Ex Parte BHAVARAJU et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 30, 201612729304 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 121729,304 03/23/2010 VIJA Y BHA V ARAru 101730 7590 04/01/2016 ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC EATON CORPORATION 600 GRANT STREET 44THFLOOR PITTSBURGH, PA 15219 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. 09-mITM-363 6960 EXAMINER VU,TOANT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2836 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/01/2016 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): ipmail@eckertseamans.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VIJA Y BHA V ARAJU, RICHARD P. PEPLINSKI, and ANISH PRASAI Appeal2014-004432 Application 12/729,304 Technology Center 2800 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 10, and 23. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appellants' invention is directed to photovoltaic systems (PV) and methods of power conversion for PV systems (claims 1 and 23; Spec. 1: 10- 11). Claim 1 is illustrative: Appeal2014-004432 Application 12/729,304 1. A method of power tracking for a photovoltaic system including a number of photovoltaic arrays, a number of inverters, and a transformer, the method comprising: operating the photovoltaic system including said number of photovoltaic arrays, said number of inverters and said transformer to provide maximum efficiency of power conversion therefrom; and maximizing power output from said number of photovoltaic arrays. Appellants appeal the following rejections: 1. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as unpatentable over Walling et al. (US 7,990,743 B2, issued Aug. 2, 2011) (hereinafter "Walling"). 2. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Walling in view of O'Brien et al. (US 2010/0008119 Al, published Jan. 14, 2010) (hereinafter "O'Brien"). FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES Regarding rejection (1 ), Appellants argue subject matter common to independent claims 1and23 (App. Br. 5-11). We select claim 1 as representative of the grouping. We have fully considered the Examiner's findings regarding Walling and Appellants' arguments against the rejection. We find that the preponderance of the evidence favors the Examiner's finding of anticipation for the reasons advanced by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following analysis primarily for emphasis. The issue in this appeal focuses on the meaning of the claim 1 phrase "to provide maximum efficiency of power conversion therefrom." The Examiner finds that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language includes Walling's method that controls the losses in the 2 Appeal2014-004432 Application 12/729,304 photovoltaic (PV) system to increase the power output from the system (Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 3). Appellants argue that the claim requires a maximum efficiency of power conversion from a number of photovoltaic arrays, a number of inverters, and a transformer which is very different from reducing electrical losses in distribution as taught by Walling (App. Br. 5-7). Appellants contend that the claim concerns the efficiency of a photovoltaic array, an inverter and a transformer, which is not taught or suggested by Walling (App. Br. 9). Appellants argue that page 9, lines 10-15 of the Specification describes that the power conversion system 50 operates the photovoltaic arrays 56, 58, the inverters 52, 54, and the transformer 70 to provide maximum efficiency of power conversion therefrom, which is shown in Appellants' Figure 7 (Reply Br. 5). Appellants concede that reducing system losses as in Walling could improve power output, but they argue that such a loss reduction does not teach or suggest providing a maximum efficiency of power conversion. Id. Appellants have not explained why reducing the system losses to increase the power output of the system would not also result in maximizing the power conversion of the system. Appellants' argument merely alleges that the claimed maximizing efficiency of power conversion from a number of photovoltaic cells, inverters and transformers is different from Walling's reduction in system losses without any explanation of the difference. However, we agree with the Examiner that the claims do not exclude Walling' s method. Despite Appellants' citation of page 9, lines 10-15 of the Specification as describing the disputed claim language, our review of the 3 Appeal2014-004432 Application 12/729,304 portion of the Specification does not reveal any formal definition of maximizing efficiency of power conversion. The Specification describes that in a photovoltaic system there are inefficiencies in the conversion of direct current (DC) from the photovoltaic cells to alternating current (AC) by the inverters and transformers (Spec. 2:2-10). The Specification describes that the goal of the method is maximize efficiency of the conversion in addition to maximizing the output from the photovoltaic array (Spec. 3:3-7). Based upon these disclosures, we understand the claim to require maximizing the efficiency of the power conversion from DC to AC. Walling discloses a method for distributing reactive load among inverters and control of the solar collector system voltage to reduce collector system losses (col. 1, 11. 6-10). Walling teaches that the losses controlled are copper losses (i.e., losses from conduction) and iron losses (i.e., no load losses from the transformer) (col. 1, 11. 45---67). Walling discloses that controlling the system losses by controlling reactive power production assignments to the individual inverters yields greater energy production supplied to the electrical grid and thus increased revenue for the solar farm owner (col. 4, 11. 14--20). Appellants concede that Walling teaches photovoltaic arrays, inverters and a transformer (Reply Br. 2). Walling's supply of greater energy production to the grid is a direct result of controlling the losses in the photovoltaic array, inverter and transformer system. Walling's system that converts DC to AC via the inverters increases the amount of AC current that is provided to the grid by controlling losses within the system. In other words, Walling maximizes the efficiency of the power conversion of the DC power produced by the 4 Appeal2014-004432 Application 12/729,304 photovoltaic arrays to AC power in order to produce greater energy that is supplied to the electrical grid. Walling meets the disputed claim language. For the above reasons and on this record, we affirm the Examiner's § 102(a) rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, and 23 over Walling. Regarding § 103 rejection (2), Appellants argue regarding claim 10 that the Examiner has not resolved the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art (App. Br. 12). Appellants' argument, however, does not indicate why such an alleged failure results in reversible error with regard to the rejection over Walling and O'Brien. Nevertheless, the Examiner provides findings that the prior art establishes the level of skill in the art, which are not contested by Appellants (Ans. 4; Reply Br. generally). Indeed, specific findings regarding the level of skill in the art are not required where the prior art establishes the level of skill in the art. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). On this record, we affirm the Examiner's§ 103 rejection over Walling and O'Brien. DECISION The Examiner's decision 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). ORDER AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation