Ex Parte Rotzoll

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 19, 2018

12121580 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/121,580 05/15/2008 Robert R. Rotzoll
54698 7590 11/21/2018
MOSER TABOADA
1030 BROAD STREET
SUITE 203
SHREWSBURY, NJ 07702
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.
EE036 7130
EXAMINER
QUDDUS, NUSRAT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2838
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/21/2018 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):
docketing@mtiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT R. ROT ZOLL
Appeal2018-003292
Application 12/121,580
Technology Center 2800
Before: JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
AVEYL YN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents:
Specification filed May 15, 2008 ("Spec."); Final Office Action mailed June
3, 2016 ("Final Act."); Appeal Brief filed November 30, 2016 ("Appeal
Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed December 8, 2017 ("Ans."); and Reply
Brief filed February 7, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2018-003292
Application 12/121,580
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1---6, 8, and 10-14. 2 (Appeal Br. 4.) We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellant states that the invention relates to direct current to
alternating current power conversion. (Spec. 1, 11. 12-13.)
Claim 1, as reproduced from the Claims Appendix, below is
representative ( emphasis added):
1. An inverter for use in a photovoltaic module
compnsmg:
a DC input terminal for receiving a DC input;
an AC output terminal for providing an AC output
generated from the DC input;
and
a communications system for receiving and
sending information, using power line communications,
via a modulated carrier signal superimposed on an AC
voltage of the AC output at the AC output terminal.
( Appeal Br. 13, Claim Appendix.)
2 Appellant identifies Enphase Energy Inc. as the real party in interest.
(Appeal Br. 4.)
2
Appeal2018-003292
Application 12/121,580
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as follows:
1. Claims 1-5 as obvious over Nakata et al. (US 5,625,539, issued
April 29, 1997, "Nakata") in view of Stevens (US 2002/0145886
Al, published October 10, 2002);
2. Claims 6 and 10-14 as obvious over Nakata, Stevens, and Ueda et
al. (JP 09-135571 A, published May 20, 1997, "Ueda"); 3 and
3. Claim 8 as obvious over Nakata, Stevens, and Appellant's
Admitted Prior Art.
(Final Act. 2-5.)
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
We limit our discussion to independent claim 1, which is sufficient for
disposition of this appeal.
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner found, inter alia, that Nakata
discloses an inverter for a photovoltaic module including a communications
system for receiving and sending information via a modulated carrier signal
superimposed on an AC voltage of the AC output terminal. Specifically, the
Examiner found that Nakata discloses that the control circuit 9 sends
information to switches in inverter apparatus 200 via gate drive units 10 and
11. (Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 3, 5 (citing Nakata Figs. I-I 7, and col. 13, 11.
23-38).) The Examiner found that Nakata fails to teach that power line
communications are used to receive and send information via a modulated
3 Citations to English Translation of Record.
3
Appeal2018-003292
Application 12/121,580
carrier signal superimposed on an AC voltage of the AC output terminal.
(Final Act. 2.) The Examiner found that Stevens discloses a
communications system for receiving and sending information using power
line communications superimposed on an AC voltage of the AC output
terminal. (Final Act. 3.) The Examiner determined that it would have been
obvious to have modified Nakata's inverter to include a communications
system using power line communications as disclosed by Stevens "as doing
so would have improved on load variation power achievement by adjusting
the frequency or the pulse width of each half cycle and, in case where a lamp
or panel is involved, as taught by Stevens (abstract)." (Final Act 3.)
Appellant argues that Stevens and Nakata are silent as to the claimed
feature of sending information using power line communications as recited
in claim 1. (Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 3.)
Claim 1 recites: "a communication system for receiving and sending
information, using power line communications." (Emphasis added.) The
plain language of the claim requires that the communication system is
capable of sending information through the power line, in the form of a
modulated carrier signal superimposed on an AC voltage of the AC output at
the AC output terminal. The mere fact that information received from a
power line may be used by the control unit of the inverter to send
information in order to operate the photovoltaic module itself does not
satisfy the claim. This interpretation is also consistent with the
Specification, which discloses that the integrated circuit generates
communication signals over power lines that are used to report inverter and
photovoltaic module status information, as well as local identification codes.
(Spec. 4, 11. 14--18; see also Spec. 9, 1. 13-10, 1. 9.)
4
Appeal2018-003292
Application 12/121,580
As discussed above, the Examiner expressly found that Nakata does
not disclose the use of power line communications. (Final Act. 2.) Thus,
the Examiner relied on Stevens for the use of power line communications.
The Examiner stated that Stevens discloses "use of power line
communications to receive and send[] information, as shown in Para 13."
(Ans. 5.) Stevens, in paragraph 13, discloses "[a]nother [method of control]
is to have, the microprocessor monitor for information on the power line
such as a power line carrier signal or a phase chop dimming system like a
SCR wall dimmer to request different output levels, in other words, dimming
the lamp." Stevens, however, is silent as to sending information over power
lines.
Thus, we agree with Appellant, that Stevens discloses only that the
power lines are monitored to receive information pertaining to, e.g., a SCR
wall dimmer, and does not provide any disclosure regarding sending
information using power line communications via a modulated carrier signal
superimposed on an AC voltage of the AC output at the AC output terminal.
(See Reply Br. 3.)
The Examiner appears to be of the position that because Nakata
discloses that the control circuit sends information via a modulated carrier
signal, when modified by Stevens' s disclosure of monitoring power line
carrier signals for information, the modified communications system of
Nakata would be "using power line communications" to send information to
switches in inverter apparatus 200 via gate drive units 10 and 11 via a
modulated carrier signal generated at carrier signal generator 19
superimposed on an AC voltage from signal processing unit 18 through
circuits 22-24. (Ans. 3--4.) As discussed above, we are of the view that
5
Appeal2018-003292
Application 12/121,580
such sending of information is insufficient to meet the requirements of claim
1, because it does not include sending information using power line
communications in the manner required in claim 1.
As a result, we reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claim 1 as
obvious over Nakata in view of Stevens.
Rejections 2 and 3
Ueda and the alleged Admitted Prior Art relied on by the Examiner to
reject claims 6, 8, and 10-14, all dependent from claim 1 do not remedy the
deficiencies as discussed above. Accordingly, we reverse Rejections 2 and 3
for similar reasons.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8, and IO-
14.
REVERSED
6