Ex Parte Lockstedt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 29, 2018

14488394 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/488,394 09/17/2014
95683 7590 10/31/2018
Ley dig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office)
Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900
180 North Stetson Avenue
Chicago, IL 60601-6731
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kay Lockstedt
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.
814621 1091
EXAMINER
MCANDREW, CHRISTOPHER P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2858
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2018 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):
chgpatent@leydig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAY LOCKSTEDT, RAINER GOCKEL,
MARKUS BECKER, and ANDREAS SENGER,
Appeal2018-000859
Application 14/488,394 1
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
JANEE. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellant seeks our review of the
Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to the Specification, Appellant's invention relates to a
holding device including a Rogowski coil and a housing part into which the
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG, which is
also identified as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2).
Appeal2018-000859
Application 14/488,394
Rogowski coil is connected, where the Rogowski coil includes a line portion
wound into a coil. (Spec. ,r 9). According to the Specification, the
"invention provides a holding device for a Rogowski coil which provides a
defined support and a defined position of the Rogowski coil on a current
means and which makes contact-free fastening of the Rogowski coil to the
current-conducting means possible." (Spec. ,r 23).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter, and
is reproduced below:
1. A holding device comprising:
a Rogowski coil, the Rogowski coil including a line portion wound
into a coil, and
a housing part into which the Rogowski coil is connected,
wherein a fastening part is configured to be releasably connected to
the housing part,
wherein the fastening part is configured to be attached to a current-
conducting device configured to conduct a current, and
wherein the Rogowski coil lays around the current-conducting device
so as to surround the current-conducting device.
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a):
1. claims 1--4, 6, and 8-19 over the combination of Lindholm (US
2010/0156393 Al, published June 24, 2010) and Wynne (US
2013/0257412 Al, published October 3, 2013);
2. claims 5, 7 and 20 over the combination of Lindholm, Wynne, and
Seal (US 2013/0307526 Al, published November 21, 2013).
The complete statement of the rejections appear in the Final Action.
(Final Act. 4--19).
2
Appeal2018-000859
Application 14/488,394
We select independent claims 1 and 18 as representative, and limit our
discussion thereto.
OPINION
The Examiner finds Lindholm describes a coil 110 and innermost
insulative cylinder 190, which collectively teach the claimed Rogowski coil.
(Final Act. 4). The Examiner finds Lindholm fails to teach that the
Rogowski coil lays around the current-conducting device so as to surround
the current-conducting device. (Id. at 5). The Examiner finds Wynne
describes a Rogowski coil 112 that surrounds current carrying element 100.
(Id.). The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of invention to apply the teachings of Wynne to the
teachings of Lindholm such that the Rogowski coil lays around
the current-conducting device so as to surround the current-
conducting device because This [sic] is typically how
Rogowski coil current detection systems function. The
Lindholm disclosure is a unique response to a specific situation
wherein the coil of Wynne could easily surround the current
conducting element of Lindholm to accurately and effectively
measure the current. It is a replacement of one form of
Rogowski coil for another for the same purpose.
(Id. at 6).
Appellant argues Lindholm and Wynne fail to teach or suggest a
Rogowski coil that lays around the current-conducting device so as to
surround the current-conducting device as required by independent claims 1
and 18. (App. Br. 6-10). Appellant argues Lindholm-as shown by figures
1, 5, and 6-- describes mount 12 0 and coil 110 that are parallel to one
3
Appeal2018-000859
Application 14/488,394
another and do not surround bus 106. (App. Br. 8, citing Lindholm ,r 13).
Appellant further argues Lindholm teaches away from and criticizes
conduction sensors having the form of a large metal loop surrounding a
censor such as described by Wynne. (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2; Lindholm ,r
2).
In response to Appellant's argument, the Examiner states:
The design of Lindholm and the statement cited from paragraph
0013 does not teach away from the conventional setup but
merely highlights the difference in the application of a
Rogowski coil in the situation specific to Lindholm. It does not
state that it is impossible to have a conventional setup, but
rather that the approach of Lindholm may be advantageous in
that particular setup for that specific situation. Furthermore,
Lindholm does not teach away from the use of a Rogowski coil
that surrounds the current conductor.
(Ans. 3).
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has failed to provide an
adequate explanation how the teachings/structures of Lindholm and Wynne
would have been combined to form a holding device that has a Rogowski
coil that is capable of surrounding a current conductor as is required by the
claimed invention. Appellant when describing a Rogowski coil states the
following:
A Rogowski coil is understood to be a toroidal coil which
(generally) does not comprise a ferromagnetic core. A
Rogowski coil comprises a conductor wire which is wound
around a body ( of a non-ferromagnetic material), both terminals
of the coil being arranged at an end of the body and one
terminal being fed back to the other terminal along the body in
a magnetically neutral manner for this purpose. A Rogowski
coil is used for measuring alternating current and for this
4
Appeal2018-000859
Application 14/488,394
purpose is laid around a current-carrying current-conducting
means, for example a cable core or a busbar, for example in a
switch cabinet.
(Spec. ,r 4).
The cited prior art establishes that it is known by persons of ordinary
skill that a Rogowski coil is capable of surrounding a current conductor.
(Lindholm ,r 2; Wynne Fig. 2). However while it is known that conventional
Rogowski coils surround a current conductor, this is not the arrangement
described by Lindholm which expressly describes the "current censor 102
also includes a mount 120 for mounting coil 110 to the bus 106 at a distance
from the bus. Hence, coil 110 does not directly contact bus 106 and is
positioned sufficiently far away from bus 106 to prevent damage from
ionization." (Lindholm ,r 13). The Examiner has failed to explain what
elements from the prior art described or would have suggested a holding
device comprising a housing part which is releasably connected to a
fastening part and carries a Rogowski coil such as required by the claimed
invention and depicted by Appellant's Figure 1.
For the foregoing reasons we reverse the appealed rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner's appealed rejections of claims 1-20 are reversed.
REVERSED
5