Ex Parte Evans et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 20, 2010

10666209 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 20, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte PETER B. EVANS and STEVEN E. SCHUMER
__________

Appeal 2009-013225
Application 10/666,209
Technology Center 2100
__________

Decided: April 21, 2010
__________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-14, 19, and 20. Claims 15-18 have been
withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing
was conducted on April 14, 2010.
We reverse.
Appeal 2009-013225
Application 10/666,209

2
The Invention
The disclosed invention relates generally to a method for analyzing
power systems (Spec. 21, ¶ [0085]).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for simulating an electric power network
having a plurality of transmission-level buses and connected electrical
elements and a plurality of distribution-level buses and connected
electrical elements, the method comprising:
determining a model of the transmission-level buses and
connected electrical elements, the model of the transmission-level
buses including a plurality of transmission lines and a plurality of
transmission electrical elements;
determining a model of the distribution-level buses and
connected electrical elements, the model of the distribution-level
buses including a plurality of distribution lines and a plurality of
distribution electrical elements;
generating a single mathematical model by integrating the
model of the transmission-level buses with the model of the
distribution-level buses, wherein the single mathematical model
further models the interdependency of the plurality of transmission
lines and the plurality of transmission electrical elements included in
the model of the transmission level buses and the plurality of
distribution lines and the plurality of distribution electrical elements
included in the model of the distribution-level buses;
simulating an operation of the electrical power network with the
single mathematical model; and
outputting data describing the simulated electric power
network.

Appeal 2009-013225
Application 10/666,209

3
The Reference
The Examiner relies upon the following reference as evidence in
support of the rejections:
Optimal Technologies, Operations Review of June 14, 2000 PG&E
Bay Area System Events Using Aempfast® Software, October 3, 2001
(“Optimal”).

The Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1-14, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as being anticipated by Optimal.

ISSUE
Appellants assert that Optimal fails to disclose “generating a single
mathematical model by integrating the model of the transmission-level buses
with the model of the distribution-level buses” (App. Br. 7).
Did the Examiner err in finding that Optimal discloses generating a
model by integrating the model of the transmission-level buses with the
model of the distribution-level buses?

Appeal 2009-013225
Application 10/666,209

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Facts (FF) are shown by a preponderance
of the evidence.
1. Optimal discloses a “proprietary . . . network optimization software
to perform a detailed review of conditions on [an] . . . electric power
system” (pg. 5).
2. Optimal discloses that Aempfast “tightly and simultaneously links
optimization of the subject system . . . with full and comprehensive
measurement of system resources . . . at each and every bus of the
system” (pg. 13).
3. Optimal discloses “Aempfast can also be applied to optimize an
entire power network . . . [including] transmission and distribution
lines” (pg. 13).
4. Optimal discloses “addition of strategic resources” (pg. 17).
5. Optimal discloses “conversion of EPC datasets to the CWF format”
and comparison of “the CWF output to the original EPC dataset to
detect any possible conversion errors” (pg. 16).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
35 U.S.C. § 102
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
Appeal 2009-013225
Application 10/666,209

5
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).

ANALYSIS
As set forth above, Optimal discloses a software program for
analyzing a power system (FF 1) including “every bus of the system” (FF 2)
and “transmission and distribution lines” (FF 3). While Optimal appears to
disclose analyzing a power system (including both transmission and
distribution lines) using a software program, we do not find, and the
Examiner has not demonstrated that Optimal also discloses each of
determining a transmission-level model, determining a distribution-level
model, and integrating the transmission-level and distribution-level models
to generating a single model. Rather, the Examiner has merely demonstrated
that Optimal discloses analyzing a power system that includes transmission
and distribution lines.
Independent claims 1, 2, 10, and 19 each recite similar features.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1, 2, 10, and 19, and claims 3-9, 11-14, and 20, which depend
therefrom.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner erred in finding that Optimal discloses generating a model by
Appeal 2009-013225
Application 10/666,209

6
integrating the model of the transmission-level buses with the model of the
distribution-level buses.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-14, 19, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).

REVERSED

msc

FENWICK & WEST LLP
SILICON VALLEY CENTER
801 CALIFORNIA STREET
MOUTAIN VIEW, CA 94041