Ex Parte BHAVARAJU et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2016

12729304 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

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