Ex Parte Prochaska et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2016

12562064 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/562,064
82438 7590
GE Power & Water
Fletcher Yoder PC
FILING DATE
0911712009
03/08/2016
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James K. Prochaska
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.
238096-1 (GEAE:0003) 3500
EXAMINER
GONZALEZ, JULIO CESAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2831
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/08/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES K. PROCHASKA, RANDALL J. KLEEN,
THOMAS E. STOWELL, GARLAND W. FERGUSON,
LOUIS N. HANNETT, and WILLIAM S. ADAMS
Appeal2014-003269
Application 12/562,064
Technology Center 2800
Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, GEORGE C. BEST, and WLIA HEANEY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a
decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 of Application 12/562,064.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a power generation system,
such as a power plant used for a utility grid. Spec. 1. The system responds
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as General Electric Co. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-003269
Application 12/562,064
to a grid destabilization event by using controllers to protect connected
generators and prevent a total system collapse. Id.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced from the Appeal Briefs Claims
Appendix as follows (emphasis added):
1. A system, comprising:
a drive;
an electrical generator coupled to the drive;
a controller coupled to the drive, wherein the controller
comprises a stabilizing mode responsive to a utility signal
representative of a grid destabilizing event; and
a second controller coupled to the drive and configured to
control the operation of the drive, wherein the controller is
configured to override control of the drive from the second
controller and control the drive in response to the utility signal
representative of a grid destabilizing event.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relied upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Sutton et al.
Greeb
Bridges et al.
Stoupis et al.
Duffey et al.
us 5,552,640
us 6,095, 793
US 2008/0039979 Al
US 2008/0225452 A 1
US 2009/0315329 Al
THE REJECTIONS
Sept. 3, 1996
Aug. 1, 2000
Feb. 14,2008
Sept. 18, 2008
Dec. 24, 2009
1. Claims 1, 3, 5, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sutton in view of Stoup is.
2. Claims 1, 3, 5, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sutton in view of Bridges.
2
Appeal2014-003269
Application 12/562,064
3. Claims 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sutton and Stoupis or Bridges and further in
view of Greeb.
4. Claims 2, 11, 13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sutton and Stoupis or Bridges and further in
view of Duffey.
5. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sutton and Stoupis or Bridges and Duffey and further in view
of Greeb.
6. Claims 4, 6, 7, 12, 14, 16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sutton and Stoupis or
Bridges and Duffey and further in view of ordinary skill in the art.
DISCUSSION
The dispositive issue with respect to independent claims 1, 11, and 18
relates to the limitation that a controller overrides control by a second
controller in response to a utility signal representative of a grid destabilizing
event. Appellants argue that the Examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness. App. Br. 5-20. In particular, Appellants argue that the
combinations of Sutton and Stoupis, and Sutton and Bridges, fail to describe
or suggest a system having two controllers whereby one of the controllers is
configured to override control of a drive of an electrical generator (or a
generator itself, as recited in claims 11 and 18) by a second controller, in
response to a utility signal representative of a grid destabilizing event. Id. at
6-12. Because the weight of the evidence supports Appellants, we reverse.
Sutton describes a power generating system having a controller
connected to an engine driving a generator. Sutton Fig. 1. The controller
3
Appeal2014-003269
Application 12/562,064
controls the engine based on signals representative of a grid destabilizing
event. Id. at 3:14--20; 4:7-9, 39-51. Because Sutton does not disclose a
second controller, the Examiner relies upon Stoup is (in Rejection 1) and
Bridges (in Rejection 2) as describing a second controller that is overridden
by the main controller in response to a grid destabilizing event. Final Act. 3,
4. The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to "design the system as disclosed by Sutton" and
"teach using a controller for controlling another different controller" as
disclosed by Stoupis or Bridges. Id. at 3--4.
We reverse because the Examiner has not explained why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have used the controllers of Stoupis, which
restore power in the distribution portion of a grid downstream from the
controllers, to modify the system of Sutton which couples a controller to an
engine driving a generator at the power source. Stoupis i-fi-1 39--41. The
finding that the controllers of Stoupis "interact with power sources for grids
(see paragraph 39)" does not accurately characterize i139 of Stoupis, and the
statement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have "recognize[ ed]
the advantages provided by using multiple controllers during grid faults ...
and appl[ied] such knowledge in conjunction with the base reference of
Sutton" does not articulate a sufficient reason to support the conclusion of
obviousness. Ans. 5-7. Similarly, as Appellants note, Bridges' system,
which relates to connecting automobiles to a power grid, is directed to
techniques for control of power distribution, not power generation. App. Br.
10-11; Reply Br. 7-8. The Examiner's finding that Bridges "discloses a
power control system that functions when a grid destabilizing event may
occur (see paragraphs 0036--0038)" is based merely on several definitions
set forth in Bridges' specification, does not accurately characterize Bridges'
4
Appeal2014-003269
Application 12/562,064
system, and further does not respond to Appellants' arguments. Ans. 5. On
that record, the Examiner has not sufficiently explained why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have modified Sutton with Bridges, and we
are not convinced by the Examiner's stated reason for combining them.
Ans. 5-7.
In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claims 1, 11,
and 17. Our conclusion also applies to dependent claims 2-10, 12-16, and
18-20, for which the rejections are also based on a combination of Sutton
and Stoupis or Bridges.
SUMMARY
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-
20 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
cdc
5