XSLENT Energy Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 24, 2020

14791429 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2020)

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.
14/791,429 07/04/2015 Stefan Matan 8158P016 3947
123583 7590 09/24/2020
Compass IP Law PC
4804 NW Bethany Blvd, Ste I-2 #237
Portland, OR 97229
EXAMINER
GANNON, LEVI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2849
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2020 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):
admin@compassiplaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
vincent@compassiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEFAN MATAN, FRED C. HORTON,
and FRANK P. MARRONE

Appeal 2019-006381
Application 14/791,429
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.

McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 seeks review of the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Xslent
Energy Technologies, LLC. Appeal Brief dated May 16, 2019 (“Appeal
Br.”) 2.
Appeal 2019-006381
Application 14/791,429

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER

The present application generally relates to distributed and
hierarchical control within an electrical power grid. Specification filed July
4, 2015 (“Spec.”) ¶ 4. The Specification teaches that traditional utility
power grids include a centralized power source (such as, for example, a
coal-powered generator) and centralized management. Id. ¶ 6.
The Specification teaches that power delivered by the grid generally
consists of a real power component and a reactive power component. With
real power, the voltage waveform and current waveform are perfectly
aligned in-phase while, with reactive power, the voltage waveform and
current waveform are not phase-aligned. Id. ¶ 8.
The Specification further teaches that there has been a significant
increase in grid consumers adding renewable sources locally to produce
power. Id. ¶ 10. This can lead to real power pushed back from the customer
premises toward the central management and the central power source which
can create issues of grid voltage control and reactive power instability on the
grid. Id.
The Specification describes an embodiment (depicted in Figure 4)
where the ratio of reactive to real power output is modified as follows:
[N]ode 432 can communicate downstream to cause control
nodes 454 to change a ratio of reactive to real power output
upstream. In one embodiment, node 432 adjusts real and/or
reactive power generation and/or demand at PCC 422 to adjust
the electrical conditions as seen upstream from PCC 422. In one
embodiment, node 432 and/or node(s) 454 adjust operation to
divert at least a portion of real and/or reactive power to energy
store 444.

Appeal 2019-006381
Application 14/791,429

3
Spec. ¶ 85.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with certain limitations bolded for emphasis:
1. A method for controlling a power grid, comprising:
monitoring power generation of a local power generation
device and power demand of local loads at a point of common
coupling (PCC) to a utility power grid as seen at the PCC when
looking from a consumer side of the PCC, wherein the
monitoring is performed by a control node on the consumer side
of the PCC electrically across the PCC from central grid
management, the consumer side being a same side of the PCC as
the power generation and power demand; and
adjusting an operation of a power converter on the
consumer side that controls a flow of power between the PCC
and the local power generation device and the local loads in
response to the monitoring by the control node and a control
signal from the control node, to change a ratio of real and
reactive power of the flow of power at the PCC as seen from
the consumer side of the PCC and change an electrical
characteristic as seen at the PCC from a grid side of the PCC, to
maintain compliance with grid regulations as seen at the PCC
from the grid side.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Miller et al. (“Miller”) US 2008/0106098 A1 May 8, 2008
Cherian et al. (“Cherian”) US 2012/0029720 A1 Feb. 2, 2012
Ansari et al. (“Ansari”) US 2014/0121849 A1 May 1, 2014

Appeal 2019-006381
Application 14/791,429

4
DISCUSSION
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 as obvious over Ansari in view of
Miller. Final Office Action, dated Oct. 22, 2018 (“Final Act.”) 2–10. In
support of the rejection, the Examiner finds that Ansari teaches all
limitations other than changing a ratio of real and reactive power of the flow
of power at the PCC as seen from the consumer side. Final Act. 3. The
Examiner further finds that Miller teaches to control a ratio of real and
reactive power of a local power generation device connected to a power grid.
Id. (citing Miller Fig. 2, ¶ 29). The Examiner determines that one of skill in
the art would have had reason “to control the ratio of real and reactive power
in the household configuration of Ansari because such a modification would
have been merely implementing a well-known power flow control technique
that would yield predictable results in the method of Ansari.” Id.

Argument
Appellant argues that the rejection of the independent claims (claims
1, 11, and 16) should be reversed. Appeal Br. 5–9. The Appellant
designates claim 1 as representative. Id. at 5.
Appellant argues that Miller teaches a “commercial generator” and
that “that the technique for power flow control in a commercial, AC power
wind turbine generator is not implementable in the household solar system
of Ansari.” Id. at 6. Appellant asserts that there are numerous technical
differences between solar systems and wind turbine systems. Id.
Accordingly, Appellant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would not have had reason to combine the teachings of Ansari and Miller.
Appeal 2019-006381
Application 14/791,429

5
Appellant additionally argues that, for the reasons discussed above,
such a combination would not yield predictable results. Id. at 6–7.
Appellant further asserts that “[t]he generator (generator 24) and the
frequency converter (converter 36) [of Miller] are not the same as the power
converter of Applicant’s claimed invention, and are not the same as the
power converter disclosed in Ansari.” Id. at 6.
Appellant similarly argues that solar systems traditionally only
produce real power and, therefore, the principle of operation of a wind farm
based on AC power from wind turbines, which produce real and reactive
power, cannot be applied to Ansari’s solar system. Id. at 7.
In the Answer, the Examiner asserts that most of Appellant’s
arguments are predicated on the notion that one would not combine the solar
power generation technology of Ansari with the wind power generation
technology of Miller. Examiner’s Answer, dated June 27, 2019 (“Ans.”), at
3. The Examiner finds this unpersuasive because Ansari teaches both wind
power and solar power generation systems. Id. The Examiner additionally
finds that, even if Ansari did not teach the use of wind power, it is
nonetheless well-known to operate renewable energy control systems with
power generated from both wind and solar sources. Id. at 3–4.
The Examiner cites to an additional reference, Cherian, as teaching to
control active and reactive power flow in a solar power or a wind power
generation system. Id. at 5. The Examiner quotes Cherian as stating “[t]he
smart grid controls 285 include capabilities such as active and reactive
power flow control.” Id.
Appellant presents certain arguments in its Reply Brief. See Reply
Brief dated Aug. 27, 2019 (“Reply Br.”). Appellant argues that the
Appeal 2019-006381
Application 14/791,429

6
Examiner has issued a new rejection by combining Cherian with the
previously cited references. Id. at 2.
Appellant further argues that “a residential renewable energy system
(solar or wind) requires an inverter to grid-connect the system.” Reply Br.
2. Appellant further asserts that “[u]ntil Appellant’s invention, there [were]
no residential inverters that [could] simulate the operation of a traditional
spinning generator.” Id. at 2. Appellant further asserts that traditional
inverters for residential systems output only real power, not reactive power.
Id. at 3. Appellant further asserts that some residential systems include
filters to load the grid to change the net reactive energy but that
“[m]anipulation of the pure real power output with a filter is not the claimed
adjusting of the operation of a power converter to change the ratio of real
and reactive power.” Id.

Analysis
Appellant’s arguments set forth in its principal brief are unpersuasive
because, as noted by the Examiner, they are predicated on the notion that the
teachings of Ansari are limited to residential solar power generation. Ansari,
however, teaches a system where residential power generation may be by
solar or wind power. Ansari ¶ 24.
In its Reply Brief, Appellant objects to the use of the Cherian
reference. An Examiner may include a new ground of rejection in the
Answer. 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(a)(2). Any such new ground, however, “shall be
designated by the primary examiner as a new ground of rejection. Id.
Where an Answer includes a new ground that has not been properly
designated, the Appellant may seek review of the failure to designate a
Appeal 2019-006381
Application 14/791,429

7
ground as a new ground of rejection by filing a petition to the Director. 37
C.F.R. § 41.40(a). “Failure of appellant to timely file such a petition will
constitute a waiver of any arguments that a rejection must be designated as a
new ground of rejection.” Id.
Here, there is no indication in the record that Appellant timely
petitioned for relief on this basis. Accordingly, this issue is waived.
Also in its Reply Brief, Appellant presents arguments that the
references fail to teach a residential inverter that adjusts an operation of a
power converter to change a ratio of real and reactive power of the flow of
power at the PCC.
These arguments depend upon unsupported factual assertions. For
example, Appellant asserts that a residential power source requires an
inverter to connect to the electrical grid. Reply Br. 2. Appellant, however,
does not offer factual support for such statement. Appellant further asserts
that traditional inverters for residential systems output only real power. Id.
at 3. Again, Appellant does not offer factual support. Appellant further
makes an assertion regarding the scope of the claimed “adjusting an
operation of a power converter” that is unsupported by argument or citation
to evidence of record. In view of the foregoing, we do not find that
Appellant has shown harmful error with regard to the rejection of the
independent claims. See In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139–40 (Fed. Cir.
1996) (arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported
objective evidence.).

Appeal 2019-006381
Application 14/791,429

8
Claim 5
Appellant additionally argues that the rejection of claim 5 is in error.
Appeal Br. 8. Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and further requires that “the
PCC includes at least one additional PCC downstream from the central grid
management.” Id. at 10 (Claims App.). In the Final Office Action, the
Examiner cites to the “neighborhood configuration” of Ansari’s Figure 3. In
the Answer, the Examiner finds that “the point of common coupling (PCC)
in Ansari is found at the smart meter 110 and the corresponding connection
point on utility pole 114 shown in figure 1.” Ans. 9. The Examiner further
finds that “[t]here is then a PCC at each of the households in figure 3” and
“[t]he central grid management in Ansari is the utility control center 350 in
figure 3.” Id. The Examiner determines that “because each household has
its own PCC, there are multiple PCC’s downstream of the central grid
management 350.” Id. Appellant does not respond to these findings in its
Reply Brief.
As Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s findings
described above, we determine that there is insufficient basis for reversal of
the rejection of claim 5.

Claim 8
Appellant additionally argues that the rejection of claim 8 is in error.
Appeal Br. 8. Claim 8 depends from claim 7 which depends, in turn, from
claim 1. Id. at 11 (Claims App.). Claim 7 requires that “adjusting the
Appeal 2019-006381
Application 14/791,429

9
interface2 comprises adjusting a phase offset of reactive power at the PCC
with a power converter of the control node.” Id. Claim 8 further requires
that “adjusting the phase offset of the reactive power comprises changing an
amount of reactive power output via the PCC to the grid from power
generation resources on the consumer side of the PCC.” Id.
Appellant argues that the Examiner does not adequately show a
teaching of these features in the rejection and that “[n]either Miller nor
Ansari disclose or suggest the claimed generation of reactive power from
local power generation resources.” Id. at 8–9.
In response, the Examiner briefly asserts that “Para. [0029] and
figures 2-3 of Miller teach generating reactive power from a local power
generation resource (wind turbine).” Ans. at 9.
The Examiner’s response is insufficient because it does not
specifically address “adjusting the phase offset” as claimed. Accordingly,
Appellant has shown error in this regard.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth in the Final Office Action, the Examiner’s
Answer, and above, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–7 and 9–20 is
affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 is reversed.

2 The Panel notes that current claim 1 does not require “adjusting the
interface.” Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-006381
Application 14/791,429

10
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Ansari, Miller,
Cherian
1–7, 9–20 8

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART