Ex Parte Goodsell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 13, 2018

12292855 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/292,855 11/26/2008
120225 7590 06/15/2018
Dickinson Wright PLLC - Hubbell
1825 Eye Street, N.W.
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John P. Goodsell
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
66830-166 9533
EXAMINER
LEJA, RONALD W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2836
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/15/2018 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):
DWPatents@dickinsonwright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORETHE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN P. GOODSELL, 1
Sorin loan Mortun, and Robert Fanzutti
Appeal2017-010969
Application 12/292,855
Technology Center 2800
Before MARK NAGUMO, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
John P. Goodsell, Sorin loan Mortun, and Robert Fanzutti
("Goodsell") timely appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection2 of all pending claims 1 and 3-30. We have jurisdiction.
35 U.S.C. § 6. We reverse.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Hubbell Incorporated. (Appeal
Brief, filed 29 August 2016 ("Br."), 3.)
2 Office Action mailed 19 November 2015 ("Final Rejection"; cited as
"FR"). Amendments correcting formalities, filed under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.116
on 19 February 2016, were entered. (Advisory Action entered 4 April
2016.)
Appeal2017-010969
Application 12/292,855
A. Introduction 3
OPINION
The subject matter on appeal relates to a ground fault receptacle
("GFR"), which is a ground fault circuit interrupter ("GFCI") safety device
in the form of a receptacle. (Spec. 1 [0003].) The '855 Specification teaches
that a problem in the art is "miswiring" by the installer, in which the line
power is mistakenly connected to the load terminals of the GFR, rather than
to the line terminals. (Id. at [0004].) Such a miswired device still has power
at the receptacle face terminals even if the GRF is tripped. (Id.) Thus,
because the miswired GFR can still detect a ground fault, trip, and be reset,
the user can be "fool[ ed] ... into thinking they were protected when they
were not." (Id.) Goodsell seeks patent protection for a GFR that is said to
overcome this problem in a simple and easily manufactured device.
(Id. at 3 [0004].)
A circuit diagram of an inventive GFR device 1004 is illustrated in
Figure 3, reproduced on the next page. Device 100 has the following
features: line hot and neutral contacts 110 and 112 connected to hot and
neutral conductors 120, 122; receptacle hot and neutral contacts 130, 132
connected to receptacle hot and neutral conductors 140, 142; and load hot
3 Application 12/292,855, GFCI with miswire protection having unitary
receptacle and load conductors after proper installation,
filed 26 November 2008, claiming the benefit of a provisional application,
filed 30 November 2007. We refer to the '"855 Specification," which we
cite as "Spec."
4 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements are presented in
bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
2
Appeal2017-010969
Application 12/292,855
and neutral contacts 150, 152 connected to load hot and neutral
conductors 160 and 162. (Id. at 5 [0023].)
{Figure 3 is shown below}
100
)
130 120 170 : ) 140
Hot //3:( ~ Receptacle
LINE "-( i ....................... -...___-1-! +I-·_....,,!)~ 132 --~~-~-- ----(!I\
110
,-.......n---4-....;._---,.--..J.._,,____-1· i----0 l 0---,--+---------1-it-----0-------~
Neutral
392 180
Neutral
112 122 179 142
176 ___,...--- - -- _j 394
174
172
390
160 150
~
uNeutral
182 ) '-152
162
{Figure 3 shows GFR 100 prior to connection to the power lines}
LOAD
Ground faults are detected by sensing coil 170 and GFCI circuit 172, which
sense a difference in current between hot line conductor 120 and opposite to
the current in neutral conductor 122. (Id.) Such a difference, arising from a
ground fault, occurs when there is an unintended current path from the hot
conductor to ground, which represents an electrical shock hazard. (Morgan 5
col. I, 11. 60-67.) A ground fault signal triggers SCR 174, which energizes
solenoid 176, which causes contacts 178, 179 to open, cutting off the line
current from receptacle terminals 130, 132, and from load terminals 150,
5 Full cite for Morgan at 9 n.5, post.
3
Appeal2017-010969
Application 12/292,855
152 [ contacts 180, 182, during normal operation, are closed].
(Spec. 5 [0023].)
A novel aspect of the claimed GFR is said to be that load
conductors 160, 162, are initially isolated electrically from receptacle
conductors 140, 142, by (normally closed) contacts 180, 182, which are
referred to as a "miswiring prevention mechanism." (Id. at 4 [0024].)
Miswiring prevention mechanism 180, 182, is retained in the pre-installation
initially open configuration by "proper wiring detection element" 390, which
together with conductors 392, 394, forms a proper wiring detection circuit.
(Id. at 6 [0024] & 7 [0034].) Thus, if the GFR is miswired, i.e., if power is
connected mistakenly to load terminals 150, 152, no power will be delivered
to the receptacle conductors 140, 142, to receptacle terminals 130, 132, and
[provided that contacts 178, 179 are initially open] to line terminals 110,
112. (Id. at 6 [0024].)
When power is connected to GFR line terminals 110, 112, and
connectors 178, 179, are reset (i.e., closed), the proper wiring detection
circuit will be energized, causing current to flow through proper wiring
detection element 390. (Id. at [0025].) Proper wiring detection element 390
may be a fuse that blows. (Id.) When fuse 390 blows, the miswiring
prevention mechanism is no longer restrained, and contacts 180, 182 close,
so the load conductors 160, 162, are connected electrically to receptacle
conductors 140, 142, as shown in Figure 4 (not reproduced here).
4
Appeal2017-010969
Application 12/292,855
Claim 1 is representative and reads:
A ground fault circuit interrupting device [100] for preventing
miswiring during installation, the device comprising:
at least one line terminal [110, 112];
at least one load terminal [150, 152]
electrically isolated [180, 182] from the at least one
line terminal [110, 112] when the device is in a
tripped condition [178, 179] and
electrically connected to the at least one line terminal
when the device is in a reset condition;
at least one receptacle terminal [130, 132]
electrically connected to one of a hot receptacle
conductor [140, 142] and a neutral receptacle conductor
and
electrically isolated from the at least one
load terminal [150, 152] prior to installation; and
a proper wiring detection circuit [390] connected to said
hot [140] and neutral [142] receptacle conductors that
causes said receptacle terminal [130, 132] to become
electrically connected to said load terminal [150, 152]
only a first time
a source of power is connected to said at least one
line terminal [110, 112]
at the same time the device is in the reset
condition [178, 179].
(Br., Claims App. 1, some indentation, paragraphing, emphasis, and labels to
elements shown in Figure 3 added.)
5
Appeal2017-010969
Application 12/292,855
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection 6, 7 :
A. Claims 1, 3-7, 15-17, 21-24, 26, 27, 29 and 30 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) in view of the combined
teachings of Packard8 and Morgan. 9
Al. Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Packard, Morgan, and
Riendeau. 10
A2. Claims 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Packard, Morgan, and
Erickson. 11
A3. Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Packard, Morgan, and
Bridges. 12
A4. Claims 11, 12, and 14 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) in view of the combined teachings of
Packard, Morgan, and Hassler. 13
6 Examiner's Answer mailed 21 June 2017 ("Ans.").
7 Because this application was filed before the 16 March 2013, effective
date of the America Invents Act, we refer to the pre-AIA version of the
statute.
8 Thomas N. Packard et al., Protective device with miswire protection, U.S.
Patent No. 7,295,410 Bl (13 November 2007), based on an application filed
22 February 2005.
9 Kent Morgan et al., Wiring device with multi-shot miswire, U.S. Patent
No. 7,643,257 Bl (2010).
10 William P. Riendeau et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,048,608 (1977).
11 Kenneth W. Erickson, U.S. Patent No. 3,596,219 (1971).
12 Robert B. Bridges and John R. Brubaker, U.S. Patent No. 4,616,206
(1986).
13 Stephen Paul Hassler, U.S. Patent No. 5,805,046 (1998).
6
Appeal2017-010969
Application 12/292,855
A5. Claims 11 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Packard, Morgan, and
Klimowicz. 14
A6. Claims 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Packard, Morgan, and
Browne. 15
A7. Claims 25 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Packard, Morgan, and
Neiger. 16
B. Discussion
The Board's findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by
a preponderance of the evidence of record.
The Examiner finds that Packard discloses, in Figure 15, reproduced
on the following page, a ground fault circuit interrupting device 100 that
meets the limitations required by claim 1, but that the proper wiring
detection circuit [identified as solenoid 900] does not cause receptacle
terminal 110, 112 to be electrically connected to local terminal 106, 108
only a first time power is connected to line terminal 102, 104 at the same
time the device 17 is in the reset condition (i.e., closed). (FR 2-3.)
14 Michael Albert Klimowicz, U.S. Patent No. 7,260,932 Bl (2007).
15 Alan L. Browne and Nancy L. Johnson, U.S. Patent Application
Publication 2005/0206175 Al (2005).
16 Benjamin Neiger et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,111,733 (2000).
17 Specifically, circuit interrupter 120.
7
Appeal2017-010969
Application 12/292,855
{Packard Figure 15 is reproduced below}
.AO
104
LINE (HOT)
;,;
{Packard Figure 15 shows a circuit diagram of a miswire and ground fault
protective device; arrow to solenoid 900 added}
{Morgan Figure 1: protection device 10 with miswire detection circuitry
(isolating contacts 30 and circuit interrupter 24, upper right)}
proper wiring detection circuit 30 that meets these conditions. (FR 3, last
para., citing Morgan, column 5, lines 11-20.)
8
Appeal2017-010969
Application 12/292,855
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
incorporate circuit 30 of Morgan into the GFCI device described by Packard
"in order to avoid connecting power to the receptacle terminals during a
tripped condition (e.g., a faulty condition)." (FR, para. bridging 4--5.)
Goodsell urges that the Examiner erred harmfully because the
combined teachings of Packard and Morgan would not result in a device
meeting the limitations of the appealed claims. In particular, Goodsell
argues,
[t]he Packard circuit, by having circuit 900 connected to the
line side conductors 102, 104, cannot possibly limit this
event[lSJ to when the device is in the reset condition (i.e.,
which the bus bars 124, 126 of Packard would be in the
closed position permitting power to flow from line side (102,
104) to load side (106, 108).[)]
(Br. 7, last para.) 19
Thus, Morgan does describe circuitry that protects against miswiring,
in particular, circuitry that prevents power connected mistakenly to the load
terminals from reaching the receptacle conductors. However, Morgan's
circuitry does nothing to provide a proper wiring detection circuit that makes
this connection "only a first time a source of power is connected" to the
Packard device line terminals 102, 104, when the device is in the reset
18 I.e., the closing of contacts 902, 904 by solenoid 900.
19 The '855 Specification makes similar remarks about the circuits shown in
Figures 1 and 2 (not reproduced here), in which the proper wiring detection
circuit is connected to line conductors 120, 122, rather than, as in Figures 3
and 4, supra, to receptacle lines 140, 142: "[i]t should be appreciated that in
this embodiment, the state of contacts 178, 179 is irrelevant to the function
of proper wiring detection circuit 190, 192, 194, and miswire prevention
mechanism 180, 182." (Spec. 7 [0027].)
9
Appeal2017-010969
Application 12/292,855
condition, i.e., when bus bar 126 establishes an electrical connection
between hot line 104 and hot load 108, and bus bar 124 establishes an
electrical connection between neutral line 102 and neutral load terminal 106.
Put another way, the Examiner has not shown how Morgan cures the
deficiencies of Packard with respect to the claimed invention.
None of the remaining findings regarding the teachings regarding the
additional limitations recited in the dependent claims, including the
teachings of the remaining references, cure the deficiencies of the principal
rejection.
We therefore reverse the appealed rejections.
C. Order
It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1 and 3-30 is reversed.
REVERSED
10