Ex Parte Culligan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 2012

11006144 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

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. 11/006,144 12/07/2004 John Louis Culligan 2003 P 18526 US01 7208 28524 7590 10/31/2012 SIEMENS CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 170 WOOD AVENUE SOUTH ISELIN, NJ 08830 EXAMINER HOANG, ANN THI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2836 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/31/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ___________ Ex parte JOHN LOUIS CULLIGAN and RAY MONTGOMERY CLARK ___________ Appeal 2011-009300 Application 11/006,144 Technology Center 2800 __________ Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-009300 Application 11/006,144 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to an apparatus with a Rogowski coil current transformer (1500, Fig. 1) adapted to provide a signal correlated to an alternating current of a first phase of an electric circuit, the alternating current flowing through a circuit breaker (1420, Fig. 1), and a microprocessor (1800, Fig. 1) adapted to receive the signal from the current transformer, and to cause the circuit breaker to trip responsive to the signal exceeding a predetermined threshold (Spec. ¶ [5]). 1. An apparatus comprising: a Rogowski coil current transformer adapted to provide a signal correlated to an amperage of an alternating current of a first phase of an electric circuit, the alternating current flowing through a circuit breaker; and a microprocessor adapted to receive the signal from said Rogowski coil, and to cause the circuit breaker to trip of the amperage is between approximately 100 percent and approximately 120 percent of a maximum withstand rating of the circuit breaker for a time period of no less than approximately 30 current cycles. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner has rejected claims 1-16, 19-21, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rinaldi (U.S. Patent No. 6,295,190 B1; Sep. 25, 2001) in view of Tignor (U.S. Patent No. 6,469,882 B1; Oct. 22, 2002) and Girgis (U.S. Patent No. 4,455,612; June 19, 1984). Appeal 2011-009300 Application 11/006,144 3 The Examiner has rejected claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rinaldi in view of Tignor, Girgis, and Puccinelli (U.S. Patent No. 4,644,438; Feb. 17, 1987). The Examiner has rejected claims 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rinaldi in view of Tignor, Girgis, and Watson (U.S. Patent No. 3,666,994; May 30, 1972). ISSUE The issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Rinaldi, Tignor, and Girgis teaches the limitation of a microprocessor adapted to receive the signal from said Rogowski coil, and to cause the circuit breaker to trip if the amperage is between approximately 100 percent and approximately 120 percent of a maximum withstand rating of the circuit breaker for a time period of no less than approximately 30 current cycles as recited in claim 1. PRINCIPLES OF LAW 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. The degree of teaching away will of course depend on the particular facts; in general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the 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) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 52 (1966)). Appeal 2011-009300 Application 11/006,144 4 ANALYSIS Appellants argue that the combination of Rinaldi, Tignor, and Girgis does not teach the circuit breaker being “tripped ‘if the amperage is between approximately 100 percent and approximately 120 percent of a maximum withstand rating of the circuit breaker for a period of time of no less than 30 current cycles’” (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2). Appellants explain that Girgis merely teaches a delay for tripping a circuit breaker, but does not teach tripping a circuit breaker if an amperage is above a certain percentage of a withstand rating of the circuit breaker for a certain number of cycles (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2). The Examiner responds that Girgis was cited to teach tripping a circuit breaker after a time delay. The Examiner articulated that tripping the circuit breaker after a delay would avoid nuisance trips (Ans. 15). At most, Girgis teaches that the time period for a trip signal is “very quick[]” and approximately half of an AC cycle “or less” (col. 5, ll. 39-43). Thus, we agree with Appellants (Reply Br. 3-5), that Girgis is concerned with “swiftly” disconnecting from the network 12 (col. 4, ll. 56-58), and thus, someone following Girgis would be led in a path divergent from that taken by Appellants, who provide for an extended instantaneous protection by prolonging the time period of a trip signal at a value over 20 electric current cycles and up to 60 current cycles (see Spec. ¶ [58]). Accordingly, we find that Girgis teaches away from tripping a circuit breaker at “a time period of no less than approximately 30 current cycles” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). See Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553. Similarly, Tignor teaches, at best, tripping after about one cycle of an overcurrent condition (col. 1, ll. 49-51). Appeal 2011-009300 Application 11/006,144 5 Accordingly, as none of the cited references teach the claim limitation at issue, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 15, and 16, and for the same reason the rejections of claims 2-14 and 17-25. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in finding that Rinaldi, Tignor, and Girgis teach a microprocessor adapted to receive the signal from said Rogowski coil, and to cause the circuit breaker to trip if the amperage is between approximately 100 percent and approximately 120 percent of a maximum withstand rating of the circuit breaker for a time period of no less than approximately 30 current cycles. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-25 is reversed. REVERSED babc