Ex Parte ILODownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 14, 201914781514 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/781,514 09/30/2015 27799 7590 02/19/2019 Cozen O'Connor 277 Park A venue, 20th floor NEW YORK, NY 10172 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR AlbanaILO 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. 5029- l 428PUS/375355 8902 EXAMINER PATEL, JIGNESHKUMAR C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2118 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/19/2019 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): patentsecretary@cozen.com patentdocket@cozen.com patentsorter@cozen.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALBANA IL0 1 Appeal2018-007105 Application 14/781,514 Technology Center 2100 Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, SHARON PENICK, and RUSSELL E. CASS, Administrative Patent Judges. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 7-17, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. App. Br. 1-8. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. 1 Appellant lists Siemens AG as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed March 28, 2018 ("App. Br.") 2. 2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellant's arguments in their entirety, we refer to the above mentioned appeal brief, as well as the following documents for their respective details: the Final Action mailed October 13, 2017 ("Final Act."); the Examiner's Answer mailed May 1, 2018 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed July 2, 2018 ("Reply Br."). Appeal2018-007105 Application 14/781,514 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant describes the present invention as follows: A method for operating an energy supply network, wherein energy generation is decentralized, the energy supply network has three supply levels, and energy is generated in each supply level and is fed into the particular supply level, where the three supply levels each form an independent control unit that is connectable or disconnectable via interfaces between the control units as needed, an operator region is associated with each of the control units, in which operator region an energy feed-in and an energy consumption for the respective associated control unit are combined and controlled, and where an exchange of energy amounts between the control units is then controlled, such as in a demand-oriented manner, by the respective operator areas via the interfaces between associated control units by the control of parameters defined between the control units, such that the entire energy supply network can be dynamically controlled in a simple manner. Replacement Abstract filed Sept. 30, 2015. Independent claim 7, reproduced below, illustrates the appealed claims: 7. A method for operating an entire single energy supply network system having three supply levels, energy being generated and fed into each supply level by producers, the method comprising: configuring each of the three supply levels of the single energy supply network system as an independent regulating unit which is connected or disconnected via interfaces between respective regulating units as required; assigning a respective operator region to each of the regulating units, energy feed-in by producers and energy consumption by consumer loads of a respective supply level being combined and a respective regulating unit being controlled by the respective operator region; and controlling an exchange of energy amounts between respective regulating units by each associated operator region, 2 Appeal2018-007105 Application 14/781,514 via an interface between the respective regulating units, by controlling parameters defined between the respective regulating units. Claims 7-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over Kim (US 2012/0166002 Al; published June 28, 2012) and Cherian (US 2012/0029720 Al; published February 2, 2012). Final Act. 3-10. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS The Examiner finds that "Kim teaches a method for operating an entire [single] energy supply network system having three supply levels[, with] ... energy being generated and fed into each supply level by producers." Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that "Kim does not specifically teach configuring each of the three supply levels ... as an independent regulating unit [that] ... is connected or disconnected via interfaces between respective regulating units[,] as required." Id. The Examiner further finds that Kim does not teach the further steps of assigning a respective operator region to each of the regulating units, or controlling an exchange of energy amounts among the respective regulating units by each associated operator region. Id. at 4--5. The Examiner finds that Cherian teaches these additional claim elements (id. at 5-7) and that motivation existed to combine the references' teachings: [I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art ... to modify [Kim's] the three[-]level supply with power generation at each level . . . to include the independent local control module with regional control module of Cherian with the 3 Appeal2018-007105 Application 14/781,514 motivation to taking action to keep supply and demand in balance if very fast action is required to keep the system in a stable operating condition. Id. at 7 ( citing Cherian ,r 23). Appellant argues, inter alia, Cherian teaches a dynamic distributed power grid control system with a hierarchical structure, and shows and describes three different power generation plants service three distinct and separate regions of power consumption (see Fig. 1 and paragraph [001 OJ). Each local control module falls under the control of a regional control module for management and control of the associated power producers and consumers. The regional control module is operable to manage power production, distribution and/or storage within an associated region. The regional control module is also capable of transferring power to other regions (see, e.g., paragraph [0021]). Cherian thus teaches, e.g., a power grid management system that is clearly used when new and renewable energy is generated ( e.g., wind power or photovoltaic) that depends, e.g., on weather conditions. Cherian, likewise, also fails to teach or suggest a single entire energy network having three supply levels, where each supply level is regarded/configured as (an independent) regulation unit-the supply level is the regulation unit. App. Br. 7. ANALYSIS Appellant acknowledges that it previously was known to generate or provide energy at three voltage levels-high, medium, and low voltage. See, e.g., Spec. ,r,r 6, 7. The germane question on appeal, though, is whether the Examiner has established that the cited art teaches or suggests configuring or grouping one or more generation stations ( and possibly loads) for each of these three supply or voltage levels into independent regulating units that respectively are under the control of their own operator regions. The 4 Appeal2018-007105 Application 14/781,514 Examiner has not established that it would have been obvious to combine the cited prior art in a manner that would satisfy this claim requirement. Cherian does disclose subdividing an energy distribution system or grid into enterprise, regional, and local areas with their own respective control modules. See, e.g., Cherian, FIG. 2. But the cited portions of Cherian indicate that the areas are subdivided geographically-not by voltage levels. See, e.g., id. ( depicting local control modules being associated with areas that respectively include only an individual power generation plant); see also Cherian ,r 20, cited in Final Act. 5 ( explaining that "regional control modules are integrated into existing transmission sub- stations and distribution sub-stations," thereby indicating that the region is comprised of varying voltage levels). As Cherian explains: [A] distributed control system is interfaced with an ex1stmg power distribution grid to efficiently control power production and distribution. The distributed control system has three primary layers: i) enterprise control module, ii) regional control modules, and iii) local control modules. An enterprise control module is communicatively coupled to existing supervisory control and data acquisition systems, and to a plurality of regional control modules. The regional control modules are integrated into existing transm1ss10n sub-stations and distribution sub-stations to monitor and issue control signals to other devices or control modules to dynamically manage power flows on the grid. Cherian goes on to explain that a local control module can control a single high-voltage generation station ( e.g., a steam driven electric generator), as well as a low-voltage generation station (e.g., a solar array): Each regional control module is further associated with a plurality of local control modules that interface with power producers, including steam driven electric generators, wind turbine farms, hydroelectric facilities and photoelectric (solar) 5 Appeal2018-007105 Application 14/781,514 Id. arrays, storage resources such as thermal or electric storage devices and batteries on electric vehicles, and demand management systems or smart appliances. As such, the Examiner combines the references by modifying Cherian's system for separately controlling varying expanses of geographical coverage to instead provide separate control of high-voltage, medium-voltage, and low-voltage power generation stations. The Examiner's stated motivation (Final Act. 7) does not sufficiently explain why one of ordinary skill would reasonably understand that Cherian's scheme for balancing load supply and demand through independent geographical generation control would be applicable to independent power level control. Nor does the Examiner provide a reason or motivation as to why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Cherian's geographical control scheme to instead exchange energy between different independent regulating units with different power supply levels. The Examiner's combining of the cited references in this manner appears to be a result of the Examiner impermissibly using the claim language as a roadmap. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, (CCPA 1971) (explaining that a judgment of obviousness is improper when based upon knowledge gleaned only from an applicant's disclosure). For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has persuaded us of error in the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 7. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of that claim or of claims 8-17, which depend from claim 7 and stand rejected based in part on the Examiner's findings discussed above. 6 Appeal2018-007105 Application 14/781,514 DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 7-17 is reversed. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation