SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 21, 2021

2020003732 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2021)

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.
15/236,599 08/15/2016 CHRISTIAN BLUG 2015P15584 7433
27350 7590 09/21/2021
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
Box SA
P.O. BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
EXAMINER
HANN, JAY B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2129
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2021 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):
docket@patentusa.com
office@patentusa.com
vrahimis@patentusa.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTIAN BLUG
Appeal 2020-003732
Application 15/236,599
Technology Center 2100

Before HUNG H. BUI, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–8, and 10–14, all of the pending
claims.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies Siemens Aktiengesellschaft as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief filed January 9, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”) at 1.
2 Claims 2 and 9 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 19–20.
Appeal 2020-003732
Application 15/236,599
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Summary
The subject matter of Appellant’s application relates to “determining
measurement locations in an energy grid.” Spec. ¶ 3.3 The invention
determines the locations by performing a simulation “[f]or all nodes i of the
grid.” Id. ¶ 44. The goal of the simulation is “to minimize the number of
required measurement locations and thus the number of explicitly observable
grid nodes.” Id. ¶ 38.
Illustrative Claim
Claims 1, 8, and 10 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with
certain dispositive limitation at issue italicized, illustrates the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method for determining measurement locations
in an energy grid having a heterogeneous energy generator and
an energy consumer structure, wherein in the energy grid use is
made of a controllable device for wide-range voltage control,
which comprises the steps of:
providing a model of the energy grid specifying a voltage
distribution within the energy grid by means of at least one of a
system of equations or a system of inequalities depending on a
control position of the controllable device;
carrying out a simulation for minimizing a number of the
measurement locations on a basis of the model, and as a result
of the simulation a minimum number and a respective position
of the measurement locations and also the control position of
the controllable device are specified in order that the energy
grid complies with a predefined voltage band during operation,

3 In addition to the above-noted Appeal Brief, throughout this Decision we
refer to: (1) Appellant’s Specification filed August 15, 2016 (“Spec.”);
(2) the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed August 21, 2019; (3) the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed February 19, 2020.
Appeal 2020-003732
Application 15/236,599
3
wherein during the simulation for all control positions of the
controllable device and in each case for all nodes in the energy
grid, the following steps are repeated:
cancelling a condition in at least one of the system
of equations or the system of inequalities that the
predefined voltage band must be complied with, for a
respective node;
carrying out the simulation; and
adding the respective node to a set of the
measurement locations required at a minimum, if a result
of the simulation reveals that the predefined voltage band
was violated at the respective node; and
carrying out above steps via a computer.
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES AND REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–8, and 10–14, under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Yu Xiang et
al., Optimization of State-Estimator-Based Operation Framework Including
Measurement Placement for Medium Voltage Distribution Grid, IEEE
TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID, vol. 5, no. 6 (2014) (“Xiang”) and
Trias (US 7,519,506 B2, issued Apr. 14, 2009). Final Act. 8–22.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of Appellant’s arguments and evidence.
Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
The Examiner finds that Xiang teaches most of the limitations of
independent claim 1, but finds that “Xiang does not explicitly disclose a
computer or processor” or “a system of equations” and thus, does not teach
or suggest “carrying out above steps via a computer” or “providing a model
Appeal 2020-003732
Application 15/236,599
4
of the energy grid . . . by means of . . . a system of equations,” as recited in
claim 1. Final Act. 9, 12.
The Examiner relies on Trias to teach these limitations. Id. at 4–5.
The Examiner concludes that sufficient reason existed to combine the
teachings of the references because one having ordinary skill in the art
would have been “motivated to use a computer processor into the system of
optimizing measurement placement with Monte Carlo simulation for the
advantageous purpose of implementing the real-time state estimation and
Monte Carlo simulation” and “to use well known system of equations into
the system of optimizing measurement placement with Monte Carlo
simulation for the advantageous purpose of solving the load flow equations
for state estimation of the distribution grid.” Id. (citing Trias 2:41–45, 6:35–
42, and 14:29–30). Of particular relevance, the Examiner relies on Xiang to
teach or suggest:
carrying out a simulation for minimizing a number of the
measurement locations on a basis of the model, and as a result of
the simulation a minimum number and a respective position of
the measurement locations and also the control position of the
controllable device are specified in order that the energy grid
complies with a predefined voltage band during operation,
wherein during the simulation for all control positions of the
controllable device and in each case for all nodes in the energy
grid, the following steps are repeated:
cancelling a condition in at least one of the system of
equations or the system of inequalities that the predefined
voltage band must be complied with, for a respective node;
carrying out the simulation; and
adding the respective node to a set of the measurement
locations required at a minimum, if a result of the simulation
reveals that the predefined voltage band was violated at the
respective node,
as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4 (citing Xiang pages 2934–2935).
Appeal 2020-003732
Application 15/236,599
5
Appellant argues that the “claimed method and configuration carries
out the simulation in each case for all nodes in the energy grid,” but
Xiang’s Monte Carlo simulation does not carry out all three of the claimed
steps for all nodes in the energy grid. Appeal Br. 12. In particular,
Appellant argues “the simulation of Xiang is not performed to determine
whether to provide meters at the nodes (PoCs) [(points of connection)] with
large industrial loads and large DGs [(dispersed generations)], because, in
Xiang, all of these nodes are automatically provided with meters ‘according
to the rules’, i.e., without any simulation requirements.” Id. at 13. That is,
“under the rules of Xiang, all PoCs with large industrial loads and large DGs
are provided with meters,” without carrying out a simulation at their
respective nodes. Id.
The Examiner responds that Xiang “states every component is subject
to failure” and Xiang “indicates the number of simulation cases depend on
the variances of all uncertainties in the grid. Considering all uncertainties
and variances of every component in the grid is considering every node in
the grid, for each respective node, as claimed.” Ans. 6.
We find persuasive Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has not
sufficiently shown that Xiang’s Monte Carlo simulation carries out the
claimed simulation steps for all nodes in the energy grid. Appeal Br. 12.
Appellant points out that in Xiang, “all large industrial loads or dispersed
generations are required to have a meter and also at least one PoC with
household loads and one Poc with commercial loads should have meters.”
Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis omitted).
We agree, noting Xiang discloses that “[p]rincipally, the paper
suggests to install meters at all PoCs with large industrial loads or dispersed
generations (DGs), due to their complex behavior. And at least one PoC
Appeal 2020-003732
Application 15/236,599
6
with household loads and one PoC with commercial loads should have
meters.” Xiang 2931. Xiang further explains, as an example, that at least
one household should automatically be furnished with a meter to provide a
measurement basis at that grid location for simulations on additional
household grid locations. See id. at 2932 (“The grid operators can use the
real-time measurements at some of the household PoCs to estimate the
power at the others. This is the reason why in Section III the paper proposes
to measure at least one PoC connected with household load.”). Xiang then
describes that the Monte Carlo simulations need only be performed at
additional node locations that are not automatically furnished with a meter.
Id. at 2934, VII. Thus, as Appellant argues, “Xiang starts with a first
number of required measured points at certain types of PoCs, as a given (i.e.,
without running a simulation on them), and only determines a minimum
number of further measured points, in addition to the measured points
required, as a rule and without simulation.” Appeal Br. 12.
Although the Examiner finds that “‘[e]very component in a
measurement unit is subject to failure, which leads to data unavailability,”
the Examiner has not sufficiently shown that Xiang teaches or suggests
performing a simulation at all nodes in the energy grid in the event of such a
failure. Ans. 6 (emphasis omitted). We, therefore, agree with Appellant that
Xiang does not describe carrying out a simulation for all nodes or
measurement points in the energy grid.
Given the current record, the Examiner has not demonstrated that
Xiang teaches or suggests “carrying out a simulation for minimizing a
number of the measurement locations on a basis of the model . . . wherein
during the simulation for all control positions of the controllable device and
in each case for all nodes in the energy grid, the following steps are
Appeal 2020-003732
Application 15/236,599
7
repeated,” as recited in claim 1. Nor does the Examiner show that Trias
compensates for the noted deficiencies of Xiang. Final Act. 9–10.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Because
we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by
Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments
seeking to distinguish claim 1.
For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 8 and 10, which recite limitations similar to those at
issue in claim 1. Appeal Br. 19–21. In addition, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 3–7 and 11–14, which depend directly or
indirectly from claims 1 or 10.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

REVERSED

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–8,
10–14
103 Xiang, Trias 1, 3–8,
10–14