Ex Parte Steffes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2018

13701886 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131701,886 01/03/2013
27367 7590 06/28/2018
WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KOEHLER, P.A.
SUITE 1400
900 SECOND A VENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
PaulJ. Steffes
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.
S072.0003US2 1083
EXAMINER
PATEL, JIGNESHKUMAR C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2126
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2018 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):
docketing@wck.com
tsorbel@wck.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL J. STEFFES, THOMAS P. STEFFES,
AUSTIN P. ZELLER, and JOE E. FUDE
Appeal2017-008506
Application 13/701,886
Technology Center 2100
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, AARON W. MOORE, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1-22, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Steffes Corporation.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-008506
Application 13/701,886
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosed invention relates to "controlling energy
consumption from an electrical power distribution system by energy storage
devices." Spec. Abstract (item numbers omitted). More particularly,
a first electrical load range for a first period in the future is
communicated to the electrical power distribution system using
a controller . . . . A plurality of commands from the electrical
power distribution system are received during the first period
using the controller. A rate of electrical energy consumption by
the group of energy storage devices is adjusted during the first
period to a value within the first electrical load range responsive
to each of the commands using the controller. A portion of the
energy consumed by the group of energy storage devices is then
stored in energy storage mediums of the devices during the first
period.
Id. (item numbers omitted). Claims 1 and 14, which are illustrative, read as
follows:
1. A method of controlling electrical power consumption from
an electrical power distribution system by a group of energy
storage devices, the method comprising:
communicating a first electrical load range for a first
period in the future to the electrical power
distribution system using a controller comprising a
processor;
receiving a plurality of commands from the electrical
power distribution system during the first period
using the controller;
adjusting a rate of electrical energy consumption by the
group of energy storage devices during the first
period to a value within the first electrical load
range responsive to each of the commands using
the controller; and
2
Appeal2017-008506
Application 13/701,886
storing a portion of the energy consumed by the group of
energy storage devices in energy storage mediums
of the devices during the first period.
14. A method of controlling the consumption of power from
an electrical power distribution system by a group of energy
storage devices comprising steps of:
controlling the group of energy storage devices at the
onset of a first period to consume power from the
electrical power distribution system using a
controller comprising a processor;
receiving a command from the electrical power
distribution system during a current interval of the
first period using the controller;
adjusting a rate of electrical energy consumption by the
group of energy storage devices during the next
interval of the first period based on the command
using the controller;
storing a portion of the energy consumed by the group of
energy storage devices in energy storage mediums
of the devices during the interval; [and]
repeating the receiving, adjusting and storing steps until
the expiration of the first period.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Hesse et al. us 5,274,571 Dec. 28, 1993
(hereinafter "Hesse")
Johnson US 2002/0147529 Al Oct. 10, 2002
Weaver et al. US 2004/0010649 Al Jan. 15,2004
(hereinafter "Weaver")
Ransom et al. US 2004/0225648 Al Nov. 11, 2004
(hereinafter "Ransom")
Golden et al. US 2008/0167756 Al July 10, 2008
(hereinafter "Golden")
3
Appeal2017-008506
Application 13/701,886
Finberg et al. US 2011/0057617 Al Mar. 10, 2011
(hereinafter "Finberg")
Kawamoto et al. US 2011/0184575 Al July 28, 2011
(hereinafter "Kawamoto")
Pratt et al. US 2011/0245987 Al Oct. 6, 2011
(hereinafter "Pratt")
Claims 1, 12-14, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)2
as being unpatentable over Pratt and Weaver. Final Act. 2-11.
Claims 2 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pratt, Weaver, and Golden. Final Act. 11-13.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pratt, Weaver, and Ransom. Final Act. 13-14.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pratt, Weaver, Ransom, and Hesse. Final Act. 14--15.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pratt, Weaver, Ransom, and Finberg. Final Act. 15-16.
Claims 6-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pratt, Weaver, Ransom, and Johnson. Final Act. 16-18.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pratt, Weaver, and Hesse. Final Act. 18-19.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pratt, Weaver, and Finberg. Final Act. 19-20.
2 All rejections are under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. in effect prior to the
effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 ("pre-AIA").
Final Act 2.
4
Appeal2017-008506
Application 13/701,886
Claims 19 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pratt, Weaver, Johnson, and Kawamoto. Final Act.
20-23.
Claims 20 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pratt, Weaver, and Kawamoto. Final Act. 23-25.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs ("App.
Br." filed Dec. 30, 2016; "Reply Br." filed May 23, 2017) for the positions
of Appellants; the Final Office Action ("Final Act." mailed July 14, 2016)
and Examiner's Answer ("Ans." mailed Mar. 23, 2017) for the reasoning,
findings, and conclusions of the Examiner; and the Specification ("Spec."
filed Dec. 4, 2012, amended Dec. 15, 2015).
ISSUES
The dispositive issues presented by Appellants' arguments3 are as
follows:
Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Pratt and Weaver
teaches or suggests "communicating a first electrical load range for a first
period in the future to the electrical power distribution system," as recited in
claim 1?
Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Pratt and Weaver
teaches or suggests
receiving a command from the electrical power distribution
system during a current interval of the first period using the
controller; [and] adjusting a rate of electrical energy
consumption by the group of energy storage devices during the
3 Appellants' arguments present additional issues. Because the identified
issues are dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional issues.
5
Appeal2017-008506
Application 13/701,886
next interval of the first period based on the command using the
controller,
as recited in claim 14?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
The Examiner maps the recited "electrical load range" to Pratt's
upper and lower charge rate limits (Final Act. 3 (citing Pratt i-f 92)) and maps
the recited "first period in the future" to Pratt's desired charging period
(Final Act. 3 (citing Pratt i-fi-1 77, 82-83, Figs. 1, 5) ). The Examiner finds
"Pratt does not specifically teach[] the communicating ... to the electrical
power distribution system" but "Pratt does teach communicating the load
range to a controller external to the electrical power distribution system."
Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that "Weaver teaches the communicating
... to the electrical power distribution system." Final Act. 4 (citing Weaver
Fig. 1 (items 101, 104)). The Examiner concludes as follows:
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious
for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the
communicating the load range to the controller external to the
distribution device of Pratt by using the teaching of Weaver for
communication to the power distribution system by having
controller internal to the distribution system in order to manage[]
power module to deliver power to server in accordance with
control commands.
Final Act. 4 (citing Weaver i-f 4). The Examiner further explains "that taking
an external object (in this case, a controller), and making it internal to the
object (integral) is consider[ ed] an obvious modification to one of ordinary
skill in the art." Ans. 4 (citing In re Larson, 340 F .2d 965, 968 ( CCP A
1965)).
6
Appeal2017-008506
Application 13/701,886
Appellants contend, inter alia, that
communication [of Pratt's upper and lower charge rate limits for
a desired charging period] would not serve any purpose, as Pratt
et al. store the cited load range locally and merely monitor the
frequency of the grid to determine how power is to be consumed
by the energy storage device or discharged from the energy
storage device. Thus, even if one communicated the cited first
load range of Pratt et al. to the modified electrical power grid
having the controller 104 of Weaver, no purpose would be served
by the communication.
App. Br. 16. We agree with Appellants.
Claim 1 recites "communicating a first electrical load range for a first
period in the future to the electrical power distribution system." In other
words, claim 1 recites communicating a specific piece of information to the
electrical power distribution system. For purposes of this opinion, we
accept, arguendo, the Examiner's mapping of the recited "first electrical
load range for a first period in the future," i.e., the specific piece of
information, to Pratt. The Examiner has, at most, established that Weaver
teaches communication between a controller internal to an electrical power
distribution system and a controller external to the electrical power
distribution system. The Examiner has not established why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have included the specific piece of information, "a first
electrical load range for a first period in the future," in that communication.
We further agree with Appellants that it is beside the point that Pratt's
energy storage system controller (Pratt Fig. 2 (item 220)) could be
physically collocated or integrated with a controller for the electric power
distribution system (see Reply Br. 6-7), as the claim limitation relates to the
communication of information to the electrical power distribution system,
not to the physical location of the components that do the communicating.
7
Appeal2017-008506
Application 13/701,886
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejections of claim 1
and claims 2-13, 19, and 20, which depend, directly or indirectly, from
claim 1. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("Dependent
claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the independent claims from
which they depend are nonobvious.").
Claim 14
The Examiner maps the recited "command from the electrical power
distribution system" to Pratt's grid AC frequency signal used as a direct
regulation signal or as a basis for a regulation signal for operating an energy
storage system. Final Act. 8 (citing Pratt i-f 7). The Examiner maps the
recited "first period" to Pratt's desired charging period. Final Act. 8 (citing
Pratt i-fi-1 6, 62, 82-82, Fig. 2). The Examiner maps the recited "current" and
"next" "interval[s] of the first period" to Pratt's charge/discharge cycle
during which Pratt's storage device is charged and discharged. Ans. 5
(citing Pratt i-f 78).
Appellants contend as follows:
[T]he cited references do not disclose the division of a first
period of controlling electrical consumption by a group of energy
storage devices into intervals, or the controlling of a rate of
electrical energy consumption by the devices in an interval based
on a command received from the electrical power distribution
system during a preceding interval, as recited in claim 14. . ..
[T]he cited sections of Pratt et al. do not mention any intervals of
periods in which energy consumption by the device is controlled
or, more specifically, "receiving a command from the electrical
power distribution system during a current interval of the first
period using the controller; [and] adjusting a rate of electrical
energy consumption by the group of energy storage devices
during the next interval of the first period based on the command
using the controller," as recited in claim 14.
8
Appeal2017-008506
Application 13/701,886
App. Br. 18 (italicized emphases added) (third brackets in original). We
agree with Appellants.
We accept, arguendo, the Examiner's mapping of the recited
"command from the electrical power distribution system" to Pratt's grid AC
frequency signal. Claim 14 clearly recites that the command received during
a span of time, i.e., a "current interval of the first period," be used to adjust
the rate of energy consumption by the storage devices during an immediately
subsequent span of time, i.e., a "next interval of the first period." We find
no reference in the cited passages of Pratt to using the AC grid frequency
measured in one span of time ("current interval") to adjust the operation of
the energy storage devices in another, subsequent, span of time ("next
interval"). Indeed, Pratt is replete with reference to using the "measured
instantaneous frequency" (emphasis added) to adjust the flow of energy to
and from the storage device. See, e.g., Pratt i-f 11 (describing "a method that
comprises transmitting electrical power from an electrical power distribution
system to energy storage devices and receiving electrical power at the
electrical power distribution system from one or more of the energy storage
devices in response to a measured instantaneous frequency of the electrical
power distribution system").
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejections of claim 14
and claims 15-18, 21, and 22, which depend, directly or indirectly, from
claim 14. See Fine, 837 F.2d at 1076.
9
Appeal2017-008506
Application 13/701,886
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-22 is reversed.
REVERSED
10