Ex Parte Cinnamon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2017

12395143 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2017)

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.
12/395,143 02/27/2009 Barry Cinnamon 366022-991130 3792
26379 7590 05/01/2017
DLA PIPER LLP (US )
2000 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
EAST PALO ALTO, CA 94303-2248
EXAMINER
BARTON, JEFFREY THOMAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1757
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2017 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):
PatentDocketingU S -Palo Alto @ dlapiper. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BARRY CINNAMON,
WILSON LEONG, and ALEX AU
Appeal 2016-004828
Application 12/395,1431
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1—3 and 5—8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stewart2 and rejecting claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stewart in view of Jenkins.3 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).4
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Andalay Solar Inc. Br. 1.
2 Stewart, US 6,188,145 Bl, issued Feb. 13, 2001 (“Stewart”).
3 Jenkins, US 7,211,749 B2, issued May 1, 2007 (“Jenkins”).
4 Our decision refers to the Appellants’ Specification (Spec.) filed Feb. 27, 2009,
the Supplemental Appeal Brief (Br.) filed Oct. 21, 2015, and the Examiner’s
Answer (Ans.) dated Jan. 25, 2016.
Appeal 2016-004828
Application 12/395,143
We AFFIRM.
The subject matter on appeal relates to piggyback adapters and electrical
systems including, among other things, piggyback adapters (see, e.g., claims 1 and
6). Appellants disclose that solar power systems generate direct current that is
converted into alternating current at voltage levels suitable for use in a household,
such as to supplement power obtained from the electrical grid. Spec. 1:7—12.
Metering devices of a house can monitor the amount of power such systems
generate and the amount of power consumed from the electrical grid. Id. at 1: IS­
IS. Appellants disclose, however, it is sometimes impossible to install monitors
due to a lack of space within a metering device box and the installation of such
monitors has a relatively high cost. Id. at 1:15—20. In view of this, Appellants
disclose it would be desirable to provide a piggyback adapter that permits an easier
and less expensive installation of a localized solar power system. Id. at 1:25—28.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix of the Brief.5
1. A piggyback adapter for a photovoltaic system, comprising:
an enclosure that has one or more ports that receive at least an
inverter path connected to an inverter, a monitor power path connected
to a power meter, an electric grid path and an electric vehicle charging
path;
a piggyback mechanism that fits between the power meter and a
power meter base;
one or more circuit breakers located in the monitor power path
and the inverter path that prevent over-current along the monitor power
path and along the inverter path; and
one or more sensors located in the monitor power path and the
inverter path that measure the current along the monitor power path and
along the inverter path.
5 Br. Claims Appendix 10.
2
Appeal 2016-004828
Application 12/395,143
B. DISCUSSION
Claims 1—3 and 5—8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stewart. We select claim 1 as representative of the issues on
appeal.
Appellants contend the meter collar 746 of Stewart does not include ports
that receive an inverter path connected to an inverter and receive a monitor power
path connected to a power meter because the meter collar 74 connects to contacts
36, 38, 40, 42 of meter socket 34, which connects to the utility grid. Br. 4—5.
Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive. The Examiner finds the term “path,”
under its broadest reasonable interpretation, to mean “the route in which electricity
or signals can travel in the device,” which includes “all of the conductive elements
that connect one element to another element.” Ans. 9. Appellants do not dispute
the Examiner’s interpretation.
The Examiner finds Stewart discloses a meter collar 74 including housings
76 and 77 that have openings through which contacts 85-88,100,102,104,106
and a cable 90 extend. Ans. 3. Contacts 100,102,104,106 of the meter collar 74
connect with a meter 32 and provide a monitor power path.7 Id. at 4. An on-site
power source 166 disclosed by Stewart is connected to the meter collar 74 via the
cable 90. Id. The Examiner further finds Stewart discloses that an on-site power
source can be a direct current source connected to an inverter, which provides an
inverter path. Id.
6 Throughout this Decision, for clarity, we present labels to elements in figures in
bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
7 Contact 86 of the meter collar 74 engages contact 36 of the meter socket 34,
which the Examiner finds to provide an electric grid path. Id. The Examiner finds
“an electric vehicle charging path” to be an intended use for a connection of the
meter socket 34 to a load. Id. at 3^4. Appellants do not dispute either of these
findings.
3
Appeal 2016-004828
Application 12/395,143
The disclosure of Stewart supports the Examiner’s findings. Stewart
discloses that the meter collar 74 includes a right-side housing member 76 joined
to a left-side housing member 77. Stewart 5:40-42, Figure 3. As the Examiner
finds, Stewart discloses that contacts 100,102,104,106 of the meter collar 74
connect with a meter 32 and thus provide a monitor power path connected to a
power meter, as recited in claim 1. Id. at 5:54—59, 6:24—30; Figures 2, 7, 9.
Further, Stewart discloses power from an on-site power source 166, such as a
generator powered by an engine, can be supplied through an inverter and a cable
90 extends from the meter collar 74 and is connected to the on-site power source
166 via a receptacle for a plug 168 at the end of a power cable 164 of the on-site
power source 166. Id. at 1:28—36; 5:51—53; 6:35—38, 54—58; Figures 3, 7, 9. Thus,
the cable 90 provides a port that receives an inverter path connected to an inverter,
as recited in claim 1. Appellants’ argument does not address the Examiner’s
rejection, including the above findings, or otherwise identify a reversible error in
the Examiner’s rejection.
Appellants argue Stewart does not disclose or suggest “one or more circuit
breakers located in the monitor power path and the inverter path that prevent over­
current along the monitor power path and along the inverter path,” as recited in
claim 1, because the circuit breakers disclosed by Stewart “are not located in the
monitor power path and the inverter path.” Br. 5.
This argument is also unpersuasive. The Examiner finds that although
Stewart does not disclose circuit breakers within its interface circuits, such as the
interface circuit 60c depicted in Figure 9, Stewart discloses the use of circuit
breakers as protective devices. Ans. 4. In view of this, the Examiner concludes it
would have been obvious to modify an interface circuit of Stewart (e.g., interface
circuit 60c) to include circuit breakers in its monitor path and inverter path to
4
Appeal 2016-004828
Application 12/395,143
provide protections for those circuits. Id. at 4—5. The disclosure of Stewart
supports the Examiner’s findings by disclosing the embodiments of Figures 7 and
9 may include “[protective devices (e.g., fuses and circuit breakers).” Stewart
14:19—22. As stated by the Examiner at pages 10 and 13 of the Examiner’s
Answer, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s findings or conclusion that it
would have been obvious to include circuit breakers in the monitor power path and
inverter path of Stewart. Instead, Appellants merely argue Stewart does not
disclose or suggest the claimed limitations, which does not address the Examiner’s
rejection or otherwise direct us to a reversible error.
With regard to the one or more sensors recited in claim 1, the Examiner
finds that Stewart discloses a sensor group 456 that includes current sensors, the
sensor group 456 is part of the interface circuit 60c, and the sensor group 456
controls the inverter so its output matches a utility company’s power in frequency
and phase. Id. at 5. In view of this, the Examiner finds that because the sensor
group 456 controls the inverter, the sensor group 456 is measuring current of the
inverter path and is therefore located in the inverter path. Id. The Examiner also
finds the sensor group 456 is connected to the meter 32 along path 406 in Figure 9,
which means the sensor group 456 is located in the monitor power path and
measures current along the monitor power path 456. Id. at 6. Column 15, lines
25—45, and Figure 9 of Stewart support the Examiner’s findings.
Although Appellants agree the sensor group 456 of Stewart includes a
current sensor, agree “Stewart does in fact disclose that a PLL of the sensor group
456 controls the inverter so that its output would match the utility company’s
power in frequency and phase,” and agree “Stewart does in fact disclose that the
PLL of the sensor group 456 may control the inverter connected to cable 90,”
Appellants contend “Stewart does not disclose the claimed ‘one or more sensors
5
Appeal 2016-004828
Application 12/395,143
located in the monitor power path and the inverter path that measure the current
along the monitor power path and along the inverter path’” of claim 1. Br. 6. This
argument does not address the Examiner’s findings or otherwise identify a
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Independent claim 6 recites an electrical system comprising, among other
things:
a piggyback adapter having an enclosure that has one or more ports that
receive at least an inverter path connected to the inverter and a monitor
power path connected to a power meter and an electric vehicle charging
path, a piggyback mechanism that fits between the power meter and a
power meter base, one or more circuit breakers located in the monitor
power path and the inverter path that prevent over-current along the
monitor power path and along the inverter path; and one or more
sensors located in the monitor power path and the inverter path that
measure the current along the monitor power path and along the inverter
path.
Therefore, the electrical system of claim 6 includes a piggyback adapter
similar to that of claim 1. Appellants’ arguments traversing the rejection of claim
6 are substantively the same as those set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Br. 6—8. As discussed above, these arguments do not identity a reversible error in
the Examiner’s rejection.
Appellants do not argue dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8 separately from
claims 1 and 6. Br. 6, 8. For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the
Examiner’s Answer, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1—3 and
5—8 over Stewart.
For the § 103 rejection of claim 4 over the combination of Stewart and
Jenkins, Appellants contend Jenkins does not cure the deficiencies of Stewart
discussed above with regard to the rejection of claim 1. Br. 8. For the reasons set
6
Appeal 2016-004828
Application 12/395,143
forth above, there are no deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1 that require curing
by Jenkins. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the
Examiner’s Answer, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 4.
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner 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)(1).
AFFIRMED
7