Enphase Energy, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 13, 2020

15068922 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2020)

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.
15/068,922 03/14/2016 Ryan Linderman EE180 9510
54698 7590 01/13/2020
MOSER TABOADA
1030 BROAD STREET
SUITE 203
SHREWSBURY, NJ 07702
EXAMINER
CHOWDHURY, ROCKSHANA D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2835
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/13/2020 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 RYAN LINDERMAN
Appeal 2019-003150
Application 15/068,922
Technology Center 2800
Before N. WHITNEY WILSON, ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, and
MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROESEL, 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 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an apparatus for power conversion without
a connection to ground. According to Appellant’s Specification, the

1 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 Enphase Energy,
Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003150
Application 15/068,922

2
apparatus is useful for converting direct current (DC) energy generated by a
photovoltaic (PV) module to alternating current (AC) energy and coupling
such energy to an electric power grid. Spec. ¶¶ 2–4, 27–29, Fig. 1. Claim 1
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. An apparatus for power conversion without a
connection to ground, comprising:
an inverter dimensioned and arranged to receive a DC
input signal and generate, from the DC input signal, a first AC
line voltage carrying output and a second AC line voltage
carrying output, the inverter including:
an enclosure formed from an insulating material, and
a bulkhead connector interface having:
a first two terminal port that receives the DC input signal,
and
a second two terminal port that couples the first and the
second AC line voltage carrying outputs to an AC line, wherein
the first two terminal port comprises a first keying feature to
prevent a DC plug, configured for being plugged into the first
two terminal port, from being plugged into the second two
terminal port, and wherein the second two terminal port
comprises a second keying feature to prevent an AC plug,
configured for being plugged into the second two terminal port,
from being plugged into the first two terminal port.
Appeal 2019-003150
Application 15/068,922

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Fabian US 7,108,534 B2 Sept. 19, 2006
Rotzoll US 2008/0283118 A1 Nov. 20, 2008
Wiest US 2012/0315783 A1 Dec. 13, 2012

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103:
1. Claims 1–10 over Rotzoll and Fabian; and
2. Claims 11–20 over Rotzoll, Fabian, and Weist.
OPINION
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Rotzoll discloses an apparatus for power
conversion without a connection to ground. Final Act. 2. Referring to
structures shown in Rotzoll Figures 5 and 9, the Examiner finds that Rotzoll
discloses an inverter 903, a DC input 507, first and second AC line voltage
carrying outputs 905 and 915, a bulkhead connector interface 904, a first two
terminal port 520–525 that receives a DC input signal, a second two terminal
port 530, 531 that couples the first and the second AC line voltage carrying
outputs to an AC line, and a first keying feature 511 and 512. Id. at 2–3.
The Examiner finds that Rotzoll does not disclose a second keying feature,
but that such a feature is taught by Fabian and that it would have been
obvious to modify Rotzoll to include a second keying feature “in order
Appeal 2019-003150
Application 15/068,922

4
provide keying arrangements to work effectively for preventing inadvertent
mating or connecting of the electrical contacts.” Id. at 3.
Appellant challenges several of the Examiner’s findings regarding
Rotzoll, but does not challenge the Examiner’s findings regarding Fabian,
nor the Examiner’s rationale for combining Rotzoll and Fabian. Appeal
Br. 7–9; Reply Br. 2–3.
After considering Appellant’s briefs, the Examiner’s Answer, the
cited teachings of the references, and the record as a whole, we determine
that Appellant does not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s decision
to reject claim 1 over Rotzoll and Fabian.
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs by equating Rotzoll’s cables
905 and 915 (or cables 915 and 925) to the claimed first and second AC line
voltage carrying outputs. Appeal Br. 8. Referring to cable 925 connected to
inverters 913 and 923 in Rotzoll Figure 9, Appellant argues that cable 925
cannot “be both the claimed first and second AC line voltage carrying
outputs” and that, even if it could, “the inverter 923 has no second AC line
voltage carrying output.” Id. at 7.
In response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner presents the
following mark-up of Rotzoll Figure 9:
Appeal 2019-003150
Application 15/068,922

5

Rotzoll Figure 9 is a layout drawing of the placement of
inverters, inverter mounting brackets, associated AC cables and
PV modules (Rotzoll ¶ 28)
The above markup of Rotzoll Figure 9 (Ans. 6) illustrates the
Examiner’s findings regarding Appellant’s claim 1 and Rotzoll, as set forth
in the Final Action. We are not persuaded that Appellant identifies error in
the Examiner’s finding that Rotzoll discloses “a first AC line voltage
carrying output and a second AC line voltage carrying output,” as recited in
claim 1. Appellant’s argument focuses on Rotzoll’s cable 925 and does not
identify error in the Examiner’s finding that, for inverter 903, Rotzoll’s AC
connecting cables 905 and 915 correspond to the claimed first and second
AC line voltage carrying outputs. Compare Appeal Br. 7, with Final Act. 2;
Ans. 3, 6.
Appeal 2019-003150
Application 15/068,922

6
In the Reply Brief, Appellant presents a new argument regarding
claim 1’s recitation of “a first AC line voltage carrying output and a second
AC line voltage carrying output,” arguing that “Rotzoll doesn’t show that
the cables 905 and 915 are coupled to the same AC line.” Reply Br. 2.
Because Appellant’s argument was not presented in the Appeal Brief and is
not accompanied by a showing of good cause, we need not consider it.
37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv), 41.41(b)(2). Even if we were to consider
Appellant’s new argument, it is not persuasive. A comparison of Rotzoll’s
Figure 9 with Appellant’s Figure 1 shows that Rotzoll’s AC connecting
cables 905 and 915 are coupled to the same AC line in the same way that
Appellant’s AC trunk cables 116 are connected to the same AC line. In both
instances, a series of inverters are interconnected by AC cables in a
daisy-chain fashion, and the first (or last) inverter in the series is connected
by an AC cable to the power grid. Compare Rotzoll Fig. 9, ¶¶ 15, 46, with
Spec. Fig. 1, ¶¶ 2, 29. Appellant’s undeveloped two-sentence argument
(Reply Br. 2) fails to persuasively distinguish the claim language from the
AC cable configuration disclosed by Rotzoll.
Next, Appellant challenges the Examiner’s finding that “a second two
terminal port” is disclosed by Rotzoll’s connectors 530, 531. Final Act. 2–3.
Appellant argues that these connectors are not part of the same port and are
“not part of a two-terminal AC port as recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 8.
According to Appellant, “Rotzoll discloses two physically separate
connectors (530 and 531) that mate with two physically separate
connectors,” e.g., on the ends of cables 915 and 925. Id. Appellant
contrasts Rotzoll’s disclosure with Appellant’s Specification, in which “the
two-terminal AC port is a single port that mates with a single plug.” Id.
Appeal 2019-003150
Application 15/068,922

7
(citing Spec. ¶ 46, Figs. 2, 3). Appellant argues that Rotzoll does not teach
or suggest “a single AC port having two terminals,” as required by claim 1.
Reply Br. 2.
We are not persuaded that Appellant’s argument identifies error in the
Examiner’s finding. Claim 1 recites “a second two terminal port that
couples the first and the second AC line voltage carrying outputs to an AC
line.” The Examiner finds that this limitation is taught by Rotzoll’s AC
connectors 530 and 531. Final Act. 2–3; Ans. 4. Appellant does not dispute
the Examiner’s finding that Rotzoll’s AC connectors 530 and 531 are
terminals. In our view, Rotzoll’s AC connectors 530 and 531 can be
considered a two-terminal port in the same way that Appellant’s AC slots
324 and 328 are considered a two-terminal port. See Spec. Figs. 2, 3, ¶ 46.
In both cases, the two terminals are capable of mating with a single plug
having two pins or other electrical contacts. An example of such a plug
would be Fabian’s plug 14, which mates with receptacle 12 and includes a
pair of electrical contact housings 40 and 42, each containing electrical
contact 38. Fabian, Figs. 1–4 & 8, 3:47–51, 5:4–10, 5:41–45. Appellant
does not challenge the Examiner’s findings that Fabian teaches a two
terminal AC port, a keying feature, and an AC plug configured for being
plugged into the two terminal AC port. Final Act. 3; Ans. 4. Nor does
Appellant challenge the Examiner’s finding that it would have been obvious
to modify Rotzoll with the teachings of Fabian in order to provide a keying
arrangement. Id. These unchallenged findings reinforce our view that
Rotzoll’s AC connectors 530 and 531 can be considered a two terminal port
capable of mating with a single plug, such as Fabian’s AC plug 14.
Appeal 2019-003150
Application 15/068,922

8
Next, Appellant challenges the Examiner’s finding that “a first two
terminal port” is disclosed by Rotzoll’s DC receptacles 520–525 (Final
Act. 2), arguing that these DC receptacles are not a two terminal port, as
recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 8–9. According to Appellant, “Rotzoll
discloses that elements 520 and 521 are two separate receptacles, not a
single port that has two terminals.” Reply Br. 2.
Again, we are not persuaded that Appellant’s argument identifies error
in the Examiner’s finding. Appellant fails to provide persuasive reasoning
or evidence that Rotzoll’s receptacles 520 and 521 are “two separate
receptacles” rather than “a single port that has two terminals.” As shown
and described in Rotzoll, receptacles 520 and 521 are part of the same
mounting bracket, and they mate with a single set of pins protruding from
the same inverter. Rotzoll, Figs. 5, 6, ¶¶ 39, 40. Accordingly, Appellant
does not identify error in the Examiner’s finding that “a first two terminal
port” is taught or suggested by Rotzoll.
Appellant’s Reply Brief presents another new argument that was not
presented in the Appeal Brief. Appellant challenges the Examiner’s finding
that “an inverter . . . including . . . a bulkhead connector interface” is taught
by Rotzoll’s inverter 903 and mounting bracket 904. Ans. 3–4; Reply Br. 2.
Appellant argues that “Rotzoll’s inverter 903 and mounting bracket 904 are
two separate and distinct entities” and that Rotzoll’s inverter 903 does not
comprise a bulkhead connector interface, as required by claim 1. Reply
Br. 2–3. Because Appellant’s argument was not presented in the Appeal
Brief and is not accompanied by a showing of good cause, we need not
consider it. 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv), 41.41(b)(2). Even if we were to
consider Appellant’s new argument, it is not persuasive. Appellant does not
Appeal 2019-003150
Application 15/068,922

9
dispute that Rotzoll teaches that inverter 903 may be coupled to mounting
bracket 904. Reply Br. 2; Rotzoll Figs. 6, 9, ¶¶ 40, 46. In that
configuration, the inverter includes the mounting bracket, and the claim
language cannot be distinguished Rotzoll’s disclosure.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 over
Rotzoll and Fabian.
Claims 2–20
Appellant presents no arguments specifically directed to dependent
claims 2–10 separate from its arguments regarding independent claim 1. See
Appeal Br. 9. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 2–10 for the reasons discussed above regarding
independent claim 1.
Appellant challenges the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11–20 over
Rotzoll, Fabian, and Weist based on the same arguments it presented for
claim 1 and presents no arguments specifically directed to claims 11–20
separate from its arguments regarding claim 1. Appeal Br. 9–10.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 11–20
for the reasons discussed above regarding claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–10 103 Rotzoll, Fabian 1–10
Appeal 2019-003150
Application 15/068,922

10
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
11–20 103 Rotzoll, Fabian, Weist 11–20
Overall
outcome: 1−20
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED