Ex Parte Niiranen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2017

13543331 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 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.
13/543,331 07/06/2012 Jouko Niiranen 1034456-000241 7914
129925
ARR Tno
7590 04/28/2017 EXAMINER
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
One Indiana Square
GUGGER, SEAN A
Suite 3500 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
Indianapolis, UN 4t>ZU4-ZUZ5 2831
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2017 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):
taft-ip-docket @ taftlaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOUKO NIIRANEN, SLAVOMIR SEMAN, and
REIJO VIRTANEN
Appeal 2015-007961
Application 13/543,331
Technology Center 2800
Before CHUNG K. PAK, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and JENNIFER R. GUPTA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1—3 and 8—12. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 We refer to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed July 6, 2012, as amended;
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated July 28, 2014; Appellants’ Appeal
Brief (“App. Br.”) dated April 20, 2015; Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated
July 1, 2015; and Appellants’ Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) dated September 1,
2015.
2 Appellants identify ABB OY as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-007961
Application 13/543,331
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to methods for controlling a
doubly-fed induction machine. Spec. 12, claim 1. Claim 1 is reproduced
from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief as follows:
1. A method of controlling a doubly-fed induction
machine by a frequency converter including a rotor side
converter (INU) connected to a rotor circuit of the doubly-fed
induction machine (DFIG) and having a control system with
rotor flux as a feedback variable, a grid side converter (ISU)
connected to an AC power network, and a direct voltage
intermediate circuit (DC) connected between the rotor side
converter (INU) and the grid side converter (ISU), the method
comprising:
/ ^r,ref \
forming a rotor flux reference ^ ^, the rotor flux
reference and the rotor flux used as the feedback variable being
estimated;
/ Wref ,D \
forming a damping signal ' % the damping signal
being proportional to oscillation in an estimated torque,
oscillation in an estimated stator power or oscillation in a
measured intermediate DC circuit voltage, and the damping
signal being obtained from an oscillating signal by filtering the
oscillating signal with one of (i) low-pass and high-pass filters
and (ii) a bandpass filter;
summing the damping signal and the rotor flux reference
( Vnf \
for obtaining a modified rotor flux reference '; and
feeding the modified rotor flux reference to a controller
of the rotor side converter (INU) for damping sub-synchronous
resonances.
Claim 10 also is written in independent form. Each of the remaining
claims on appeal depends from either claim 1 or claim 10.
2
Appeal 2015-007961
Application 13/543,331
REJECTION
The Examiner maintains the following ground of rejection:3
Claims 1—3 and 8—12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hughes4 and Corcelles Pereira.5
DISCUSSION
Appellants rely on the same arguments with regard to each of
independent claims 1 and 10, and separately argue only claims 8 and 9.
App. Br. 8—11. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we select
claim 1 as representative and decide the appeal as to Rejection I based on the
representative claim alone. Claims 2, 3, and 10-12 stand or fall with
claim 1. Appellants’ separate arguments concerning claims 8 and 9 are
separately addressed.
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Hughes discloses a method for controlling a
doubly-fed induction machine which includes all of the steps recited in
claim 1, except that Hughes does not specify that the damping signal is
proportional to oscillation in a measured intermediate DC circuit voltage.6
Final Act. 2—3. For that recitation, the Examiner relies on Corcelles Pereira,
and finds that one skilled in the art would have had a reason “to make the
3 Final Act. 2—\\ Ans. 2.
4 WO 2006/030183 Al, published March 23, 2006 (“Hughes”).
5 US 2008/0150285 Al; published June 26, 2008 (“Corcelles Pereira”).
6 Claim 1 recites that the damping signal is “proportional to [i] oscillation in
an estimated torque, [ii] oscillation in an estimated stator power or [hi]
oscillation in a measured intermediate DC circuit voltage.” (Emphasis
added).
3
Appeal 2015-007961
Application 13/543,331
dampening control signal of Hughes be proportional to the DC circuit
voltage, as disclosed by Corcelles Pereira, in order to provide set points
based on the grid voltage.” Id. at 3^4.
Appellants argue that the recited damping signal is added to a scalar
variable to change the magnitude of the rotor flux reference, whereas
Hughes applies a damping signal to affect rotor flux angle. App. Br. 8. The
Examiner responds that claim 1 recites adding the damping signal to a rotor
flux reference without specifying that the flux reference is a scalar variable
or that the summation affects a magnitude of the flux reference. Ans. 2—3.
We agree with the Examiner’s characterization of claim 1. Appellants do
not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Figure 7 of Hughes depicts a
summation of damping signals (Uauxl, Uaux2, Uaux3) with a reference
value (4/ rangref). Compare Final Act 3 with App. Br. 8—10. Hughes
identifies that reference value as representing a “rotor flux vector angular
position reference value.” Hughes 20. The Examiner’s reliance on
reference value (4/ rangref) as a rotor flux reference is supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record. Appellants’ argument, premised
on a feature not found in claim 1, is not persuasive.
Appellants further argue that “[t]he aim of the technique disclosed in
Hughes is to emulate the control action of a conventional synchronous
generator,” and for that reason could not achieve “significant improvement
in the sub-synchronous resonance damping.” App. Br. 8—9. Here too,
Appellants’ argument is premised on a purported recitation—significant
improvement in the sub-synchronous resonance damping—that is not found
in the claim. Neither do Appellants present evidence or technical reasoning
4
Appeal 2015-007961
Application 13/543,331
to support the otherwise conclusory statement that the control method in
Hughes would not accomplish sub-synchronous resonance damping.
Appellants additionally argue that “Hughes does not disclose or
suggest providing a damping signal from an oscillating variable.” Id. at 9.
However, the Examiner cites and relies on Corcelles Pereira in finding that
one of ordinary skill would have had a reason to provide this recited feature
to the method of Hughes. Final Act. 3^4. Appellants’ argument does not
address the rejection articulated by the Examiner and, therefore, does not
identify reversible error.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Rejection as to claim 1.
Because each of claims 2, 3, and 10-12 stands or falls with claim 1, we also
sustain the Rejection as to these claims.
Claims 8 and 9
Appellants argue that Hughes fails to disclose adjusting either the
amplitude or phase of the damping signal, as recited in claim 8 and 9,
respectively. App. Br. 10—11. In response, the Examiner points to Hughes
at page 23, third paragraph, where Hughes teaches that “[t]he [second
auxiliary control] signal is then passed through a compensator 81 to provide
the necessary phase shift and an amplifier 82 to provide the necessary gain.”
Ans. 3. Based on that disclosure, the Examiner finds that “Hughes discloses
both the phase and amplitude of the damping signals are adjusted.” Id.
Appellants do not address the Examiner’s finding or the cited passage of
Hughes in their Reply Brief.
On this record, we conclude that the Examiner’s finding that Hughes
teaches adjustment of both phase and amplitude of the damping signal is
5
Appeal 2015-007961
Application 13/543,331
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, we also sustain
the Rejection as applied to each of claims 8 and 9.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—3 and 8—12 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.
AFFIRMED
6