power circuit (Element 5) is
coupled to the solar device (Element 2) through the processor
(Element 9) and the charge storage device (Element C). Simply
because Jungerman does not use the phrase "coupled together"
does not mean it would be beyond one skilled in the art to
couple a power supply and charger together. Furthermore at
the time the invention was made it would have been obvious to
one skilled in the art to couple a power supply and charger
together.
(Ans. 10, emphasis added). As shown in the foregoing passage, the
Examiner agrees that the limitation at issue is not expressly described in
Jungerman, but instead would have been obvious. The rejection, however, is
an anticipation rejection under § 102(b ), not an obviousness rejection under
§ 103(a). As such, if some of the limitations of the claim would only have
been obvious over Jungerman, the anticipation rejection must be reversed.
We do not reach the issue of whether the claim might have been obvious
over Jungerman, as that issue is not before us because the Examiner did not
reject claims 35 and 36 pursuant to§ 103(a).
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 25, 26, 32, and 33 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Berry in view of Hightower, and
further in view of Wolfs.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 27 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Berry in view of Hightower, and further in view of Wolfs.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 35 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by Jungerman.
8
Appeal 2016-004561
Application 13/017,002
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9