Enphase Energy, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 14, 2020

2020000221 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 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.
15/001,534 01/20/2016 Michael J. Harrison EE174 1070
54698 7590 10/14/2020
MOSER TABOADA
1030 BROAD STREET
SUITE 203
SHREWSBURY, NJ 07702
EXAMINER
ALMO, KHAREEM E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2849
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/14/2020 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):
docketing@mtiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL J. HARRISON
Appeal 2020-000221
Application 15/001,534
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–15, and 17–20. Appeal Br. 6. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed January 20, 2016 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action mailed October 18,
2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed April 15, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”);
Examiner’s Answer mailed August 6, 2019 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed
October 7, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Enphase Energy, Inc. as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000221
Application 15/001,534

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant states the invention relates to power conversion and more
particularly, a power converter having reactive power control. Spec. ¶ 2.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter
(Appeal Br., Claims Appendix 9):
1. Apparatus for controlling reactive power comprising:
a bidirectional power converter comprising a switched mode
cycloconverter for generating AC power having a desired
amount of a reactive power component, wherein the bidirectional
power converter generates the desired amount of the reactive
power component as determined by a reactive power control
schedule.

Independent claims 8 and 15, directed to a method and a system,
respectively, also stand rejected, and similarly recite a switched mode
cycloconverter and a reactive power control schedule. Id. at 10–11.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Harrison US 2009/0323380 A1 December 31, 2009
Varma et al.
hereinafter “Varma”
US 2012/0205981 A1 August 16, 2012
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3–15, and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Varma and Harrison. Final Act. 2–4.

Appeal 2020-000221
Application 15/001,534

3
OPINION
Appellant does not present separate arguments with respect to the
claims on appeal. See Appeal Br. 6–7. Thus, we select claim 1 as
representative for disposition of this rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

The Examiner’s Rejection
In rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Varma and Harrison, the
Examiner found Varma discloses an apparatus for controlling reactive power
comprising a bidirectional power converter including switch nodes for
generating AC power having a desired amount of a reactive power
component. Final Act. 2. The Examiner found Varma discloses the
bidirectional power converter generates the desired amount of reactive
power component as determined by a reactive power control schedule. Id.
The Examiner found Varma does not disclose a cycloconverter as recited in
claim 1. Id. The Examiner found Harrison discloses an apparatus for
controlling reactive power including a three-phase converter, which is a
cycloconverter. Id. at 3.
The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to have
employed a cycloconverter as disclosed in Harrison for the converter of
Varma for the purpose of providing high conversion efficiency, lower power
component count, low rated power components, no large inductors or
storage components, and low harmonic distortion. Id., citing Harrison ¶ 7.

Appellant’s contentions
Appellant contends Varma discloses operating solar farm inverters
and wind farm inverters at certain time periods, but such operation is
Appeal 2020-000221
Application 15/001,534

4
different from generating reactive power (Volt-Amps reactive (VAr), see
Spec. ¶ 32) according to a schedule. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant also argues
there is no reason to modify Varma’s system using Harrison’s
cycloconverter because the improvements identified in Harrison “are with
respect to conventional two-stage power converters, single-stage AC-DC
switch mode power supplies, hard-switched full-bridge cycloconverters,
resonant switching full-bridge cycloconverters, and series resonant
converters employing full resonant switching,” where Varma’s disclosed
inverter is not any of these. Id. at 7, citing Harrison, ¶¶ 1–6.

Issue
Did the Appellant demonstrate reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that the apparatus for controlling reactive power recited in
claim 1 would have been obvious over Varma and Harrison?

Discussion
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. In particular, we are
not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that Varma’s disclosure of being
operable to provide reactive power during a certain time period is different
from generating reactive power based on a schedule.
Varma discloses a distributed power generation system, which uses
solar farm inverters and wind turbine generator inverters as Flexible
Alternating Current Transmission Systems (FACTS) controller-static
synchronous compensator (STATCOM). Varma ¶ 1. Varma discloses
reactive power control in daytime and nighttime as found by the Examiner.
Id. ¶¶ 147–148, 181–184; Final Act. 2. As the Examiner explains in the
Appeal 2020-000221
Application 15/001,534

5
Answer, a schedule is a “plan for carrying out a process or procedure, giving
lists of intended events and times.”3 Ans. 5. The control between day and
night disclosed in Varma constitutes such a plan. Although the terms
“nighttime” and “day time” are broad, we nevertheless consider these
disclosures to be intended events and times. Indeed, “day time” is defined as
“[t]he time of the day between sunrise and sunset.”4 As a result, we agree
that the control operations disclosed in Varma constitute a “reactive power
control schedule” recited in claim 1.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the
Specification’s disclosure of a particular embodiment where “time of day”
may be obtained from a real time clock function in order to argue the
Examiner’s position is not consistent with the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claims. Reply Br. 2. The Specification describes “the
time of day (e.g., from a ‘real time clock’ function residing within the
controller 500.” Spec. ¶ 34. Thus, although the Specification describes one
example of a way to determine “time of day,” such a disclosure is not
sufficient to rise to the level of a definition as argued by Appellant.5

3 See https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/schedule: “A plan for carrying
out a process or procedure, giving lists of intended events and times,”
accessed on October 6, 2020.
4 https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/daytime accessed on October 6,
2020.
5 Although Appellant did not separately argue claims 3, 10, and 17 in the
Appeal Brief, and thus arguments with respect to these claims may be
considered new (see 37 C.F.R. 41.41(b)(2)), Appellant’s further arguments
regarding the “list of reactive power amounts” and “corresponding time of
day” recited in these claims in the Reply Brief (Reply Brief 2) would also
not be persuasive in view of our discussion and the breadth of the claims.
Appeal 2020-000221
Application 15/001,534

6
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Varma’s system using
Harrison’s cycloconverter absent improper hindsight. Appeal Br. 7; Reply
Br. 2–3. Appellant’s argument appears to be that Harrison’s cycloconverter
would not be applicable to Varma’s inverter, because Harrison allegedly
discloses only specific converters over which the cycloconverter Harrison
discloses would be an improvement. However, Harrison’s disclosure is not
so limited. Indeed, Harrison discloses the converter disclosed therein “may
find application in a wide range of applications” and “can be used to perform
the function of DC to three-phase AC converter (inverter).” Harrison ¶¶ 1,
102; see also ¶¶ 103–104. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that simply
because Harrison discloses specific examples of converters, such disclosures
do not limit the applicability of Harrison’s teachings to Varma. See Ans. 7–
8.
Moreover, Appellant’s position that the Examiner has not provided
sufficient reasoning as to why replacing Varma’s inverter with Harrison’s
cycloconverter would result in the improvements disclosed in Harrison
(Reply Br. 3) is also not persuasive. The Examiner’s rationale for
combining Varma and Harrison is “to use the teachings of a cycloconverter
for the converter of [Varma] for the purpose of a cycloconverter being able
to provide high conversion efficiency, low power component count, low
rated power components, no large inductors of storage components, and low
harmonic distortion.” Final Act. 3, citing Harrison, ¶ 7. As the Examiner
further explains, “[a] converter is a device that is used to change electrical
energy form [sic, from] one form to another such as DC to AC voltages or
currents. A cycloconverter is a specific type of converter that converts AC
Appeal 2020-000221
Application 15/001,534

7
power to one frequency into AC power of an adjustable but lower frequency
without any direct current, or DC, stage inbetween.” Ans. 7. Appellant
focuses on whether the overall advantages in Harrison would be an
improvement over the converter in Varma without addressing the entirety of
the Examiner’s reasoning. See id. at 7–8.
Thus, Appellant has not provided sufficient arguments to demonstrate
reversible error on the part of the Examiner.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, 3–15, and
17–20.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–15, 17–
20
103 Varma, Harrison 1, 3–15, 17–
20

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

AFFIRMED