Ex Parte Thompson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2018

13753793 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
131753,793 01/30/2013 RONALD L. THOMPSON
101730 7590 03/21/2018
ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
EATON CORPORATION
600 GRANT STREET
44THFLOOR
PITTSBURGH, PA 15219
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.
12-EDP-088 8531
EXAMINER
THOMAS, LUCY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2836
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2018 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):
ipmail@eckertseamans.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RONALD L. THOMPSON, JASON-DAVID NITZBERG,
DAVID AUSTIN ELDRIDGE, and BRANDON J. ROGERS
Appeal2017-005130
Application 13/753,793
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BRIAND. RANGE, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-16, 18, and 19. Claims 17 and 20-33 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
1 In our Opinion, we refer to the Specification filed January 30, 2013
("Spec."); the Final Action mailed December 4, 2015 ("Final Act."); the
Advisory Action mailed March 11, 2016 ("Adv. Act."); the Appeal Br. filed
April 27, 2016 ("Appeal Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed December 15,
2016 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed February 10, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellant is applicant Eaton Corporation, identified as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-005130
Application 13/753,793
The claims are drawn to a circuit breaker for an electric load. Claim
1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A circuit breaker for an electric load, said circuit breaker
compnsmg:
a housing structured to be provided and connected within
a panelboard or load center of an electrical distribution system,
said housing having a form factor, said form factor being one of
a miniature circuit breaker form factor or a molded circuit
breaker form factor;
a plurality of first terminals coupled to the housing,
wherein a number of said first terminals are structured for
connection to a hot line or bus bar and a neutral bar within said
panelboard or load center;
a plurality of second terminals coupled to the housing;
a number of first separable contacts each of which is
electrically connected between one of said first terminals and
one of said second terminals, wherein said number of first
separable contacts are provided within said housing;
a first mechanism structured to open, close or trip open
said number of first separable contacts, wherein said first
mechanism is provided within said housing and is rated at least
100% of a maximum continuous load to be supplied by the
circuit breaker;
a number of second separable contacts each of which is
electrically connected in series with a corresponding one of said
number of first separable contacts and electrically connected
between one of said first terminals and one of said second
terminals, wherein said number of second separable contacts
are provided within said housing;
a second mechanism structured to open or close said
number of second separable contacts, wherein said second
mechanism is provided within said housing; and
a processor provided within said housing and structured
to cause said second mechanism to open or close said number
of second separable contacts, annunciate through one of said
2
Appeal2017-005130
Application 13/753,793
second terminals a power circuit electrical parameter for said
electric load, receive from a number of said second terminals a
confirmation from or on behalf of said electric load to cause
said second mechanism to close said number of second
separable contacts, and determine a fault state operatively
associated with current flowing through said number of second
separable contacts.
App. Br. 12-13 (Claims App'x).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Shaffer
Paek
Matsuki
Gale et al. ("Gale")
Nitzberg et al.
("Nitzberg")
us 3,506,941
US 2011/0090031 Al
US 2012/0091954 Al
US 2013/0187600 Al
US 2013/0190968 Al
REJECTIONS
Apr. 14, 1970
Apr. 21, 2011
Apr. 19, 2012
July 25, 2013
July 25, 2013
The Examiner maintains and Appellant seeks review of the following
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claims 1-3, 5-10, 13, 14, 18, and 19
over Matsuki in view of Paek and Shaffer; (2) claims 4, 11, 15, and 16 over
Matsuki in view of Paek, Shaffer, and Gale; and (3) claim 12 over Matsuki
in view of Shaffer and Nitzberg. Final Act. 3, 10, 12; App. Br. 3.
OPINION
Appellant does not argue any claim separately pursuant to the
requirements set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). App. Br. 3-11.
Therefore, as provided by this rule, we confine our discussion to claim 1,
3
Appeal2017-005130
Application 13/753,793
which we select as representative. Dependent claims 2-16, 18, and 19, the
only other claims on appeal, stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Matsuki teaches the circuit breaker of claim
1,except:
Matsuki does not specifically disclose that the housing is
structured to be provided and connected with a panel board or
load center of an electrical distribution system, said housing
having a form factor, said form factor being one of a miniature
circuit breaker form factor or molded circuit breaker form
factor, and the hot line or bus bar and neutral line being within
said panelboard or load center and does not specifically disclose
the first mechanism being rated at least 100% of a maximum
continuous load to be supplied by the circuit breaker.
Final Act. 5. The Examiner further finds that Paek discloses a circuit
breaker comprising the claimed housing structure, and teaches that typical
molded case circuit breakers known in the art are configured to perform
multi-level operations and include a controller (id. at 6):
The typical molded case circuit breaker ... is configured
to perform multi-level operations including detecting a current
on a circuit by means of a current transformer, deciding
generation of a fault current and outputting a trip signal by
means of an overcurrent relay corresponding to a controller,
operating a trip actuator responsive to the trip signal, and
triggering a switching mechanism to perform a trip operation by
releasing a latch in response to the operation of the trip actuator.
Paek i-f 9. In addition, the Examiner finds that Shaffer discloses a circuit
breaker with molded housing comprising contacts and mechanism to trip
open the contacts in the housing, wherein the trip mechanism is rated at least
100% of the maximum continuous load operation. Final Act. 6 (citing
Shaffer col. 8, 11. 62-70).
4
Appeal2017-005130
Application 13/753,793
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the circuit
breaker taught by Matsuki with the molded case circuit breaker housing
taught by Paek, allowing the circuit breaker to thereby have the form factor
for safe use in a load center or breaker panel. Id. The Examiner further
determines that it would have been obvious to select the rating of the first
mechanism to be at least 100% of the maximum continuous load to be
supplied by the circuit breaker so that the circuit breaker may operate at or
above its maximum, with Shaffer illustrating that such rating was known in
the art. Id.
Appellant argues that the circuit breaker would not have been obvious
based on the teachings of Matsuki, Paek, and Shaffer. App. Br. 6.
Appellant includes quotations from KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398 (2007), but provides no cogent analysis or reasoning applying
the holdings of that decision. See App. Br. 6-7. Further, Appellant provides
no technical explanation of why the teachings of Paek and Shaffer are not
combinable with those of Matsuki to result in the claimed circuit breaker.
See id.
Appellant contends that the circuit breaker of claim 1 requires expert
knowledge with extraordinary skill in two separate technical fields: circuit
breakers and electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE). App. Br. 7.
Appellant further contends that "one of merely ordinary skill would not have
significant experience, knowledge and skill in both the field[ s] of circuit
5
Appeal2017-005130
Application 13/753,793
breakers and EVSE." Id. at 8. Appellant supports this argument with the
Thompson Declaration. 3 Id.
We note that claim 1 is drawn to a circuit breaker and not to EVSE.
Id. at 12-13 (Claims App'x). The Specification indicates other uses for
circuit breakers of the invention, e.g., power vending machines. Spec. 23:9-
24: 12. Therefore, Appellant's argument is unpersuasive at least for this
reason.
In addition, the Thompson Declaration states the declarant's opinion
on the limitations of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art of
circuit breakers and of one of ordinary skill in the art of EVSE. Thompson
Deel. i-fi-1 7, 8. However, it is not apparent from the declaration how the
declarant reached his conclusions. The declarant fails to explain why a
person having an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering and two
years of experience would not have sufficient knowledge to make and use
the claimed circuit breaker for an electric load. Neither Appellant nor the
declarant explain why claim 1 requires knowledge of EVSE. See Reply Br.
2; Thompson Deel. 6-8.
Appellant's arguments regarding ordinary skill in the art are entitled
to little probative weight. Indeed, the Appeal Brief and Thompson's
Declaration contain only conclusory statements without discussing or
explaining-in a meaningful way-the actual teachings found in the cited
references. The references indicate that a person of ordinary skill in the art
of electrical engineering would have been able to develop the claimed circuit
3 August 12, 2015 Declaration of Ronald L. Thompson under 37 C.F.R. §
1.132 ("Thompson Deel.").
6
Appeal2017-005130
Application 13/753,793
breaker. See Matsuki Fig. 2, i-fi-157, 59, 63, 69, 71; Paek i1i15, 9; Shaffer Fig.
2, 7:25-32; 8:62-70.
Neither Appellant nor Mr. Thompson direct us to any evidence that
substantiates, quantitatively and quantifiably, a long-felt need for the
claimed circuit breaker. See Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587
F.3d 1324, 1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (finding that patentee failed to
demonstrate, as a matter of law, a long-felt but unmet need with bare
assertions that the patent provided "improved efficiency").
Given the teachings in the prior art references, we agree with the
Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been found it
obvious to use Paek's circuit breaker form factor with Matsuki's circuit
breaker and a rating for the first mechanism as taught by Shaffer. KSR Int 'l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) ("[I]f a technique has been
used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the
technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her
skill.").
Appellant's arguments and proffered evidence are insufficient to
identify any reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. In re
Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We sustain the rejection of
claims 2-16, 18, and 19 for the same reason.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-16, 18, and 19 is affirmed.
7
Appeal2017-005130
Application 13/753,793
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv)(2015).
AFFIRMED
8