Ex Parte Miner

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2018

13927494 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/927,494 06/26/2013
105698 7590 07/02/2018
Law Office of William F. Ryann
314 East Commerce Street, Suite 401
San Antonio, TX 78205
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John Miner
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.
P820-03 4695
EXAMINER
WYNNE, DAVID J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2121
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN MINER
Appeal2017-010565
Application No. 13/927,494 1
Technology Center 2100
Before MARC S. HOFF, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3-13, and 15-21. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant's invention is an energy management system for a localized
community. The system and techniques thereof are directed at managing
allocations of total available energy generated at the localized community as
between current use and storage. Management of the energy is enhanced
1 The real party in interest is Dorazio Enterprises, Inc. App. Br. 1.
2 Claims 2 and 14 have been cancelled.
Appeal2017-010565
Application No. 13/927,494
through a variety of optimizations that may be applied to a variety of energy
types available to the community. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. (Previously Amended) A method of managing energy surety in a
localized community, the method comprising:
acquiring real-time community based data relative to multiple energy
types available to the localized community, the localized community being
substantially serviceable by a power equivalent of no more than 100
megawatts of electrical power;
managing the allocation of the total available energy from the energy
types over a micro-grid of the localized community, the micro-grid having a
maximum capacity limited to no more than the power equivalent irrespective
of the multiple available energy types, said managing including optimizing
distribution of the total available energy based on the data;
storing a portion of the total available energy for delayed distribution;
and
operating over the micro-grid at near-maximum capacity therefor over
a substantially continuous 24 hour cycle for the optimized distribution and
storing of the total available energy.
(App. Br. Claims Appendix, 14.)
THE PRIOR ART
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Miller US 7,274,975 B2
Bayoumi et al., US 2004/0030457 Al
hereinafter "Bayoumi"
Creed US 2010/0274407 Al
2
Sept. 25, 2007
Feb. 12, 2004;
Oct. 28, 2010
Appeal2017-010565
Application No. 13/927,494
Prosser et al., US 2012/0245744 Al Sept. 27, 2012;
hereinafter "Prosser"
Sackman et al., US 2011/0208367 Al Aug. 25, 2011;
hereinafter "Sackman"
Kramer et al.,
hereinafter "Kramer"
US 2004/02647408 Al Dec. 30, 2004;
Asghari et al., US 2014/0350743 Al Nov. 27, 2014;
hereinafter "Asghari"
Fred Thomasson, Envelope Optimization and Control Using Fuzzy
Logic, Controlguru, http://www.controlguru.com/2007 /060607 .html
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 19--21 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller, Bayoumi, and
Creed. (Final Act. 2-18.)
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Miller, Bayoumi, Creed, and Prosser. (Final Act. 18-19.)
Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Miller, Bayoumi, Creed, and Sackman. (Final Act. 19-
20.)
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Miller, Bayoumi, Creed, and Kramer. (Final Act. 20-21.)
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Miller, Bayoumi, Creed, Asghari, and Thomasson. (Final
Act. 21-23.)
(See also Ans. 2.)
3
Appeal2017-010565
Application No. 13/927,494
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Final Office
Action, mailed Jan. 19, 2017 ("Final Act."); Appeal Brief filed Apr. 18,
2017 ("App. Br."), the Reply Brief filed Aug. 7, 2017 ("Reply Br.,"), and the
Examiner's Answer mailed June 22, 2017 ("Ans.,") for their respective
details.
ISSUE
Does the combination of Miller, Bayoumi, and Creed disclose or
fairly suggest a "micro-grid having a maximum capacity limited to no more
than the power equivalent" that services the localized community (i.e., 100
megawatts), "irrespective of the multiple available energy types," as recited
in claim 1 ?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
To teach away, prior art must "criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage the solution claimed." Mere disclosure of alternative
embodiments is not a teaching away. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 20, AND 21
Appellant argues that Creed does not disclose a micro-grid that has "a
maximum capacity limited to no more than the power equivalent" sufficient
to service the "localized community" irrespective of the variety of energy
types that might be available to the micro-grid. App. Br. 6, 8.
4
Appeal2017-010565
Application No. 13/927,494
According to Appellant, Creed discloses "exactly the opposite" of
such a micro-grid, because Creed is directed to a mobile community of ever-
changing power requirements that would make tying the maximum capacity
of the grid thereto impractical. App. Br. 8. Appellant asserts that Creed's
mobile military camp, because it "tend[ s] to continuously grow in power
demand," is the opposite of the claimed micro-grid with maximum capacity
"limited to no more than a power equivalent of a localized community
serviceable by no more than 100 megawatts." App. Br. 9 (emphasis
omitted.)
Appellant argues in the Reply Brief that the arguments
concerning Creed are presented "squarely to traverse the Examiner's
position that [Creed discloses] a 'micro-grid having a maximum
capacity limited to no more than the power equivalent irrespective of
the multiple available energy types."' Reply Br. 7.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. The Examiner finds
that the combination of Miller and Bayoumi discloses "a localized
community being substantially serviceable by a power equivalent of no more
than 100 megawatts [a certain amount] of electrical power." Final Act. 4
(emphasis omitted). The Examiner then cites Creed for its disclosure of "a
method ... for controlling supply of electrical power to a mobile micro-grid
power system." Final Act. 5---6 (citing Creed i-f 21). According to Creed, "[a]
load profile and an active reserve power level are determined for the micro-
grid based in whole or in part on the micro-grid load data, and the supply of
electrical power to the micro-grid is balanced by setting the power supply
activation states based at least in part on the load profile and the active
reserve power level." Ans. 6; Creed i-f 21. We agree with the Examiner that
5
Appeal2017-010565
Application No. 13/927,494
Creed thus discloses a maximum capacity "(corresponding to the load
profile+ the reserve power) which is limited to no more than a power
equivalent of a community (again, the load profile + reserve power of the
community connected to the micro-grid) irrespective of the available energy
types." Ans. 6. We further agree with the Examiner that Creed discloses the
claimed" ... irrespective of the multiple energy types," as Creed discloses
activating or deactivating a plurality of power supplies, including at
minimum mobile generators 91, fuel cell generators 52, and energy storage
systems 80. Creed i-fi-1 21, 71.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that Creed teaches
"the opposite" of the claimed micro-grid. App. Br. 9. Treating Appellant's
argument as an allegation that Creed teaches away from the claimed
invention, Appellant's argument is unpersuasive on that point. Appellant
does not explain how Creed "criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages"
the solution claimed. See Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201. Whether or not Creed's
"community" is a "mobile military camp" whose power requirements
change over time, the fact remains that Creed discloses setting its power
supply activation states based at least in part on the load profile and the
active reserve power level. App. Br. 9; Creed i121. Creed further discloses
that "a determination is made automatically as to whether rebalancing of the
micro-grid electrical power supply is needed." Creed i121. Such a disclosure
of rebalancing means that Creed contemplates evaluating, and potentially
changing, the activation state of one or more power supplies over time,
based on the (dynamic) state of the load profile and the active reserve power
level. See Id.
6
Appeal2017-010565
Application No. 13/927,494
Because we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred, we sustain the
Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 20,
and 21 as being unpatentable over Miller, Bayoumi, and Creed.
CLAIMS 5, 8, 11, 17, AND 18
These claims are not separately argued by Appellant, who argues only
that the claims are allowable "for the reasons set forth" with respect to
independent claim 1. App. Br. 11-13. Since we sustain the rejection of
representative claim 1, we also sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of dependent
claims 5, 8, 11, 17, and 18, for the reasons expressed with respect to the
rejection of claim 1, supra.
CONCLUSION
The combination of Miller, Bayoumi, and Creed suggests a micro-grid
having a maximum capacity limited to no more than the power equivalent
that services the localized community (i.e., 100 megawatts), irrespective of
the multiple available energy types.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-13, and 15-21under35
U.S.C. § 103(a) 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).
AFFIRMED
7