Ex Parte Johal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 4, 2017

13485448 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 4, 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.
13/485,448 05/31/2012 Harjeet Johal 256990-1 5640
6147 7590 04/06/2017
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GLOBAL RESEARCH
ONE RESEARCH CIRCLE
BLDG. K1-3A59
NISKAYUNA, NY 12309
EXAMINER
JUNG, JAY YOUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2126
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/06/2017 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):
haeckl@ge.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
Lori.e.rooney @ ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HARJEET JOHAL,
KRISHNA KUMAR ANAPARTHI,
and JASON WAYNE BLACK
Appeal 2017-000276
Application 13/485,448
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOYCE CRAIG, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2017-000276
Application 13/485,448
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A frequency regulation system comprising:
a sensor to detect a power grid signal;
a frequency deviation identification module to determine
a power grid frequency deviation from the power grid signal;
a demand response module to identify an operating
schedule for available loads based on frequency deviation set
points and ramp rates; and
a load control module to control the available loads based
on the operating schedule.
Rejections
Claims 1—5, 8—12, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Forbes1 and Miller.2 Final Act. 2—9.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Forbes, Miller, and Pratt.3 Final Act. 9—10.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Forbes, Miller, and Galligan.4 Final Act. 10-11.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Forbes, Miller, and Silverman.5 Final Act. 11—12.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Forbes, Miller, and Gunn.6 Final Act. 12—13.
1 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2011/0172837 A1 (July 14, 2011).
2 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2009/0218819 A1 (Sept. 3, 2009).
3 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0200160 A1 (Aug. 9, 2012).
4 U.S. Patent No. 4,783,307 (Nov. 8, 1998).
5 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2013/0035992 A1 (Feb. 7, 2013).
6 U.S. Patent No. 5,517,190 (May 14, 1996).
2
Appeal 2017-000276
Application 13/485,448
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Forbes, Miller, and Sato.7 Final Act. 13—14.
Claims 18—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Forbes, Miller, and Chen.8 Final Act. 14—17.
ANALYSIS9
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. To the extent consistent
with the analysis below, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. Ans. 2-4. We highlight and address specific
arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellants contend that the combination of Forbes and Miller does
not teach “a demand response module to identify an operating schedule for
available loads based on frequency deviation set points and ramp rates”
(hereinafter “the disputed limitation”), as recited in independent claim 1.
App. Br. 5-9.
7 U.S. Patent No. 6,338,009 B1 (Jan. 8, 2002).
8 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2007/0211887 A1 (Sept. 13, 2007).
9 Independent claims 11 and 18 present the same dispositive issues as
independent claim 1. App. Br. 9, 11. Separate patentability is not argued for
claims 2—10, 12—17, 19, and 20; except for our ultimate decision, these
claims are not discussed further.
3
Appeal 2017-000276
Application 13/485,448
The Examiner finds, and we agree:
Forbes’ AGC system . . . transmits a change in load operating
schedule to immediately reduce, thereby determining and
executing a newly created load reduction schedule.
Ans. 3 (emphasis added) (citing Forbes Iffl 12, 105, 132).
The Examiner also finds and we agree:
Miller’s techniques are directed to the same Automatic
Generation control (AGC) augmentation system as used in
Forbes for wind power plant (power generator) integration for
controlling the power contribution to a grid and further provides
the calculation of the area control error (ACE) by actively
communicating generator’s ramp rate limits and curtailment
requests which contribute to ACE calculation. . . .
Miller teaches in |32 that ramp rate is a
monitored/indicating parameter for large increases in generation
or decreases in load cause the power exchange to exceed
specified threshold(s) thereby AGC system augmentation
becoming active; furthermore, Miller’s AGC performs an ACE
augmentation calculation to yield a ramp rate.
Therefore, it would be obvious to utilize ramp rate as an
indicating parameter, similar to that of Forbes’ monitoring
frequency deviation and wherein if an instability arises AGC
system transmits a change in load operating schedule to
immediately reduce, thereby determining and executing a newly
created load reduction schedule teaches the Appellant argued
elements of independent claim(s). . . . [S]ince ramp rates and
frequency deviations are both known indicators of grid
instability/regulation monitoring parameters, it would have
been obvious to use both ramp rates and frequency deviation as
indicators for the AGC to trigger a determined load reduction
schedule.
Ans. 3^4 (original emphasis omitted) (italics added) (citing Forbes If12;
Miller IHf 11,32).
4
Appeal 2017-000276
Application 13/485,448
Thus, we find Appellants’ contention that the applied art of record
lacks the disputed limitation unavailing given Forbes’ and Miller’s above-
noted disclosure.
We have considered Appellants’ Reply Brief but find it unpersuasive
in rebutting the Examiner’s responses because Appellants rely on description
in the Specification that is not recited in the claims. In addition, we agree
with the Examiner’s finding:
Miller teaches in |32 that ramp rate is a monitored/indicating
parameter for large increases in generation or decreases in load
cause the power exchange to exceed specified threshold(s)
thereby AGC system augmentation becoming active;
furthermore, Miller’s AGC performs an ACE
augmentation calculation to yield a ramp rate.
Ans. 4 (citing Miller^ 11, 32) (emphases added).
We are not persuaded the Examiner has erred because Appellants
provide no persuasive evidence of the alleged error. Specifically, Appellants
provide no persuasive evidence or argument regarding why the ramp rate as
taught by Miller in combination with the teachings of Forbes does not meet
the claimed disputed limitation. Rather, Appellants merely provide
conclusory remarks that Miller’s ramp rate is different from what is claimed.
Reply Br. 4. It is well settled that mere attorney’s arguments and conclusory
statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little
probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re
De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Attorney argument is not
evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Nor can such
argument take the place of evidence lacking in the record. Meitzner v.
Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977).
5
Appeal 2017-000276
Application 13/485,448
Accordingly, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—
20 under § 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 1—20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6