Ex Parte GUGGISBERG et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2019

14286236 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
14/286,236
129925
ABB Inc.
7590
FILING DATE
05/23/2014
03/26/2019
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
One Indiana Square
Suite 3500
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2023
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Adrian GUGGISBERG
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.
ABBCH-55 7587
EXAMINER
LABOY ANDINO, NAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2838
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2019 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):
taft-ip-docket@taftlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADRIAN GUGGISBERG, JOHN ECKERLE, and
JONAS WAHLSTROEM 1
Appeal2018-005177
Application 14/286,236
Technology Center 2800
Before DONNA M. PRAISS, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 9, 11, and 13. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to "a method for eliminating an
arc driven by means of at least one phase voltage source of a converter
1 The Appellant is the Applicant, ABB Technology AG, and the real party in
interest is identified as ABB Schweiz AG. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-005177
Application 14/286,236
circuit." E.g., Spec. ,r 2; Claim 9. Claim 9 is reproduced below from page 8
( Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief:
1. A method for eliminating an arc driven by at least one phase
voltage source of a converter circuit, the converter circuit
having a converter unit and an energy storage circuit, wherein
the at least one phase voltage source is connected on an AC
voltage side of the converter unit, and the energy storage circuit
is connected on a DC voltage side of the converter unit, and
wherein the converter unit has a plurality of actuable power
semiconductor switches configured to rectify AC voltage when
electrical energy is flowing from the AC voltage side to the DC
voltage side or to invert DC voltage when electrical energy is
flowing from the DC voltage side to the AC voltage side, the
method comprising:
monitoring a surrounding environment of the converter circuit
for an occurrence of an arc light; and
actuating at least one of the plurality of actuable power
semiconductor switches of the converter unit upon detecting the
occurrence of the arc light, wherein the actuating of the at least
one of the plurality of actuable power semiconductor switches
of the converter unit comprises:
forming at least one short-circuiting path to quench the detected
arc via the at least one of the plurality of actuable power
semiconductor switches of the converter unit to short-circuit the
at least one phase voltage source and thereby eliminating the
detected arc.
ANALYSIS
Claims 9, 11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Trainer (US 2013/0208514 Al, published Aug. 15, 2013,
and claiming priority to a PCT filed June 18, 2010) and Panetta (US
2013/0003233 Al, published Jan. 3, 2013, and filed June 29, 2011).
After review of the cited evidence in the appeal record and the
opposing positions of the Appellant and the Examiner, we determine that the
2
Appeal2018-005177
Application 14/286,236
Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner's rejection.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection for reasons set forth below, in the Final
Action, and in the Examiner's Answer. See generally Final Act. 2-14; Ans.
2-13.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 9 appears at pages 9-13 of the
Final Action. Of particular relevance to the issues raised by the Appellant in
this case, the Examiner finds that Trainer discloses:
monitoring to detect an arc (e.g. 60 in Figs. 4a-4c) (see
paragraphs [0056] and [0081 ]; specifically in paragraph [0081]
Trainer states "In the event of a fault 60 in the DC network 48
resulting in high fault current 62 in the power electronic
converter, the primary switching elements 58 of the first and/or
second limb portions 54,56 are controllable in use to tum on so
as to be concurrently in on-states", which makes clear that high
fault currents are monitored for activating the protection
mechanism).
Final Act. 10-11 ( emphases in original; some emphases omitted). Element
60 in Figs. 4a--4c, cited by the Examiner, is identified by Trainer as a
"fault." E.g., Trainer ,r,r 81, 86. The Examiner acknowledges that Trainer
does not use the term "arc," but the Examiner finds that " [ o ]ne skilled in the
art would recognize that an arc fault in the DC side of the converter causes
high fault currents. Therefore, since Trainer is monitoring current for
detecting DC faults and an arc i[s] a known DC fault that causes high fault
currents, Trainer's protection method will also detect an arc." Final Act. 4;
see also Final Act. 6 ("[I]t is clear that [Trainer's] DC fault detector is being
3
Appeal2018-005177
Application 14/286,236
used for detecting the high fault currents indicative of a faulty condition
such as an arc in the DC side of the converter."). 2
The Examiner also acknowledges that Trainer does not "expressly
disclose detecting the arc by monitoring a surrounding environment of the
converter circuit for an occurrence of an arc light." Id. at 13. The Examiner
finds that "Panetta discloses detecting the arc by monitoring a surrounding
environment of the converter circuit for an occurrence of an arc light." Id.
(internal citations omitted). The Examiner determines that it would have
been obvious "to substitute the electric-type arc detector of Trainer by an
optical-type arc detector, as taught by Panetta, since optical sensor provides
[sic] advantages such as electrical passiveness and freedom of
electromagnetic interference." Id.
In view of those and other findings less material to the issues raised in
this appeal, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter of claim 9 would
have been obvious in view of the prior art. See id. at 9--13.
In the Appeal Brief, the Appellant first argues that "Trainer does not
monitor for arcs at all, but instead monitors current." App. Br. 4.
That argument is not persuasive. We agree with the Appellant that
Trainer expressly uses the term "fault" rather than "arc" to describe what
Trainer is detecting. E.g., Trainer ,r 56 ("upon detection of a fault"), ,r 81
2 In the Answer, the Examiner also finds that symbol 60 in Trainer's Figs.
4a--4c "is the electrical symbol for arc." Ans. 3--4. In the Reply Brief, the
Appellant disputes that finding. Reply Br. 2-3. As set forth in this decision,
our affirmance of the Examiner's rejection does not rely on a determination
that symbol 60 in Trainer's Figs. 4a--4c is the electrical symbol for arc.
Therefore, resolution of that particular factual dispute is not necessary to
decide this appeal.
4
Appeal2018-005177
Application 14/286,236
("in the event of a fault 60"). As set forth above, the Examiner also
recognizes that difference between the language of Trainer and the language
of claim 9. The Examiner addresses that difference by finding that "[ o ]ne
skilled in the art would recognize that an arc fault in the DC side of the
converter causes high fault currents. Therefore, since Trainer is monitoring
current for detecting DC faults and an arc i[s] a known DC fault that causes
high fault currents, Trainer's protection method will also detect an arc."
Final Act. 4, 6 ("[I]t is clear that [Trainer's] DC fault detector is being used
for detecting the high fault currents indicative of a faulty condition such as
an arc in the DC side of the converter."). In other words, the Examiner
acknowledges that Trainer does not use the word "arc," but finds that
Trainer nevertheless suggests detection of arcs because arcs are a known
type of fault that would cause high fault currents, such as those that are
detected by Trainer. See Final Act. 4, 6.
The Appellant does not persuasively dispute that arcs were a known
type of fault. Nor does the Appellant persuasively dispute that a person of
ordinary skill would have understood that Trainer's method would detect an
arc because an arc would cause high fault currents. The Appellant's
assertion that Trainer does not monitor for arcs but instead monitors current
does not meaningfully address the findings by the Examiner described above
or otherwise identify reversible error in them. Additionally, we observe that
the Examiner's rejection is not based on Trainer alone, but is based on the
combination of Trainer and Panetta, and there is no dispute that Panetta
discloses monitoring for arcs. E.g., Panetta ,r 15; see also In re Keller, 642
F.2d413, 426 (CCPA 1981) ("[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
5
Appeal2018-005177
Application 14/286,236
combinations of references."). Accordingly, the Appellant's argument that
Trainer does not monitor for arcs does not persuade us of reversible error in
the Examiner's rejection.
The Appellant also argues that the claimed invention is a method for
"eliminating" existing arcs, but that Trainer "prevents" arcs from occurring
in the first place and therefore does not teach the "eliminat[ion ]" of arcs.
App. Br. 4--5.
That argument is not persuasive because it does not persuasively
address or identify error in the Examiner's specific findings concerning the
aspects of Trainer relied upon by the Appellant. As the Examiner explains
in the Final Action, the Appellant's argument appears to ignore the word
"sustained" in Trainer: "[W]hat Trainer teaches is to prevent ( avoid) a
sustained (prolong) arc." Final Act. 4 (emphasis in original). Consistent
with the Examiner's analysis, in the "Background of the Invention" section,
Trainer describes a "sustained power arc," and, in the "Summary of the
Invention" section, states that its invention "prevents the formation of a
sustained power arc." Trainer ,r,r 14, 16 ( emphases added). If anything,
Trainer's disclosure that its invention prevents "sustained" arcs indicates that
brief or temporary arcs may be formed and quickly extinguished. See
id. ,r 16. On this record, and in view of the Appellant's failure to
meaningfully respond to the Examiner's findings concerning "sustained"
arcs, see Final Act. 4, we are not persuaded that the cited portions of Trainer
"teach[] away" from allowing the formation of arcs. See App. Br. 4--5.
The Appellant also argues that, because Trainer identifies "overhead
lines and/or undersea cables" applications for its invention, and those
6
Appeal2018-005177
Application 14/286,236
applications involve "long distance," it would be impractical to monitor a
surrounding environment for arc light. Id. at 5.
That argument is not persuasive. The Appellant identifies no aspect
of Trainer that suggests Trainer's invention is limited to long distance
applications. Trainer's discussion of overhead lines and undersea cables is
in the "Background of the Invention" section of Trainer. See Trainer ,r 2.
That Trainer's invention may be suitable for long distance applications does
not indicate that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it
unsuitable for other applications.
In any event, the Appellant's "impractical[ity ]" concern appears to be
an economic concern; i.e., it would be expensive to monitor the environment
of a long distance application for arc light. See Reply Br. 4 (mentioning
Trainer's disclosure of "cost per kilometer of the lines and/or cables"). Such
concerns are of limited relevance in an obviousness analysis. See In re
Farrenkopf, 713 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("That a given combination
would not be made by businessmen for economic reasons does not mean that
persons skilled in the art would not make the combination because of some
technological incompatibility. Only the latter fact would be relevant."). A
person of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of weighing the
benefits identified by the Examiner (e.g., "electrical passiveness and
freedom of electromagnetic interference," Final Act. 13) against the cost of
monitoring over long distances, and employing appropriate methods for each
application. See Winner Int'! Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349
n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the
expense of another benefit ... should not nullify its use as a basis to modify
7
Appeal2018-005177
Application 14/286,236
the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the
benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.").
The Appellant also argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would not have substituted Panetta's optical detector for Trainer's electrical
detector because "Trainer does not disclose an 'arc detector."' App. Br. 5.
That argument is not persuasive essentially for reasons discussed above.
The Appellant does not persuasively dispute that an arc is a known type of
fault, or that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
Trainer's invention would detect arcs for the reasons set forth by the
Examiner.
The Appellant also argues that "a key feature of Trainer would need to
be changed and the principle of operation changed" if the proposed
combination were made. Id. at 6. That argument is not persuasive. As
discussed above, it ignores the word "sustained" in Trainer and incorrectly
asserts that Trainer's goal is to prevent the formation of any arc, rather than
sustained arcs. See id. The Appellant provides no meaningful argument or
evidence that substituting Panetta's optical detector for Trainer's electrical
detector would have been beyond the ordinary level of skill in the art, or that
it would have failed to detect faults ( at least arc-type faults) as desired by
Trainer.
Additionally, in the Answer, the Examiner provides an alternative
rationale that, rather than substituting Panetta's optical detector for Trainer's
electrical detector, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to add Panetta's optical detector to Trainer's system (and keep
Trainer's electrical detector) "to enhance further the arc detection." Ans. 12.
8
Appeal2018-005177
Application 14/286,236
The Appellant does not address or otherwise assert error in that combination
rationale in the Reply Brief.
On this record, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 9. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) ("[I]t has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections .... ").
Claim 11 requires "visually" monitoring for the occurrence of arc
light. The Examiner relies on Panetta for its disclosure of visually
monitoring for arc light. Final Act. 13.
The Appellant argues that "Trainer makes no reference to visual
monitoring, and as noted, the high fault currents described therein are
intrinsically an internal property, not a surrounding visual occurrence."
App. Br. 6.
That argument is unpersuasive because it addresses Trainer alone and
does not address the Examiner's reliance on Panetta. See Keller, 642 F.2d at
426. We are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of
claim 11.
The Appellant raises no separate argument for claim 13, which
depends from claim 9. Accordingly, claim 13 falls with claim 9.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 9, 11, and 13.
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
9