Ex Parte Arnold

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 31, 2009

10945420 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte ULLRICH JOSEPH ARNOLD
_____________

Appeal 2009-001411
Application 10/945,420
Technology Center 2800
______________

Decided: August 31, 2009
_______________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and ROBERT
E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-001411
Application 10/945,420

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) of the rejection of
claims 1 through 12 and 14 through 37.
We affirm-in-part.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a power distribution system with a
integrated harmonic distortion cancellation device and surge suppression.
See page 1 of Appellant’s Specification. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. An AC power distribution unit for coupling AC power
having a fundamental frequency to a plurality of electrical loads,
comprising:
an enclosure;
a power input feed retained by said enclosure for coupling to a
source of said AC power;
a plurality of power output feeds retained by said enclosure for
coupling to said plurality of electrical loads; and
a harmonic mitigation module retained in said enclosure and
connected in series between said power input feed and said plurality
of power output feeds, said harmonic mitigation module bilaterally
reducing harmonic current distortion with respect to said plurality of
electrical loads above a predetermined frequency between said power
input feed and said plurality of power output feeds.

REFERENCE

Boudrias US 6,605,882 B2 Aug. 12, 2003

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 12 and 14 through 37
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Boudrias or in the
2

Appeal 2009-001411
Application 10/945,420

alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Boudrias.
The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 3 and 4 of the Answer.1

ISSUES
Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6 through 11, and 37
Appellant argues on pages 5 through 8 of the Brief2 that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6 through 11, and 37 under either 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error. Appellant argues that
Boudrias does not teach that the harmonic mitigation module is external to
the distribution panel. Brief 6. Further, Appellant argues Boudrias teaches
that the output of the harmonic mitigation module is connected in series to
one or more external distribution panels boards where the external panel
boards are connected in parallel. Thus, Appellant argues that Boudrias does
not teach or suggest that the panel boards have bilateral reduction of
harmonic distortion with respect to each other. Brief 6 and 7. Additionally,
Appellant argues that the harmonic mitigation module has the frequency
characteristic recited in claim 1.
Thus, Appellant’s contentions directed to the rejection of claims 1, 3,
4, 6 through 11 and 37 present us with the following issues:

1 Throughout the opinion we refer to the Answer mailed February 22, 2008.
2 Throughout the opinion we refer to the Brief dated December 17, 2007,
and Reply Brief Dated March 28, 2008.
3

Appeal 2009-001411
Application 10/945,420

1) Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Boudrias teaches or suggests that the harmonic mitigation module is in an
enclosure as recited in claim 1?3
2) Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Boudrias teaches or suggests that the harmonic mitigation module bilaterally
reduces harmonic current as recited in claim 1?
3) Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Boudrias teaches reducing harmonic current distortion above a
predetermined frequency as recited in claim 1?

Rejection of claim 2
Appellant’s arguments on page 8 of the Brief directed to the rejection
of claim 2, presents us with the issue: has Appellant shown that the
Examiner erred in finding that Boudrias teaches or suggests that the
harmonic mitigation module leaves any individual odd harmonic
substantially unreduced as recited in claim 2.

Rejection of claim 5
Appellant’s arguments on page 8 of the Brief directed to the rejection
of claim 5, presents us with the issue: has Appellant shown that the
Examiner erred in finding that Boudrias teaches an isolation transformer
within the enclosure as recited in claim 5.

3 Appellant’s arguments group claims 1, 3, 4, 6 through 11, and 37 together,
we select claim 1 as a representative claim.
4

Appeal 2009-001411
Application 10/945,420

Rejection of claims 12, 14, 15, and 20 through 23
Appellant’s arguments on pages 8 and 9 of the Brief directed to the
rejection of claims 12, 14, 15, and 20 through 234 presents us with the same
issue as identified above with respect to claim 1. Further, Appellant’s
arguments present us with the issue: has Appellant shown that the Examiner
erred in finding that the harmonic mitigation device is in series with the
electrical loads.
Claims 16 through 19
Appellant’s arguments on page 9 of the Brief directed to the rejection
of claims 16 through 19 present us with the same issue as identified above
with respect to claim 2.
Rejection of claims 24 through 26
Appellant’s arguments on pages 9 and 10 of the Brief directed to the
rejection of claims 24 through 26 present us with the issue: has Appellant
shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Boudrias teaches or suggests
that the harmonic filter is connected in series with an isolation transformer
as recited in claim 24.
Rejection of claims 27 through 36
Appellant’s arguments on page 10 of the Brief directed to the
rejection of claims 27 through 36 present us with the same issue as identified
above with respect to claim 1.

4 Appellant’s arguments group 12, 14, 15, and 20 through 23 together, we
select claim 12 as a representative claim.
5

Appeal 2009-001411
Application 10/945,420

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has recently stated
that “[t]he obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic
conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Further, the Court stated that
“[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id.
at 416. “One of the ways in which a patent’s subject matter can be proved
obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of the invention a known
problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the
patent’s claims.” Id. at 419-420.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Boudrias teaches a power center that integrates a harmonic
mitigation device (or harmonic suppressor) and distribution panels.
Abstract.
2. The power center consists of a harmonic mitigation device
connected in series between the primary circuit breaker and the load
distribution circuit breakers of a distribution panel or group of
distribution panels. The power center may also include a transient
voltage surge suppressor (TVSS). Figure 1, col. 2, ll. 50-65.
6

Appeal 2009-001411
Application 10/945,420

3. The harmonic suppressor works to mitigate harmonic currents “by
reducing, canceling or otherwise removing harmonic currents
delivered from the current source and/or generated by non-linear
loads connected to the power center unit 100.” Thus, the suppressor
works to mitigate harmonic currents which originate on either the
input power side or which originate from the load side. Col. 2, ll.
46-50.
4. The harmonic suppressor can be a transformer such as a zig-zag
transformer. Alternatively, the harmonic suppressor can be an active
filter. Col. 2, ll. 29-50.
5. In one embodiment the harmonic suppressor cancels the triplen
harmonics (3rd, 9th, 15th…) along with the 5th, and 7th. Col. 1 ll. 22-
25.
6. It is envisaged that one power center may be located on each floor of
a building to segregate the loads. Col, 3, ll. 56-67.
7. Power distribution panels are mounted in a cabinet (item 202, Figure
2) and mounted to the top of the cabinet is harmonic mitigation
device. Together they form an integral device. The harmonic
mitigation device is removably attached so that it may be upgraded
or retrofitted. The integral device may be mounted in a room or on a
truck. Col. 3, ll. 1-11.

7

Appeal 2009-001411
Application 10/945,420

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6 through 11, and 37
First issue
Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that
Boudrias teaches or suggests that the harmonic mitigation module is in an
enclosure as recited in claim 1. Claim 1 recites an enclosure where there is a
power input feed, a plurality of power output feeds, and a harmonic
mitigation module retained in the enclosure. The Examiner has found that
the single integral unit of distribution panels and harmonic mitigation
module meets the claimed enclosure. Answer 3. Further, the Examiner
finds that if even if the Boudrias teaching of the mitigation module mounted
on top of the cabinet is not considered to be inside the cabinet, the
modification to mount the device inside the cabinet is merely a decision of
choice.
We concur with the Examiner’s findings as we find ample evidence to
support them. Boudrias teaches that distribution panels are mounted in a
cabinet, and that the harmonic mitigation device (which meets the claimed
harmonic mitigation module) is mounted on top of the cabinet to become an
integral unit. Fact 7. Thus, the two units become one integral unit with two
compartments. We do not find that claim 1 includes a limitation which
precludes the enclosure having more than one compartment. Further, Figure
2 of Boudrias depicts the electrical connections (cables) to and from the
harmonic mitigation device traveling through a passage between the
harmonic device (item 110) and the cabinet (item 202) for the distribution
panels. Thus, it appears that the installation of the harmonic distribution
device provides part of the enclosure, i.e. without the harmonic distribution
8

Appeal 2009-001411
Application 10/945,420

device installed there is an opening in cabinet (202) and the distribution
panels are not completely enclosed. Additionally, we note that Boudrias,
teaches that the integral unit may be mounted in a room of a building. (Fact
7). A room is an enclosure, and, as such, all of the devices in the room are
in the same enclosure.
Further, inasmuch as the claim could be construed as defining over the
arrangement depicted in Figure 2, the Examiner has found that mounting the
harmonic mitigation device in the same enclosure as the power input feed
and a plurality of power output feeds is obvious. We find ample evidence to
support this finding also. Boudrias, teaches in Figure 2 that several
elements, e.g. distribution panel 120, main circuit breaker 106 and TVSS
116, are mounted in the cabinet 202, thus, Boudrias teaches that it is known
in the art to mount multiple components in an enclosure. Adding an
additional component into the enclosure is nothing more than using a known
device (enclosure) for its known purpose to house multiple components.
Thus, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner
erred in finding that Boudrias teaches or suggests that the harmonic
mitigation module is in an enclosure as recited in claim 1.

Second issue.
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in finding that Boudrias teaches or suggests that the harmonic mitigation
module bilaterally reduces harmonic current as recited in claim 1. Claim 1
recites a harmonic mitigation module in series with an input power feed and
plural power output feeds, wherein “said harmonic mitigation module
bilaterally reducing harmonic current distortion with respect to said plurality
9

Appeal 2009-001411
Application 10/945,420

of electrical loads … between said power input feed and said plurality of
power output feeds.” We construe this limitation as meaning that the
harmonic mitigation module prevents harmonics on the power lines from
flowing to the loads and harmonics from the loads flowing to the power
lines. Thus, harmonics from one load will not flow back to the power source
(through breaker 44 in Appellant’s Figure 4) and be transferred to another
distribution panel. We do not however find that this limitation of claim 1
requires that the harmonics are precluded from flowing between two loads
connected to the same distribution panel (i.e. harmonics flowing between
loads serviced by breakers items 50 in Appellant’s Figure 4). This
construction is consistent with the description of Appellant’s device on page
8 of Appellant’s Specification.
On pages 8 and 9 of the Answer, the Examiner finds that Boudrias
teaches bilateral reduction in harmonics between the source and the plural
loads as Boudrias teaches connecting the harmonic mitigation module in
series in the same manner that Appellant teaches. We concur with the
Examiner’s findings. As discussed supra, claim 1 requires that a harmonic
mitigation module is in series between a power source and plural loads and
that the harmonic mitigation module bilaterally reduces harmonic currents.
Boudrias teaches, in Figure 1, that the harmonic distribution device 110, is
connected in series with the power source (via breaker 106) and plural loads
(via breakers 122). Fact 2. Further, Boudrias teaches that the harmonic
distribution device prevents harmonic currents from flowing from the power
source to the load and from the load to the power source. Facts 3 and 6.
Appellant’s argument on page 6 of the Brief that harmonics from one
load powered by the upper panel of Boudrias to another load powered by the
10

Appeal 2009-001411
Application 10/945,420

lower panel of Boudrias is not persuasive of error as it is not commensurate
in scope with the claim. As discussed above, claim 1’s recitation of
bilaterally reducing harmonic current requires that harmonic current is
mitigated from flowing from the source to load and vice versa.
Thus, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner
erred in finding that Boudrias teaches or suggests that the harmonic
mitigation module bilaterally reduces harmonic current as recited in claim 1.
Third issue.
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in finding that Boudrias teaches reducing harmonic current distortion above
a predetermined frequency as recited in claim 1. Claim 1 recites “reducing
harmonic current distortion with respect to said plurality of electrical loads
above a predetermined frequency.” The Examiner finds that this is met by
Boudrias’s teaching of mitigating frequencies at predetermined odd
harmonics. We find ample evidence to support the Examiner’s finding.
Fact 5. Appellant has not identified why Boudrias’s teaching of mitigating
specific odd harmonics does not meet this claim limitation. Accordingly, we
are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that these limitations
taught.
For the aforementioned reasons, Appellant’s arguments directed to the
three issues presented with respect to the rejection of claim 1 have not
persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Accordingly
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6 through 11, and 37.

11

Appeal 2009-001411
Application 10/945,420

Rejection of claim 2
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us that the Examiner erred in
finding that Boudrias teaches or suggests that the harmonic mitigation
module leaves any individual odd harmonic substantially unreduced as
recited in claim 2. Claim 2 is dependent upon claim 1 and recites frequency
to be reduced comprises an odd harmonic of the fundamental frequency and
that the harmonic distortion current is reduced at odd harmonics above a
predetermined odd harmonic and harmonic distortion at the predetermined
odd harmonic is unreduced. Thus, the scope of the claim includes that
harmonic current distortion is unreduced at a predetermined odd harmonic
and reduced at odd harmonics above the predetermined odd harmonic. The
Examiner finds that Boudrias teaches that harmonic current distortion is
reduced at odd harmonics such as 3rd, 5th 7th etc. Answer 10. We find ample
evidence to support this finding by the Examiner. Fact 5. However, the
Examiner has not identified a teaching in Boudrias, and we find no teaching
in Boudrias, that there is an odd harmonic where current distortion is not
reduced as claimed. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 2.

Rejection of claim 5
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in finding that Boudrias teaches an isolation transformer within the
enclosure as recited in claim 5. Claim 5 is dependent upon claim 1 and
recites “an isolating transformer mounted within said enclosure and coupled
between said power input feed and said plurality of power output feeds.”
We note that claim 5 does not preclude the isolation transformer from being
12

Appeal 2009-001411
Application 10/945,420

the harmonic mitigation module. Further, we note that Appellant’s
Specification on page 9 identifies that a zig-zag transformer is an isolation
transformer. The Examiner has found that Boudrias teaches in Figure 3 that
the harmonic mitigation module includes a transformer. Answer 10-11. We
concur with the Examiner’s finding, Boudrias teaches that the harmonic
mitigation module includes a zig-zag transformer. Fact 4. As discussed
above with respect to claim 1, we find ample evidence to support a finding
that Boudrias teaches and suggests that the harmonic mitigation device can
be mounted in the same enclosure as the power feed and load feeds.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5.

Rejection of claims 12, 14, 15, and 20 through 23
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in finding that the harmonic mitigation device is in series with the loads and
in the same enclosure with the load line feeders as recited in claim 12.
Appellant’s arguments present the same issues regarding the harmonic
mitigation being in an enclosure with the load line feeders discussed with
respect to claim 1 and we are not persuaded for the reasons discussed above.
Claim 12 also recites that the harmonic filter is coupled to the load line
feeders for operating in series with the electrical loads. The Examiner has
found that Boudrias teaches that the harmonic mitigation device is connected
in series between the power input feed and the plurality of circuit breakers
which provide power to the loads. Answer 4. We concur with the
Examiner’s findings as they are supported by ample evidence. Fact 2. Thus,
Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim
13

Appeal 2009-001411
Application 10/945,420

12. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 14, 15,
and 20 through 23.

Claims 16 through 19
Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 16 through 19 present us
with the same issue as the rejection of claim 2. Claim 16 is similar to claim
2 in that it recites that the frequency to be reduced comprises an odd
harmonic of the fundamental frequency and that the harmonic distortion
current is reduced at odd harmonics above a predetermined odd harmonic
and harmonic distortion at the predetermined odd harmonic is unreduced.
As discussed above with respect to claim 2 we are persuaded that the
Examiner erred in finding that Boudrias teaches or suggests this limitation.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 or
claims 17 through 19 which depend upon claim 16.

Rejection of claims 24 through 26
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us that the Examiner erred in
finding that Boudrias teaches or suggests that the harmonic filter is
connected in series with an isolation transformer as recited in claim 24.
Claim 24 is dependent upon claim 23 and recites that an isolation
transformer is mounted in the enclosure and that it is in series with the
harmonic filter. The Examiner has found that Boudrias teaches an isolation
transformer in the enclosure. As discussed with respect to claim 5 we
concur with this finding by the Examiner. However, claim 24 also recites
that the transformer is in series with a harmonic filter. The Examiner has not
identified a teaching in Boudrias, and we find no teaching in Boudrias, that
14

Appeal 2009-001411
Application 10/945,420

the transformer is in series with a harmonic mitigation filter. Accordingly,
we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24 or claims 25
through 26 which depend upon claim 24.

Rejection of claims 27 through 36
Appellant’s arguments directed to the rejection of claims 27 through
36 present us with the same issues as discussed with respect to claim 1. As
discussed supra we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments directed to
claim 1. Similarly these arguments have not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 27. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 27 through 36.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 3 through 12, 14, 15, 20 through 23, and 27 through 37. However,
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 2, 16 through 19 and 24 through 26.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 12 and 14
through 37 is affirmed-in-part.

15

Appeal 2009-001411
Application 10/945,420

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

ELD

MACMILLAN SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC
ONE MARITIME PLAZA FIFTH FLOOR
720 WATER STREET
TOLEDO, OH 43604-1619
16