Ex Parte Cardinal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 18, 2016

12606028 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/606,028
13077 7590
Sutherland GE
Suite 2300
999 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
10/26/2009 Mark Edward Cardinal
03/22/2016
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.
19441-0414 1993
EXAMINER
GAMI, TEJAL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2127
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2016 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):
patent. docket@sutherland.com
pair_sutherland@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK EDWARD CARDINAL,
JIGNESH GOVINDLAL GANDHI and ANDREAS KIRCHNER
Appeal2014-006063
Application 12/606,028
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JOHNNY A. KUMAR and
MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20, which are all the claims
pending in the application. Claims 2, 9 and 16 are cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Appeal2014-006063
Application 12/606,028
Invention
The claimed invention on appeal is directed to "controlling power
ramp rates in renewable variable power generation systems." (Spec. i-f 1 ).
Illustrative Claim
1. A method for regulating collective power output of a plurality
of variable energy sources, the method comprising:
monitoring collective power output of the plurality of variable
energy sources;
[LI] predicting future collective available power levels of the
plurality of variable energy sources based at least in part on a
first desired collective power ramp rate over a first time
duration and a second desired collective power ramp rate over
a second time duration, wherein the predicting of the future
collective available power levels comprises:
[L2] establishing an average ramp rate for each time
duration calculated as follows (Xn- Xn-N+ I), wherein Xn is
a power output at nth time period and lv is the total
number of time periods in the time duration;
[L3] determining the future collective available power
levels based on the average ramp rate;
[L4] comparing the future collective available power
levels to a settable ramp rate limit;
[L5] based on the comparison, modifYing, using at least one
modifYing function, the predicted collective available power
levels based at least in part on limiting the rate of change of the
predicted collective available power levels depending upon a
direction of power change, wherein the at least one modifYing
function provides for faster slew rates when reducing power, to
rapidly correct a transient condition, and slower slew rates
when increasing power, wherein the at least one modifYing
2
Appeal2014-006063
Application 12/606,028
function includes a low pass filter and a slew rate limiter;
[L6] determining a power regulation setpoint based on the
modified predicted collective available power levels;
[L 7] selecting a minimum of the collective available power
levels and the power regulation setpoint;
based at least in part on the selection, generating a net power
command signal based at least in part on the modified predicted
collective available power levels;
generating a plurality of power control signals based at least in
part on the net power command signal; and
controlling collective power output of the plurality of variable
energy sources with the plurality of power control signals to
allow different collective rates of change of power output
depending upon the direction of power change or upon previous
power changes, wherein the collective rate of change of power
output of the variable energy sources does not exceed a first
desired collective power ramp rate over a first duration.
(Emphasis added regarding the contested limitations, labeled as "L 1"
through "L 7").
Rejection
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by Liu et al. (US 2010/0057267 Al; published March 4,
2010).
Contentions
Regarding the anticipation rejection of claim 1, Appellants contest the
Examiner's rejection of limitation LI. (App. Br. 7-8.) Appellants
particularly contend, inter alia:
3
Appeal2014-006063
Application 12/606,028
Liu does not disclosure predicting future collective available power
levels. The Examiner equates the terms "future collective available
power levels" of independent claim 1 and Liu 's "desired collective
output power." Even though Liu does not provide any guidance as to
the meaning of "desired collective output power" (the term is used in
Liu 's claims only), Liu 's specification appears to suggest that "desired
collective output power" is a predetermined value set by system
operators (see paragraph [0038] of Liu, for example) and is not a
value calculated or predicted by Liu. Thus, "future collective available
power levels" of independent claim 1 cannot be reasonably
characterized as "desired collective output power" of Liu.
Accordingly, "predicting future collective available power levels of
the plurality of variable energy sources based at least in part on a first
desired collective power ramp rate over a first time duration and a
second desired collective power ramp rate over a second time
duration" recited by independent claim 1 is not disclosed in Liu.
(App. Br. 7.)
The Examiner disagrees:
Appellant claims, "predicting future collective available power
levels." Just as a "ramp rate prediction algorithm" is used to "predict
the pov,rer output" in appellant's specification paragraphs [0032]-
[0033], prior art Liu paragraph [0042] uses an algorithm to "estimate"
a ramp rate and power output/level. Also see, prior art Liu paragraph
[0039] for "calculated" control based on output power level; and prior
art Liu paragraph [0041] for algorithm to "compute" an output power
ramp rate. Under such considerations, the prior art discloses
predicting (e.g., "calculated," "compute," "estimation").
(Ans. 22.)
ISSUE
Issue: Under § 102, did the Examiner err by finding Liu expressly or
inherently discloses contested limitation L 1, within the meaning of claim 1?
4
Appeal2014-006063
Application 12/606,028
ANALYSIS
We focus our analysis on contested limitation L 1, and need not reach
contested limitations L2-L 7 to decide this appeal. Limitation L 1 recites:
[L 1] predicting future collective available power levels of the
plurality of variable energy sources based at least in part on a
first desired collective power ramp rate over a first time duration
and a second desired collective power ramp rate over a second
time duration, wherein the predicting of the future collective
available power levels comprises: [L2-L4]
(Claim 1 ).
The Examiner responds to Appellants' contentions regarding
limitation L 1, and refers generally to paragraphs 39, 41, and 42 of Liu.
(Ans. 22). The Examiner finds "prior art Liu paragraph [0042] uses an
algorithm to 'estimate' a ramp rate and power output/level. Also see, prior
art Liu paragraph [0039] for 'calculated' control based on output power
level; and prior art Liu paragraph [0041] for algorithm to 'compute' an
output power ramp rate." (Ans. 22).
However, Liu (i-f42) does not disclose estimation of "power
output/level" as alleged by the Examiner. Instead, Liu discloses the
estimation pertains to a ramp rate, not a power level. Specifically, Liu
describes (i-f42):
Actual output power ramp rate 142 of the collective PV
subsystems 42 is established by a ramp rate estimation module
122. In one embodiment, ramp rate estimation module 122
may comprise an algorithm adapted to determine a rolling
average of rate of change of sensed collective PV subsystem
power output. (Emphasis added).
No mention is made of an estimated power output or level. The
Examiner further points to "Liu paragraph [0039] for 'calculated' control
5
Appeal2014-006063
Application 12/606,028
based on output power level; and prior art Liu paragraph [0041] for [an]
algorithm to 'compute' an output power ramp rate." (Ans. 22).
Liu (i-f39) describes: "According to one embodiment, subsystem level
control of output power ramp rate may be achieved via limiting of a power
command by the rate limiting signal. Output current set points are then
calculated based on output power level settings and applied to the respective
PV subsystems 42." However, we find calculation of current set points
based on output power level settings does not anticipate "predicting future
collective available power levels," as recited in claim 1. (Emphasis added).
Moreover, as acknowledged by the Examiner (Ans. 22), Liu (i-f4 l) discloses
the computation of an output power ramp rate, not a power level.
We additionally note Liu describes a ramp rate algorithm 98 (i-f 41,
Fig. 4), and a ramp rate estimation module 122 (i-f 42, Fig. 4). The ramp rate
algorithm monitors collective subsystem power output and computes an
output power ramp rate request. (i-f 41 ). The ramp rate estimation module
comprises an algorithm to determine a rolling average rate of change of
sensed collective output power. (i-f42). No estimation or prediction of
"future collective available output power levels" (claim 1) is disclosed in
either instance.
Nor does the Examiner provide any supporting factual evidence or
technical reasoning explaining how limitation L 1 is inherently disclosed by
Liu. '"In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a
basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the
determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily ±1ows
from the teachings of the applied prior art:' Ex: parte Levy, l 7 USPQ2d
1461 ~ 1464 (BPAI 1990) (emphasis added).
6
Appeal2014-006063
Application 12/606,028
The Examiner suggests that a prediction or estimation of power
output/level occurs via an algorithm (Ans. 22, Liu i-f 42), however, there is
no evidence provided that contested limitation L 1 necessarily flows from the
relied-upon features of Liu's disclosure. 1
Remaining independent claims 8 and 15 each recite contested
limitation L 1 in commensurate form. Therefore, for the aforementioned
reasons, we reverse the Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent
claims 1, 8, and 15 over Liu. Because we have reversed the rejection of
each independent claim on appeal, we also reverse the anticipation rejection
of each associated dependent claim.
Conclusion
On this record, and by a preponderance of the evidence, we are
persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20
under § 102( e ), for at least the reasons argued on pages 7-9 of the Brief, as
further discussed above.
1 "Inherency ... may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The
mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is
not sufficient." In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(internal citations omitted).
7
Appeal2014-006063
Application 12/606,028
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and
17-20 under § 102( e ).
REVERSED
8