Ex Parte FossDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 29, 201712403339 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation