Ex Parte Papallo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 29, 2013

11171118 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2013)

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. 11/171,118 06/30/2005 Thomas F. Papallo 379.8072USU 6451 7590 05/30/2013 Paul D. Greeley, Esq. Ohlandt, Greeley, Ruggiero & Perle, L.L.P. One Landmark Square, 10th Floor Stamford, CT 06901-2682 EXAMINER HOANG, ANN THI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2836 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/30/2013 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 THOMAS F. PAPALLO and MARCELO E. VALDES ____________ Appeal 2010-012125 Application 11/171,118 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-7, 12-15, 17, and 21. Claims 3, 4, 8-11, 16, and 18-20 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention generally relates to a circuit protection system that provides bus differential protection and transformer differential Appeal 2010-012125 Application 11/171,118 2 protection for a power distribution system. See generally Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative (with disputed limitation emphasized): 1. A method of protecting a circuit having a transformer, a power bus, a first circuit breaker upstream of the transformer, a second circuit breaker between the transformer and the power bus, and at least one feeder circuit breaker on the power bus, the method comprising: monitoring electrical parameters upstream and downstream of the transformer, the power bus, and the at least one feeder circuit breaker; communicating signals representative of said electrical parameters over a network to a microprocessor; controlling said microprocessor to perform a protective function for the transformer and the power bus based on said signals, wherein said protective function is an instantaneous over-current function for the first circuit breaker, the second circuit breaker and the at least one feeder circuit breaker, a bus differential function, and a transformer differential function; controlling said microprocessor to selectively generate a trip command based upon said protective function; and communicating said trip command from said microprocessor to the first, second, or at least one feeder circuit breaker over said network thereby causing the circuit breaker to open. The Rejections 1. Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 12-15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kojovic (US 2004/0027748 A1; published Feb. 12, 2004) and Kulidjian (US 6,385,022 B1; issued May 7, 2002). Ans. 4-7. Appeal 2010-012125 Application 11/171,118 3 2. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kojovic, Kulidjian, Merriman (US 6,614,326 B2; issued Sep. 2, 2003), and Eckart (US 3,840,783; issued Oct. 8, 1974). Ans. 7-8. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER KOJOVIC AND KULIDJIAN The Examiner finds that Kojovic discloses every recited element of representative claim 1 except for the protective function being an instantaneous over-current function for the first circuit breaker, second circuit breaker, and at least one feeder circuit breaker, but cites Kulidjian as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 5. Appellants argue that (1) Kojovic does not disclose an instantaneous over-current function; (2) Kojovic does not disclose a branch circuit or a feeder circuit; and (3) Kulidjian’s relay is not capable of performing the instantaneous over-current function for a feeder circuit breaker. App. Br. 6-9. ISSUE Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Kojovic and Kulidjian collectively would have taught or suggested an “instantaneous over-current function for the first circuit breaker, the second circuit breaker and the at least one feeder circuit breaker”? ANALYSIS On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative claim 1. Appeal 2010-012125 Application 11/171,118 4 We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that Kojovic performs only differential protection, but does not suggest controlling a microprocessor to perform an instantaneous over-current function. App. Br. 7. As the Examiner points out, Kojovic was not relied upon for the recited instantaneous over-current function. Ans. 9. Moreover, Kojovic does disclose “over-current protection” by “tripping an appropriate circuit breaker.” Ans. 12-13. Although Kojovic does not explicitly describe this protection as “instantaneous,” a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret the over-current protection in Kojovic to be instantaneous since there is no disclosure of deliberate delay. Id. Nothing in the Specification suggests that Appellants defined “instantaneous” in a way that makes the Examiner’s interpretation unreasonable. Ans. 11-12. We are also unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that Kojovic does not disclose a branch circuit or a feeder circuit at all. App. Br. 7. As the Examiner points out, Figure 8 of Kojovic depicts circuit breakers 830, 834, 840, and 846 on feeder circuits 806, 808, 810, and 812. Ans. 9-10. Thus, any of 830, 834, 840, and 846 are the recited “at least one feeder circuit breaker.” Id. To the extent Appellants intended to argue that Kojovic does not disclose a “branch” circuit, we agree with the Examiner that this argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, which does not recite a branch circuit. Ans. 10. Finally, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that Kulidjian’s relay 60 is not capable of performing the instantaneous over-current function for a feeder circuit breaker. App. Br. 8-9. As the Examiner points out, Kulidjian explicitly discloses instantaneous over-current protection for a feeder circuit breaker. Ans. 11. In the embodiment shown in Figure 11, Appeal 2010-012125 Application 11/171,118 5 “[t]hese voltage and current measurements [from feeders 101-106] are used by the relay 60 to implement protective control, including instantaneous overcurrent breaker failure protection (50BF).” Kulidjian, col. 7, ll. 49-51. We also agree with the Examiner that the primary relay 814 of Kojovic need not be replaced by the relay 60 of Kulidjian. Ans. 10. The Examiner understands Kojovic’s relay 814 to correspond to the microprocessor- controlled relays 116 and 1308 discussed elsewhere in Kojovic. Ans. 5. Likewise, relay 60 of Kulidjian incorporates multiple digital signal processors. App. Br. 8. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the microprocessor-controller relay of Kojovic could be modified in view of the DSP-controlled relay of Kulidjian. We therefore find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting independent claim 1 and independent claim 12, which recites commensurate limitations. Appellants did not present separate arguments for the dependent claims and we affirm the rejection of those claims for similar reasons. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER KOJOVIC, KULIDJIAN, MERRIMAN, AND ECKART We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 21. Ans. 7-8, 13-14. Appellants do not dispute that Merriman and Eckart disclose the recited “branch circuit.” Instead, Appellants reiterate similar arguments made in connection with claim 1 and allege that the additional cited reference fails to cure those purported deficiencies. App. Br. 11-12. We are not persuaded by these arguments, however, for the reasons previously discussed. Appeal 2010-012125 Application 11/171,118 6 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-7, 12-15, 17, and 21 under § 103. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-7, 12-15, 17, and 21 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED babc