Ex Parte Desabhatla et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 6, 2018

14288016 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2018)

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.
14/288,016 05/27/2014 Sreedhar Desabhatla 273451-1 (GETH:0720) 4042
82438 7590 02/08/2018
(TR Power Rr Water
EXAMINER
Fletcher Yoder PC ISLAM, MUHAMMAD S
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2018 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):
docket@fyiplaw.com
howell@fyiplaw.com
swanson @ fyiplaw .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SREEDHAR DESABHATLA and
SHASHIDHAR NIBHANUPUDI
Appeal 2017-005957
Application 14/288,016
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a brushless synchronous machine and a method
for limiting main field voltage therein. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A brushless synchronous machine with a limiter for main
field voltage, the machine comprising:
a regulator configured to use a field current to excite
main field windings and generate the main field voltage; and
a limiter configured to limit the field current to maintain
the main field voltage corresponding to the field current below
Appeal 2017-005957
Application 14/288,016
a limit based at least in part on an estimation of the main field
voltage based at least in part on an applied field current.
The References
Gibbs US 2006/0164045 A1 July 27,2006
Li US 2006/0290292 A1 Dec. 28,2006
The Rejections
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out
and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the
invention, claims 1-6 and 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) over Gibbs, and
claims 8 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Gibbs in view of Li.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
“[T]he indefiniteness inquiry asks whether the claims ‘circumscribe a
particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity.’”
Marley Mouldings Ltd. v. Mikron Industries Inc., 417 F.3d 1356, 1359 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (quoting In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971).
The Examiner concludes that “[cjlaims 1 and 9 recite limitations of ‘a
limit based on [sic] at least in part on an estimation of the main field voltage
based at least in part on an applied field current. ’ is not clearly defined the
relationship between main field voltage and applied field current as shown in
Fig. 2 and Fig. 4 which makes these claims vague and indefinite” (Final
Act. 4).
A claim is not indefinite merely because it is broad. See In re
Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (CCPA 1970) (“Breadth is not indefmiteness.”);
2
Appeal 2017-005957
Application 14/288,016
In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 909 (CCPA 1970). The Examiner does not
establish that the breadth of the independent claims (1 and 9) relative to
Figures 2 and 4 renders the claims indefinite.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of anticipation by pointing out where all of the claim limitations appear in a
single reference. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Gibbs discloses “a stabilizer for a synchronous electric power
generator system that provides both power system damping functionality and
excitation limiter functionality from a single unit” (]f 7). Routines are stored
in memory (30) for generating signals including an under excitation limiter
(UEL) function signal (36) and a generator current limiter (GCL) function
signal (40) (^ 15). “UEL is a function that is utilized to maintain excitation
above a predetermined KVA [kilovolt ampere] characteristic, and thus
prevent the generator from reaching underexcited conditions that could
exceed the capabilities of the generator. This relationship is typically known
in the art as a capability curve” (id.). “When the machine is underexcited,
the GCL serves to increase excitation to the field” (id.).
The Examiner finds that 1) estimation “is a rough calculation of the
value, number, and quantity” (Ans. 5) and “measurement does not imply
exact accurate or precise calculation and hence is also a rough calculation of
the value, number, and quantity” (id.), so “measurement and estimation is
same” (id.), and 2) “UEL is an under excitation limiter and ‘a capability
3
Appeal 2017-005957
Application 14/288,016
curve’ is graphical representation of data points for the generator to maintain
the limit of KVA, which is an estimation” {id.).
‘“[DJuring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.’” In re
Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re
Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The Appellants’ Specification
states:
The field current that affects the main field voltage is controlled
by a feedback loop, but the resulting main field voltage may not
be conveniently measurable due to rotation of the field. As a
result, a fault in the feedback loop or the system (gird) may
cause the field current and, consequently, the main field voltage
to exceed rated values” [(^| 2)].
To ensure that the main field voltage 120 does not exceed a
specified maximum value, a transfer function 210 (FIG. 2) is
developed to estimate main field voltage 120 based on the
applied field current 110” [fl| 13)]
The Examiner does not address the Appellants’ Specification and establish
that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the Appellants’ claim term
“estimation” consistent therewith encompasses a measurement. Nor does
the Examiner establish that Gibbs’ capability curve, which the Examiner
relies upon as an estimation, or Gibbs’ disclosure that “[w]hen the machine
is underexcited, the GCL serves to increased excitation to the field” 15),
provides an estimation of main field voltage based at least in part on an
applied field current (Final Act. 5; Ans. 5).
For the above reasons we reverse the rejection under
35U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
4
Appeal 2017-005957
Application 14/288,016
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner does not rely upon Li for any disclosure that remedies
the deficiency in Gibbs as to the independent claims (Final Act. 7-9). We
therefore reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections of claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b),
claims 1-6 and 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) over Gibbs, and claims 8
and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Gibbs in view of Li are reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
5