Ex Parte Beneditz et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 15, 2010

10925056 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 15, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BRUCE D. BENEDITZ,
DONAL E. BAKER, WAYNE H. OLDENBURG,
JOHN F. DEFENBAUGH, and MASSOUD VAZIRI
____________

Appeal 2009-003179
Application 10/925,056
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: January 15, 2010
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, CARLA M. KRIVAK,
and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1 to 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We will sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 1 to 14.
Appeal 2009-003179
Application 10/925,056

2
Appellants have invented a generator feeder system that has a ground
fault detector coupled to a neutral connection of a generator and to at least
one feeder that connects the generator to a power panel. The ground fault
detector indicates a fault if a sum of currents through the at least one feeder
and the generator neutral connection is non-zero (Fig. 1; Spec. 2-4;
Abstract).
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as
follows:
1. A generator feeder system, comprising:
a generator having a plurality of generator windings;
a generator neutral connection connected to at least one of said
plurality of generating windings and to ground;
a power panel;
at least one feeder connected to said generator and said power panel;
and;
a ground fault detector coupled to said generator neutral connection
and said at least one feeder, wherein said ground fault detector indicates a
fault if a sum of currents through said at least one feeder and said generator
neutral connection is non-zero.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Backderf US 3,579,038 May 18, 1971
Wellman US 4,370,692 Jan. 25, 1983
Draper US 4,578,732 Mar. 25, 1986
Sutrina US 5,466,974 Nov. 14, 1995
Appeal 2009-003179
Application 10/925,056

3
Michalek US 5,479,095 Dec. 26, 1995
Mrowiec US 5,488,532 Jan. 30, 1996
Vaughan US 5,544,003 Aug. 6, 1996
Buie US 2002/0060891 A1 May 23, 2002
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Backderf and Vaughan.
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 4, 8, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Backderf, Vaughan, and Mrowiec.
The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Backderf, Vaughan, and Draper.
The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Backderf, Vaughan, and Michalek.
The Examiner rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Backderf, Vaughan, Mrowiec, and Draper.
The Examiner rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Backderf, Vaughan, Mrowiec, and Michalek.
The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Backderf, Vaughan, Mrowiec, and Wellman.
The Examiner rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Backderf, Buie, and Sutrina.
With respect to claims 1, 3, and 6, Appellants argue inter alia (App.
Br. 7) that “there is no legally sufficient reason to modify Backderf with the
teachings of Vaughan” because Backderf is directed to an electrical circuit
whereas Vaughan is directed to a large capacity primary power station.
Appeal 2009-003179
Application 10/925,056

4
With respect to claims 8 and 11, Appellants argue (App. Br. 9) that
the reference combination “fails to teach the application independent claim
8, which recites ‘a plurality of feeders connected between said power panel
and said generator.’” With respect to claim 14, Appellants argue (App. Br.
12) that the Examiner’s reasoning for modifying the teachings of Backderf
with those of Sutrina is flawed because the providing of additional feeders to
Backderf’s system would increase the weight of the system as opposed to
decrease the weight as suggested by the Examiner.

ISSUES
Have Appellants demonstrated that the Examiner erred by combining
the circuit teachings of Backderf with the large capacity primary power
station teachings of Vaughan?
Have Appellants demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding that
the applied references teach or would have suggested a plurality of feeders
connected between a power panel and a generator?
Have Appellants demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding that
the weight of the system described by Backderf would decrease with the
providing of additional feeders to the system?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a ground
fault detector that is coupled to the neutral connection of the generator and to
at least one feeder that connects the generator to the power panel. The
ground fault detector indicates a fault if a sum of currents through the at
Appeal 2009-003179
Application 10/925,056

5
least one feeder and the generator neutral connection is non-zero (Fig. 1;
Spec. 2-4).
2. Backderf describes a generator feeder system that comprises a
generator 9 with a plurality of windings, a generator neutral connection L4
connected to at least one of the plurality of generator windings and to
ground, a load 14, at least one feeder L1 connected to the generator and the
load circuit, and a ground fault detector coupled to the generator neutral
connection and the at least one feeder, wherein the ground fault detector
indicates a fault if a sum of currents through the at least one feeder and the
generator neutral connection is non-zero (Fig. 1; col. 1, l. 40-col. 2, l. 72;
Abstract).
3. Vaughan describes the use of ground fault detector devices 86 to
86n between a power generating source and a distributed load 90 to 90n on a
mounting panel 12 (Figs. 3-4; col. 1, ll. 21-35; col. 2, l. 6-col. 3, l. 6).
4. Mrowiec describes an electrical power distribution system which
has at least two parallel power feeders (e.g., 18a-18b, 20a-20b, and 22a-22b)
for each electrical phase that couples an electrical source through a contactor
device to a load distribution bus (Fig. 3; Abstract).
5. Sutrina describes an electrical power generation and distribution
system for use in aircraft (Fig. 9; Abstract). The system described by
Sutrina uses parallel feeder cables to supply three-phase electrical current to
a load bus “to achieve weight reduction in aircraft” (col. 6, l. 62-col. 7, l. 2).

Appeal 2009-003179
Application 10/925,056

6
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If that
burden is met, then the burden shifts to the Appellants to overcome the
prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. See id.
The Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection must possess a
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

ANALYSIS
For all of the reasons expressed by the Examiner (Final Rej. 2-12;
Ans. 10-13), and for the additional reasons set forth infra, we agree with the
Examiner that claims 1 to 14 are either taught by or would have been
suggested by the applied references.
Turning first to claims 1, 3, and 6, we agree with the Examiner’s
reasoning (Ans. 11) that the skilled artisan would have turned to the
teachings of Vaughan to modify Backderf’s circuit for use on a panel
because “both are concerned with directing the power of a generator to a
load and . . . both contain fault protection circuitry that would open a circuit
during a fault” (Ans. 11) (FF 2, 3). Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 7-8)
concerning the difference in size between Backderf’s circuit and Vaughan’s
large capacity primary power station is entitled to little, if any weight,
because a circuit/system size is not recited in claims 1, 3, and 6. Since we
agree with the Examiner’s reasoning (Ans. 12) that “[t]he device of Vaughan
is not meant to be physically incorporated into the circuit of Backderf, rather
Appeal 2009-003179
Application 10/925,056

7
it would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that a fault
protection circuit of 12-18 [in Backderf] could be placed on a power panel,”
the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3, and 6 is sustained.
Turning next to claims 8 and 11, Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 9)
that Backderf and Vaughan do not describe a plurality of feeders connected
between the power panel and the generator is not convincing of the non-
obviousness of the subject matter set forth in claims 8 and 11 because
Mrowiec was relied on by the Examiner for such a teaching (Final Rej. 4)
(FF 4). Thus, the obviousness rejection of claims 8 and 11 is sustained.
Turning to claim 14, Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 12) that the use
of additional feeders in Backderf as suggested by Sutrina would increase the
weight of the system as opposed to decrease the weight of the system is
without merit in light of the teachings of Sutrina (FF 5) which support the
Examiner’s weight decrease position (Final Rej. 4). Accordingly, the
obviousness rejection of claim 14 is sustained.
The obviousness rejections of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are
sustained because Appellants have not presented any patentability arguments
for these claims.
Appellants’ arguments throughout the briefs do not convince us of any
error in the Examiner’s positions in the rejections of claims 1 to 14. Oetiker,
977 F.2d at 1445. The Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejections
possesses a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusions of
obviousness. Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.

Appeal 2009-003179
Application 10/925,056

8
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred by
combining the circuit teachings of Backderf with the large capacity primary
power teachings of Vaughan.
Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding
that the applied references teach or would have suggested a plurality of
feeders connected between a power panel and a generator.
Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding
that the weight of the system described by Backderf would decrease with the
providing of additional feeders to the system.

ORDER
The obviousness rejections of claims 1 to 14 are affirmed.
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

KIS

CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009