Michael J. Harrison

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 6, 2019

14143112 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 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.
14/143,112 12/30/2013 Michael J. Harrison EE102 8331
54698 7590 08/06/2019
MOSER TABOADA
1030 BROAD STREET
SUITE 203
SHREWSBURY, NJ 07702
EXAMINER
ILIYA, BART
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2838
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/06/2019 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):
docketing@mtiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL J. HARRISON
____________

Appeal 2018-007345
Application 14/143,1121
Technology Center 2800
____________
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellant seeks our review of the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20. App. Br. 4.
We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We affirm.

1 Appellant is the Applicant, Enphase Energy, Inc., which is also identified
as the real party in interest. App. Br. 4.
Appeal 2018-007345
Application 14/143,112
2
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal is directed to power converters and
methods of power conversion. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 4.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter, and is copied
below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. Apparatus for power conversion, comprising:
a three-port converter comprising:
an energy storage device, located on a DC side of the
three-port converter, for AC line frequency energy storage
during power conversion;
a first half-bridge circuit, located on the DC side, coupled
across a DC port adapted for coupling to an external DC line;
a second half-bridge circuit, located on the DC side, and
(i) coupled to the energy storage device via a storage port for
controlling energy flow to and from the energy storage device,
and (ii) partially coupled to the first half-bridge circuit such that
the voltage on the energy storage device can be controlled to
have a different value from the voltage on the DC port; and
an AC switching circuit, located on an AC side of the
three-port converter, that provides an AC port for coupling to
an external AC line.

App. Br. 14.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects claims 1–14 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Nguyen2 and Nadd,3 and
claims 15–20 over these references in combination with Perreault.4 Final
Act. 3–10.

2 Nguyen et al. US 2010/0284208 A1, published Nov. 11, 2010.
3 Nadd et al. US 2002/0191429 A1, published Dec. 19, 2002.
4 Perreault et al. US 2011/0181128 Al, published July 28, 2011.
Appeal 2018-007345
Application 14/143,112
3
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Nguyen
discloses each limitation but for the claimed aspects related to the three-port
converter comprising an energy storage device. Final Act. 3. To address
this difference, the Examiner turns to the disclosure of Nadd. Id. at 3–4.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious for the skilled
artisan “to use input energy storage in Nguyen, as taught by Nadd, in order
to regulate the AC input line frequency.” Id. at 4.
OPINION
Appellant presents arguments only directed to independent claim 1.
App. Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 2. We, therefore, select this claim as
representative and decide the rejection of claims 1–14 on the basis of claim 1
alone. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(iv).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
to support those arguments. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI
2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an
applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”).
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether Appellant has identified
reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that, based on the collective
teachings of the prior art, it would have been obvious to use input energy
storage in a power conversion apparatus as recited in claim 1.
We have considered Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 10–11; Reply
Br. 2) and are unpersuaded that Appellant has identified any such error.
Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1–14 based on the
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments expressed by
Appeal 2018-007345
Application 14/143,112
4
the Examiner in the Final Action and in the Answer. We add the following
only for emphasis.
Appellant’s assertion that the Examiner’s proposed modification of
Nguyen to include Nadd’s energy storage device would render Nguyen’s
power converter inoperable for its intended purpose lacks persuasive merit
because it fails to explain how, precisely, Nguyen’s converter would be
rendered inoperable. App. Br. 10–11. Rather, Appellant merely summarizes
the Examiner’s reliance on the art of record and offers a conclusory assertion
that Nguyen’s device would be inoperable. Id. Skeletal assertions such as
this do not meaningfully address the appealed rejection and fail to identify
reversible error therein.
Furthermore, Appellant’s assertion that even if the Examiner’s
combination were carried out “the input voltage Vinput and the bus voltage
Vbus [would be] equal to one another” (id. at 11) is belied by the teachings
of Nadd relied on by the Examiner. Final Act. 3–4 (citing Nadd ¶ 54
(explaining how the “output voltage ranges from –1 to 0 in equal duty cycles
when Vbus is greater than the input line voltage Vinput.” (emphasis
added))); see also Ans. 4 (citing Nadd ¶¶ 40, 54). Such technically
erroneous arguments fail to identify reversible error in the rejection.
Because Appellant fails to identify reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–14, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these
claims. Furthermore, because Appellant relies on the same deficient
arguments for the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15–20 (App. Br. 12), we
sustain the rejection of these claims for the same reasons.

Appeal 2018-007345
Application 14/143,112
5
DECISION
The Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1–20 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