Ex Parte Kerkman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 18, 2016

12627472 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/627,472 11130/2009
42982 7590 04/20/2016
Rockwell Automation, Inc./FY
Attention: Linda H. Kasulke E-7Fl 9
1201 South Second Street
Milwaukee, WI 53204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Russel J. Kerkman
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.
09AB054-US/YOD
(ALBR0331)
4128
EXAMINER
CHENG, DIANA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2842
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/20/2016 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):
howell@fyiplaw.com
docket@fyiplaw.com
raintellectualproperty@ra.rockwell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RUSSEL J. KERKMAN and
CARLOS DANIEL RODRIGUEZ-V ALDEZ 1
Appeal2014-005791
Application 12/627,472
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and
JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-21under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Li (US
7,180,940 B2 issued Feb. 20, 2007). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6.
We AFFIRM.
1 Rockwell Automation Technologies, Inc. is identified as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-005791
Application 12/627,472
Appellants claim a method for synchronizing an electric grid
comprising determining a disturbance frequency ( 50) in the phase voltage
(30) of the electric grid via one or more tracking filters (44, 46), removing
the disturbance frequency within a phase-locked-loop PLL (40) to produce a
clean frequency (54), and performing a PLL operation on the clean
frequency to determine a phase angle of the frequency (independent claim 1,
Figs. 1-3). Appellants also claim a phase-locked-loop PLL comprising
circuitry configured to receive a voltage of an electric grid and determine the
phase angle of the voltage, and a tracking filter configured to determine a
frequency of a disturbance in the voltage (independent claim 10) as well as a
phase angle generator comprising a phase-locked-loop PLL of the type
previously described and a tracking filter configured to estimate and remove
a disturbance frequency in an electric grid voltage (remaining independent
claim 18).
A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A method for synchronizing an electric grid,
compnsmg:
receiving a phase voltage of the electric grid;
determining a disturbance frequency in the phase voltage
via one or more tracking filters;
removing the disturbance frequency within a phase-
locked-loop (PLL) to produce a clean frequency; and
performing a PLL operation on the clean frequency to
determine a phase angle of the frequency.
Appellants do not present separate arguments specifically directed to
the dependent claims under rejection (App. Br. 7-13). Therefore, the
dependent claims will stand or fall with their parent independent claims of
which claim 1 is representative.
2
Appeal2014-005791
Application 12/627,472
We sustain the above rejection based on the findings of fact and
rebuttals to arguments expressed by the Examiner in the Final Action and in
the Answer. The following comments are added for emphasis.
Appellants argue that Li fails to determine and remove a disturbance
frequency to thereby produce a clean frequency and that, instead, Li's low
and high quality filters merely detect a mismatch indicating the presence of
some disturbance and re-initializes the high quality filter to compensate for
the detected disturbance (see, e.g., App. Br. 8-11).
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. As fully detailed by the
Examiner in responding to these arguments, the disturbances determined or
detected by Li include disturbance frequencies and these disturbance
frequencies are removed to produce a clean frequency (see, e.g., Ans. 8-12
(citing Li, e.g., Figs. 1, 3, col. 2, 11. 26-35, col. 4, 11. 24--28, col. 5, 11. 37--43,
col. 12, 11. 31-35)). Appellants' contrary position is incompatible with the
Li disclosures cited by the Examiner (see, e.g., col. 2, 11. 33-35 ("various
filtering techniques are required to eliminate undesired frequencies"), col. 4,
11. 27-28 ("the ability of the filter to reject undesirable frequencies is
increased"), col. 12, 11. 31-35 ("The PLL tracks the input signal frequency
and keeps the sampling frequency of the system accurately synchronized to a
multiple of the power system frequency, and thereby eliminates the impact
of frequency variations on the filter performance.")).
In summary, the Examiner's findings are supported by a
preponderance of evidence provided by Li's teachings as a whole.
Appellants' arguments do not reveal error in these findings.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
3
Appeal2014-005791
Application 12/627,472
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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
4