Ex Parte EASTON et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 8, 2019

14967624 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/967,624 12/14/2015 JASON DEMETRIOS EASTON
101730 7590 04/10/2019
ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
EATON CORPORATION
600 GRANT STREET
44THFLOOR
PITTSBURGH, PA 15219
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15-NRG-1125 4539
EXAMINER
KING, CURTIS J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/10/2019 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):
ipmail@eckertseamans.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JASON DEMETRIOS EASTON, CHRIS EMMONS DRUEKE,
JEFFERY SCOTT KUYKENDALL, and PAUL DAVID SEFF
Appeal 2018-006853 1
Application 14/967 ,624
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN,AdministrativePatentJudges.
PYONIN,Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's fmal rejection of claims 1-9, 12, and 13. App. Br. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affrrm.
1 Eaton Corporation is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-006853
Application 14/967,624
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosure relates to a "power pedestal [that] includes a
stray current detection unit including a stray current probe structured to
extend outside the enclosure and into the water to sense a voltage in the
water and a stray current detection circuit electrically connected to the stray
current probe." Abstract. Claim 1 is independent, and is reproduced below
for reference (with emphasis added):
1. A power pedestal structured to be attached to a platform in
the vicinity of water, the power pedestal comprising:
a pedestal member comprising:
a base structured to be attached to the platform, and
an enclosure extending from said base;
a stray current detection unit comprising:
a stray current probe structured to extend outside the
enclosure and into the water to sense a voltage in the water, and
a stray current detection circuit electrically
connected to the stray current probe and structured to detect a
stray current in the water based on the voltage sensed by the stray
current probe and to output an indicator signal in response to
detecting the stray current; and
an indicator electrically coupled to the stray current
detection unit and structured to provide an indication in response
to the indicator signal,
wherein the power pedestal does not have a ground fault
detection capability.
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1-9, 12, and 13 standrejectedunder35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Seff (US 2008/0253061 Al; Oct. 16, 2008), Fahrenkrug
(US 2014/0009299 Al; Jan. 9, 2014), Thompson(US 3,869,668; Mar. 4,
1975), andBroere (US 2015/0111423 Al; Apr. 23, 2015). Final Act. 2.
2
Appeal2018-006853
Application 14/967,624
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments
Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants
could have made but chose not to make are deemed waived. See 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 41. 3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv). We adopt the Examiner's fmdings and conclusions as our
own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in relying on Seff, which
describes the use of ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) outlets, in fmding
the claims are unpatentable:
providing ground fault protection in a marina power pedestal
eliminates the need for providing stray current detection
associated with the ground fault pedestal. That is, the GFCI
receptacles 104,106 ofSeff provide protection from ground
faults and, as a consequence, also provide protection from stray
current leaking into the water.
App. Br. 4. Particularly, Appellants contend:
[i]t would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art to remove the GFCI receptacles 104, 106 of Seff, which
provide from all ground faults, and to instead add a stray
current detection unit as recited in independent claim 1 to the
power pedestal 4 of Seff. Such a modification would reduce
the capabilities and safety of the power pedestal 4 of Seff and
there is no rational reason why one having ordinary skill in the
art would make such a modification.
App. Br. 5 ( emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 3--4. Regarding the
combination of references applied by the Examiner, Appellants argue "the
underwater leakage current detector 12 of Thompson is not a known
alternative to the GFCI receptacles" of Seff (App. Br. 6), and replacement of
3
Appeal2018-006853
Application 14/967,624
Seffs GFCireceptacles with the Thompson's underwater leakage current
detector "would reduce the capabilities of the power pedestal 4 of Seff."
App. Br. 7. Appellants further contend "the leakage current detection
performed by Fahrenkrug is essentially equivalent to ground fault
detection," and "Broere provides no teaching or suggestion of a power
pedestal that uses other means in place of a ground fault interrupting circuit
to detect a fault or any reason to make such a substitution." App. Br. 6, 8.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner fmds, and
we agree, that Fahrenkrug and Thompson both teach "a leakage detecting
monitoring circuit may be used to in conjunction with a power pedestal to
detect a stray current and to provide an indication to a user when stray
current is detected in a body of water." Ans. 4; see Final Act. 3--4,
Fahrenkrug Fig. 6, ,i,i 4, 19, 28-31; ThompsonFig. 2, 3:27-65. That is,
"one of ordinary skill in the art would understand providing a visual
indicator [ ofleakage current in water] not only indicates to a user there may
be a problem with the receptacle but it may be dangerous to have contact
with the water." Ans. 5; see also Final Act. 4; FahrenkrugiJ 4 ("[T]he
leakage currents ... pose as a serious shock threat to a swimmer").
Appellants' contention that Thompson's underwater leakage current
detector "is not a known alternative" to Seff s GFCI receptacles is not
persuasive of error, because Appellants ignore the combined teachings of the
references which lead one of ordinary skill in the art to make such a
substitution. Broere teaches "a GFCI receptacle does not have to be used,
since the GFCI receptacles is one of the many receptacles available to be
used ... with a power pedestal." Ans. 3; Broere ,i 81. Fahrenkrug details
that leakage currents are dangerous, but preventing them with GFCI systems
4
Appeal2018-006853
Application 14/967,624
is problematic because"[ m Jany loads cannot be operated with these types of
systems because the loads have high leakage currents and, therefore, will
generate nuisance trips of a limit-detection and interrupt device."
Fahrenkrug,i,i 4-5; see also Fahrenkrug Fig. 6; ,i 32. Further, Thompson
teaches that leakage current detectors may detect a wide variety of sources
of current. See, e.g., Thompson 3 :48-65. We, thus, disagree with
Appellants' argument that "there is no rational reason why one having
ordinary skill in the art" would modify Seff as claimed, because as found by
the Examiner, providing a visual indicator for detected leakage current alerts
to the possibilities of both a receptacle problem and a shock hazard in the
water. App. Br. 5; Ans. 3-5; see also In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555
( CCP A 197 5) ( deletion of a component in the prior art whose known
function was not needed was an "obvious expedient").
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, as well
as dependent claims 2-9, 12, and 13 not separately argued. See App. Br. 9.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-9, 12, and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affrrmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
See 37 C.F.R. §41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5