Ex Parte Foss

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2017

12403339 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2017)

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.
12/403,339 03/12/2009 Andrew Foss TI-88008 (P07439) 9504
23494 7590 03/31/2017
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
DANICIC, CHRISTOPHER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1758
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2017 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW FOSS
Appeal 2015-002596
Application 13/285,550
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1,3,4, 6, 7, 9—10, 32, and 34—38. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2016-002596
Application 12/403,339
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1 and 10 are illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on
appeal and is set forth below (with text in bold to highlight disputed
language):
1. A solar power generation system comprising:
a string of solar modules, the modules connected in series to a direct
current (DC) bus;
each module configured to generate a module power output through
the string to the DC bus, and wherein each of the module is configured to
operate at a module output power point when unimpaired; and
an injection circuit connected in series with the string of modules
and configured to selectively inject power into the string when one or
more modules in the string generates an impaired module power
output, such that each unimpaired module operates substantially at the
associated module output power point.
10. The system of claim 9:
further comprising at least a second string of solar modules connected
in series to the DC bus, and a corresponding second injection circuit
connected in series with the second string of modules; and
further comprising a central control unit coupled to the inverter;
wherein each injection circuit includes a communication unit configured to
communicate with the central control unit
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Walker, Cascaded DC-DC Converter Connection of Photovoltaic Modules,
IEEE Translations on Power Electronics, Vol. 19, No. 4 (2004).
2
Appeal 2016-002596
Application 12/403,339
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1,3-4, 6-7, 9, 32, and 34-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
102(b) as being anticipated by Walker.
2. Claims 10 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Walker, as applied to claims 9 and 32.
ANALYSIS
At issue is the instant case is whether Walker’s structure anticipates
claim 1, in particular, the claim element of “an injection circuit connected in
series with the string of modules and configured to selectively inject power
into the string when one or more modules in the string generates an impaired
module power output, such that each unimpaired module operates
substantially at the associated module output power point”.
Appellant argues that Walker does not disclose “an injection circuit”
that is “connected in series with the string of modules”, and therefore
separate from the “modules”, and that is functionally configured to
“selectively inject power into the string when one or more modules in the
string generates an impaired module power output” such that “each
unimpaired module operates substantially at the associated module output
power point”, i.e., power injection separate from the modules. Appeal Br.
12—14. Appellant argues that Walker does not disclose any
circuitry/structure corresponding to the claimed “injection circuit” that is
capable of performing the claimed function of “selectively injecting] power
into the string when one or more modules in the string generates an impaired
3
Appeal 2016-002596
Application 12/403,339
module power output”, i.e., power injection separate from the “modules in
the string”. Id. at 12—13.
In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner states that the system of
Walker is capable of injecting power into the string of modules (Walker,
Fig. 1, top) by an inductor and diode of a boost circuit connected in series
with the string of modules, and refers to Drawing 11 that is set forth on page
7 of the Answer. The Examiner states that in order for the maximum power
point tracking (MPPT) voltage boosting to function (Walker, p. 1130 II-III,
p 1131, IV 1), the integrated circuit inductor and diode must be wired in
series with the modules being boosted (Walker, Fig. 1 top & Drawing 1).
Ans. 6. The Examiner states that the switch (Drawing 1) is wired in parallel
with the string, but the inductor and diode are in series. Id.
In reply, Appellant argues that the Examiner mischaracterizes the
circuit connections in Drawing 1 in an effort to find the claimed “injection
circuit connected in series with the string of modules.” Appellant submits
that the “boost converter” (inductor, diode, and switch) is connected in
parallel to the string of PV panels, and is not “capable of injecting power
into the string of modules”. Reply Br. 6. Appellant explains that in fact the
parallel-connected “boost converter” is not capable of “injecting power into
the string”, but rather boosts the voltage of the string (with the
boosted voltage applied to the following DC-AC Inverter) according to
conventional boost converter operation. Appellant further explains that the
Examiner's juxtaposition of Figure 1 from Walker and Appellant's FIG IB
supports Appellant's argument Walker does not disclose otherwise teach the
1 The Examiner sets forth Drawing 1 on page 7 of the Answer which
compares Walker’s Figure 1 with Appellant’s’ Figure IB.
4
Appeal 2016-002596
Application 12/403,339
claimed “injection circuit [FIG. IB, 140] connected in series with the string
of modules [FIG. IB, 130-138]”. Appellant explains that, in Walker’s Figure
1, the boost converter is connected in parallel to the string of
PV Panels/Modules, and does not “selectively inject power into the string”
but rather boosts the input voltage from the string of PV Panels/Modules and
outputs the boosted voltage to the following DC-AC inverter.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s explanation of the teachings of
Walker for the reasons stated in the record (and as discussed above), and
thus agree that the Examiner has erred in the interpretation of Walker. In
particular, Walker is ambiguous. We assume that the Examiner takes the
position that Walker’s Figure 1, annotated as the Examiner’s drawing 1
(Ans. 7), depicts two PV Panels (the rightmost PV panels) in series with the
boost converter when the switch circled by the Examiner in drawing 1 is
open. That figure, however, depicts a gap in the circuit between the two
rightmost PV panels. Because of this gap, the configuration taught by
Walker Figure 1 is ambiguous. The text of Walker cited by the Examiner
does not clarity Walker’s ambiguity in this regard. Instead, Walker is more
suggestive of a converter being associated with an individual panel (“a
Coverter-per-Panel Approach”) rather than an injection circuit in series with
a string of modules. Walker 1131. As such, based on the present record, we
are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments in the record that the Examiner has
not adequately established that Walker anticipates the rejected claims.
In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 1. The Examiner does not
cure the deficiencies of Walker in Rejection 2, and we therefore reverse
Rejection 2 also.
5
Appeal 2016-002596
Application 12/403,339
DECISION
Each rejection is reversed.
ORDER
REVERSED
6