Hackl, Dieter et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 10, 2019

15248598 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2019)

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.
15/248,598 08/26/2016 Dieter Hackl 2002-029 9064
1009 7590 12/10/2019
KING & SCHICKLI, PLLC
800 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 200
LEXINGTON, KY 40503
EXAMINER
REISNER, NOAM S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2852
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/10/2019 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):
laura@iplaw1.net
uspto@iplaw1.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DIETER HACKL and OLIVER SCHAEFER
Appeal 2019-002565
Application 15/248,598
Technology Center 2800
BEFORE BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10. See Appeal Br. 3–6. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents:
Specification filed August 26, 2016 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action mailed
April 12, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed September 11, 2018
(“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed December 11, 2018 (“Ans.”);
and Reply Brief filed February 11, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Bender GmbH &
Co. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002565
Application 15/248,598

2
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant states the invention relates to a method and system for
insulation fault location in an Isolé Terre (IT) power supply system, the
method including feeding a test current, detecting a test current portion in a
branch of the IT power supply system, and evaluating the detected test
current portion. Spec. 1, ll. 18–29. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter (Appeal Br. 7, Claims Appendix):
1. Method for insulation fault location in an IT power supply
system (4), comprising the process steps:
- supplying of a pulse-shaped test current (IL),
- detecting of a test current portion in a branch of the IT
power supply system (4),
- evaluating the detected test current portion,
characterized by adaptive determining of a test current
parameter of the test current (IL) depending on an
electric system parameter (24, 26) of the IT power
supply system (4), wherein as the electric system
parameter of the IT power supply system 4 ), an
insulation resistance is evaluated.

Claim 10 is also independent and recites and insulation fault location
system for an IT power supply system. Id. at 8.
Appeal 2019-002565
Application 15/248,598

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Lindsey et al.
hereinafter
“Lindsey”
US 2009/0085575 A1 April 2, 2009
Abouda et al.
hereinafter
“Abouda”
US 2011/0001486 A1 January 6, 2011
Hermeling et al.
hereinafter
“Hermeling”
US 2014/0097854 A1 April 10, 2014

REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, and 4–7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Hermeling. Final Act. 3–5.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 8–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Hermeling and Abouda. Final Act. 5–7.
3. The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Hermeling and Lindsey. Final Act. 7–8.

OPINION
Rejection 1
We limit our discussion to claim 1, which is sufficient for disposition
of this rejection.
Appeal 2019-002565
Application 15/248,598

4
The Examiner’s Rejection
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner found Hermeling discloses a method
for insulation fault location in an IT power supply system including suppling
a pulse shaped test current (Hermeling, Fig. 1, item 12), detecting a test
current portion in a branch of the IT power supply system (Hermeling, Fig.
1, item 14; ¶ 32), evaluating the detected test current portion (Hermeling,
¶¶ 22–23), wherein as an electric system parameter, an insulation resistance
is evaluated (Hermeling, ¶ 8). Final Act. 3–4.

Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant argues, inter alia, claim 1 recites a test current parameter is
determined based on insulation resistance as an electric system parameter,
whereas Hermeling determines the isolation resistance based on leakage
current. Appeal Br. 4–5.

Issue
The dispositive issue is:
Has Appellant identified reversible error in the Examiner’s position
that Hermeling discloses adaptive determining of a test current parameter
depending on an electrical system parameter, wherein as the electrical
system parameter, an insulation resistance is evaluated as required in claim
1?

Discussion
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Hermeling does not
discloses adaptive determining of a test current parameter depending on an
Appeal 2019-002565
Application 15/248,598

5
electric system parameter of the IT power supply system where insulation
resistance is evaluated as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner found Hermeling discloses tuning the frequency of the
test current parameter depending on the active current part of the leakage
current (electric system parameter), where the isolation resistance is
determined based on the resulting leakage current. Final Act. 3–4 (citing
Hermeling, ¶¶ 8, 22, 23); Ans. 5. The Examiner found in particular that
Hermeling discloses an adaptive process where: “‘the frequency of the test
signal is not fixed, but will be adapted to the leakage capacitances of the
power grid which are presently effective.’” (Ans. 5; quoting Hermeling,
¶ 22.)
Thus, although we agree with the Examiner that Hermeling discloses
that testing is an adaptive process, Hermeling discloses adapting the test
signal frequency based on leakage capacitances. According to the instant
Specification, leakage capacitance is an electrical system parameter. Spec.
5, ll. 18–24; 6, ll. 12–18. However, claim 1 requires evaluating the test
parameter based on insulation resistance as an electric system parameter
rather than leakage capacitance. The Examiner’s findings with respect to the
leakage current being used in Hermeling to determine isolation resistance do
not account for this deficiency in Hermeling. “To anticipate a claim, a prior
art reference must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either
explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Thus, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in finding
claim 1 is anticipated by Hermeling.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well
as claims 2 and 4–7, dependent therefrom, as anticipated by Hermeling.
Appeal 2019-002565
Application 15/248,598

6

Rejections 2 and 3
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 8–10 and claim 3, Rejections 2
and 3 respectively, rely on similar findings with respect to Hermeling. Final
Act. 4–8.
Regarding independent claim 10, which recites an “[i]nsulation fault
location system for an IT power supply system,” the claim recites “a
computing unit (14) for adaptively determining a test current parameter
depending on an electric system parameter (24, 26) . . . wherein as the
electric system parameter of the IT power supply system (4), an insulation
resistance is evaluated.” Thus, in order to anticipate claim 10, the
computing unit must be configured to adaptively determine a test current
parameter depending on insulation resistance as an electric system
parameter. As discussed above, Hermeling does not disclose using
insulation resistance as an electric system parameter. In rejecting claim 10,
the Examiner relies on Abouda only for the principle of implementing a
method for fault detection via a computer program. Final Act. 6. Thus,
Abouda does not remedy the deficiencies of Hermeling discussed above.
Likewise, regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 1 and recites
that a test pulse duration of the pulse-shaped test current is adaptively
determined as a test current parameter, Lindsey, which is relied upon by the
Examiner for conducting a number of tests in order to select various
magnitudes of leakage current and test duration (Final Act. 8), fails to
remedy the deficiencies identified above with respect to Hermeling.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3 and 8–
10 for similar reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Appeal 2019-002565
Application 15/248,598

7
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–10 are reversed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–7 102(a)(1) Hermeling 1, 2, 4–7
8–10 103 Hermeling,
Abouda
8–10
3 103 Hermeling,
Lindsey
3
Overall
Outcome
1–10

REVERSED