Ex Parte Culligan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2012

11006144 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

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.
11/006,144 12/07/2004 John Louis Culligan 2003 P 18526 US01 7208
28524 7590 10/31/2012
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
170 WOOD AVENUE SOUTH
ISELIN, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
HOANG, ANN THI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2836
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
___________

Ex parte JOHN LOUIS CULLIGAN and RAY MONTGOMERY CLARK
___________

Appeal 2011-009300
Application 11/006,144
Technology Center 2800
__________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-009300
Application 11/006,144

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to an apparatus with a
Rogowski coil current transformer (1500, Fig. 1) adapted to provide a signal
correlated to an alternating current of a first phase of an electric circuit, the
alternating current flowing through a circuit breaker (1420, Fig. 1), and a
microprocessor (1800, Fig. 1) adapted to receive the signal from the current
transformer, and to cause the circuit breaker to trip responsive to the signal
exceeding a predetermined threshold (Spec. ¶ [5]).
1. An apparatus comprising:
a Rogowski coil current transformer adapted to provide a signal
correlated to an amperage of an alternating current of a first phase of
an electric circuit, the alternating current flowing through a circuit
breaker; and
a microprocessor adapted to receive the signal from said Rogowski
coil, and to cause the circuit breaker to trip of the amperage is
between approximately 100 percent and approximately 120 percent of
a maximum withstand rating of the circuit breaker for a time period of
no less than approximately 30 current cycles.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-16, 19-21, and 25 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rinaldi (U.S. Patent No.
6,295,190 B1; Sep. 25, 2001) in view of Tignor (U.S. Patent No. 6,469,882
B1; Oct. 22, 2002) and Girgis (U.S. Patent No. 4,455,612; June 19, 1984).
Appeal 2011-009300
Application 11/006,144

3

The Examiner has rejected claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Rinaldi in view of Tignor, Girgis, and Puccinelli
(U.S. Patent No. 4,644,438; Feb. 17, 1987).
The Examiner has rejected claims 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rinaldi in view of Tignor, Girgis, and Watson (U.S.
Patent No. 3,666,994; May 30, 1972).

ISSUE
The issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Rinaldi, Tignor, and Girgis teaches the limitation of
a microprocessor adapted to receive the signal from said
Rogowski coil, and to cause the circuit breaker to trip if the
amperage is between approximately 100 percent and
approximately 120 percent of a maximum withstand rating of
the circuit breaker for a time period of no less than
approximately 30 current cycles
as recited in claim 1.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A reference may be said to teach away when a person of
ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be
discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or
would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was
taken by the applicant. The degree of teaching away will of
course depend on the particular facts; in general, a reference
will teach away if it suggests that the line of development
flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be
productive of the result sought by the applicant.
In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing United States v.
Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 52 (1966)).

Appeal 2011-009300
Application 11/006,144

4

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the combination of Rinaldi, Tignor, and Girgis
does not teach the circuit breaker being “tripped ‘if the amperage is between
approximately 100 percent and approximately 120 percent of a maximum
withstand rating of the circuit breaker for a period of time of no less than 30
current cycles’” (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2). Appellants explain that Girgis
merely teaches a delay for tripping a circuit breaker, but does not teach
tripping a circuit breaker if an amperage is above a certain percentage of a
withstand rating of the circuit breaker for a certain number of cycles (App.
Br. 7; Reply Br. 2).
The Examiner responds that Girgis was cited to teach tripping a
circuit breaker after a time delay. The Examiner articulated that tripping the
circuit breaker after a delay would avoid nuisance trips (Ans. 15).
At most, Girgis teaches that the time period for a trip signal is “very
quick[]” and approximately half of an AC cycle “or less” (col. 5, ll. 39-43).
Thus, we agree with Appellants (Reply Br. 3-5), that Girgis is concerned
with “swiftly” disconnecting from the network 12 (col. 4, ll. 56-58), and
thus, someone following Girgis would be led in a path divergent from that
taken by Appellants, who provide for an extended instantaneous protection
by prolonging the time period of a trip signal at a value over 20 electric
current cycles and up to 60 current cycles (see Spec. ¶ [58]). Accordingly,
we find that Girgis teaches away from tripping a circuit breaker at “a time
period of no less than approximately 30 current cycles” as recited in claim 1
(emphasis added). See Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553.
Similarly, Tignor teaches, at best, tripping after about one cycle of an
overcurrent condition (col. 1, ll. 49-51).
Appeal 2011-009300
Application 11/006,144

5

Accordingly, as none of the cited references teach the claim limitation
at issue, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 15, and 16, and for
the same reason the rejections of claims 2-14 and 17-25.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that Rinaldi, Tignor, and Girgis teach
a microprocessor adapted to receive the signal from said
Rogowski coil, and to cause the circuit breaker to trip if the
amperage is between approximately 100 percent and
approximately 120 percent of a maximum withstand rating of
the circuit breaker for a time period of no less than
approximately 30 current cycles.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-25 is reversed.

REVERSED

babc