Ex Parte Rivera et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 18, 2018

14054204 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/054,204 10/15/2013
6147 7590 07/20/2018
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GPO/GLOBAL RESEARCH
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Luis Jose Garces Rivera
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.
268646-1 1231
EXAMINER
SUN, PINPING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2836
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/20/2018 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):
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 LUIS JOSE GARCES RIVERA, DONG DONG,
RIXIN LAI, and DI ZHANG
Appeal2017-009553
Application 14/054,204
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Applicant (hereinafter "Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Primary Examiner's final decision to reject claims 1-20.2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 The Appellant is the Applicant, "General Electric Company," which,
according to the Brief, is the real party in interest ( Appeal Brief filed March
8, 2017, hereinafter "Appeal Br.," 2; Application Data Sheet filed
October 15, 2013).
2 Appeal Br. 3-8; Reply Brief filed June 28, 2017, hereinafter "Reply Br.,"
2--4; Final Office Action entered November 3, 2016, hereinafter "Final
Act.," 2-12; Examiner's Answer entered May 26, 2017, hereinafter "Ans.,"
2--4.
Appeal2017-009553
Application 14/054,204
I. BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a system and method for direct
current (DC) power transmission (Specification filed October 15, 2013,
hereinafter "Spec.," ,r 1 ). According to the Inventors, the system is
particularly useful for transmitting DC power to sub-sea loads (id.).
Figure 1, which we reproduce below from the Drawings filed
October 15, 2013, is illustrative:
38
Controller
12
~H-L.}8"
<12
32
Fig.1
Figure 1 above is described as a block diagram of a system 10 in accordance
with an embodiment of the invention, wherein the system 10 comprises,
inter alia: a system DC link 12 configured to carry power from a source 14
to a load 16; alternating current (AC) to DC power converter modules 20,
22, 24, 26; and controllable semiconductor switch modules 34, 35, 234, 235,
334, 335 (Spec. ,r,r 10, 13-14).
2
Appeal2017-009553
Application 14/054,204
Representative claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 9), with key limitations emphasized, as follows:
1. A system for transmitting direct current (DC) power
compnsmg:
a system DC link for carrying power from a source to a
plurality of loads; and
alternating current (AC) to DC power converter modules
coupled in series to the system DC link on a supply side of the
system DC link;
wherein at least one AC to DC power converter module is
connected to the source via at least one controllable
semiconductor switch such that when the controllable
semiconductor switch is not conducting, the at least one AC to
DC power converter module adds about zero voltage to a system
DC link voltage and provides a path for a DC link current.
II. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, the Examiner maintains a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
(AIA) entered against claims 1, 12, 14, 15, and 18 as unpatentable over
Datta et al. 3 (hereinafter "Datta") in view of Lindemann4 (Ans. 2; Final
Act. 2-5). The Examiner also maintains several other rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103 entered against claims 2-11, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 over
Datta, Lindemann, and one or more additional references (Ans. 2; Final
Act. 5-11).
3 US 7,851,943 B2, issued December 14, 2010.
4 US 6,771,056 Bl, issued August 3, 2004.
3
Appeal2017-009553
Application 14/054,204
III. DISCUSSION
The Appellant argues the claims together and relies on the same
arguments for all rejections on appeal (Appeal Br. 5-8). Therefore, we
focus primarily on claim 1, which we select as representative pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). As provided by this rule, claims 2-19 stand or
fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Datta describes a system including all the
limitations recited in claim 1 except the reference "does not explicitly teach
one controllable semiconductor switch" (Final Act. 2-3). The Examiner
finds, however, that Lindemann teaches a controllable semiconductor switch
(id. at 3). Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that "it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art ... to modify the system
of Datta, to include at least one controllable semiconductor switch, as taught
by Lindemann, in order to integrate[] with the converters that are made of
semiconductor device[ s ]" (id.).
In the Answer, the Examiner explains further that Datta does in fact
disclose a controllable switch and, based on "common Electrical
Engineer[ing]" knowledge, the AC to DC power converter module "cannot
add voltage to the system DC link voltage because [the] power converter
module does not generate power or voltage by itself' (Ans. 2-3).
The Appellant contends that Datta does not describe the disputed
claim limitations highlighted above in reproduced claim 1 and that the
Examiner's finding to the contrary is merely an assumption (Appeal Br. 5).
According to the Appellant, Datta teaches an inverter block 46 in Figure 9,
and that, therefore, a capacitor in the inverter block 46 "may get charged
from [the] rest of the power converters and once that happens then the
4
Appeal2017-009553
Application 14/054,204
respective power converter 342 will add normal voltage to the DC link"
(id.). The Appellant further argues that none of Datta's disclosures upon
which the Examiner relies disclose the disputed claim limitations (id. at 6).
The Appellant does not specifically refer us to disclosure or evidence
supporting the alleged operation of Datta's inverter 46. Regardless, we do
not find the Appellant's arguments sufficient to identify reversible error.
In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Datta describes a DC transmission and distribution system
comprising: a system DC link configured to carry power from a source to a
load; DC-to-AC power converter modules coupled in series to the system
DC link on a load side of the system DC link; and a controller for driving a
current of the system DC link toward a commanded value (Datta col. 1, 1.
64---col. 2, 1. 2). Datta teaches "[i]n one embodiment, in contrast to the DC
link current being bounded within a relatively narrow range, the voltage of
the system DC link is variable from zero to plus or minus a nominal DC link
voltage" (id. at col. 3, 11. 37--40).
5
Appeal2017-009553
Application 14/054,204
Datta's Figure 9 is reproduced as follows:
Datta's Figure 9 above is described as a block diagram showing a
transmission and distribution system 310 for sub-sea loads 16, the system
310 comprising, inter alia, AC-to-DC power converter modules 342, half
bridges 48, and inverters 46 (col. 8, 11. 23-33). In describing another
embodiment (Fig. 2), Datta teaches that the inverter "may comprise a
conventional conversion module using semiconductor switching devices
such as IGBT's, GTO's, or transistors along with associated controls" (id. at
col. 3, 11. 50-57). Furthermore, Datta teaches that "[t]he half bridge is used
for controlling current to the load, whereas the inverter is used for
controlling voltage to the load" and that "[ t ]he power to the load may be
adjusted by controlling the current, the voltage, or a combination of the
current and voltage" (id. at col. 3, 11. 59-63).
Given Datta's disclosure as a whole, we detect no error in the
Examiner's determination that a person having ordinary skill in the art
would have arrived at a system including all the elements and functions
6
Appeal2017-009553
Application 14/054,204
recited in claim 1. Moreover, with respect to methods claims 15-20, the
disputed conditional claim limitation does not confer patentability under our
binding precedent because it is not an operational requirement for the
claimed method. See Ex parte Schulhauser,
https://www. uspto. gov/ sites/ default/files/ documents/Ex %20parte%20Schulhauser%2020
16_04_28.pdf (precedential) at 7 ("[I]n the event that the electrocardiac signal
data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria and an alarm is
triggered, the remaining steps of claim 1 need not be performed in the
method as recited.").
For these reasons, we uphold the Examiner's rejections.
IV. SUMMARY
We sustain each of the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Therefore, the Examiner's final decision to reject claims 1-20 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(a).
AFFIRMED
7