Ex Parte Hehenberger

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 27, 2017

13265053 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2017)

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.
13/265,053 10/18/2011 Gerald Hehenberger 4301-1278 mi
466 7590 01/31/2017
YOUNG fr THOMPSON
EXAMINER
209 Madison Street GIRARDI, VANESSA MARY
Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2833
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2017 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):
DocketingDept@young-thompson.com
y andtpair @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GERALD HEHENBERGER
Appeal 2015-007421
Application 13/265,053
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board by OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
Opinion concurring by DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
rejection of claims 13—21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellant claims a method for operating an energy generating
installation. Claim 13 is illustrative:
13. A method for operating an energy-generating
installation, with a differential transmission with an electrical
differential drive, the differential drive being connected via a
Appeal 2015-007421
Application 13/265,053
frequency converter to a DC intermediate circuit to a network,
the method comprising:
supplying the differential drive with electrical energy
with the aid of an electrical energy store in the DC intermediate
circuit of the frequency converter in the case of a voltage dip or
a power failure or an overvoltage of the network when the
differential drive operates in an operating mode as a motor.
The References
Yang US 5,476,293 Dec. 19, 1995
Hehenberger1 US 7,560,824 B2 July 14,2009
The Rejection
Claims 13—21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hehenberger
in view of Yang.
OPINION
We reverse the rejection. We need address only the independent
claims (13 and 14). Claim 13 requires supplying an energy generating
installation’s differential drive with electrical energy with the aid of a
frequency converter’s DC intermediate circuit’s electrical energy store in the
case of a voltage dip, power failure, or overvoltage of the network when the
differential drive operates as a motor. Claim 14 requires feeding electrical
energy from an energy generating installation’s differential drive into a
frequency converter’s DC intermediate circuit’s electrical energy store in the
case of a voltage dip, power failure, or overvoltage of the network when the
differential drive operates as a generator.
Hehenberger discloses a wind power plant comprising a rotor (1), a
synchronous machine (5) coupled via a line (9) and a transformer (13) to a
1 The Examiner cites to Hehenberger (US 7,560,824 B2), the application for
which previously was published as US 2008/0066569 A1 (Final Act. 2).
2
Appeal 2015-007421
Application 13/265,053
power network (12), and an asynchronous machine (7) connected to the
rotor (1) via planetary gearing (4) and to the network (12) via a
converter (10), the line (9) and the transformer (13) (col. 2,11.47—57; Fig. 1).
The asynchronous machine (7) is an auxiliary drive which maintains
constant rpm of the synchronous machine (5) by functioning as a motor at
low rotor (1) rpm and as a generator at higher rotor (1) rpm (col. 3,11.11—12,
16—20, 24—28, 32—37). “In the case of network disruptions (voltage dips) the
known behavior of a synchronous machine occurs, i.e. the synchronous
machine remains on the network and can supply a corresponding short
circuit current” (col. 4,11.7—11).
Yang discloses a wind power plant comprising a rotor (109), a
DC motor/generator (101), an AC motor/generator (111), a differential
gear (106) and a battery (103) (col. 1,11. 32—34, 42-44; Fig. 1). At low
rotor (109) rpm the DC motor (101) receives power from the battery (103)
and assists the rotor (109) in driving the AC generator (111) via the
differential gear (106) to provide power to a network, and at higher
rotor (109) rpm the AC motor/generator (111) functions both as a generator
of power to the network and as a motor assisting the rotor (109) in driving
the DC generator (101) via the differential gear (106) to charge the
battery (103) (col.2,11. 21-28; col. 3,11. 23-36).
The Examiner finds that “[t]he scenarios involving ‘a voltage dip or a
power failure or an overvoltage of the network have no bearing on the
claimed components and disclosed analogous components that enable a
method for operating an energy-generating installation” (Ans. 6).
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the Appellant’s
claimed method the Examiner must establish that the recited method steps,
3
Appeal 2015-007421
Application 13/265,053
not merely analogous components that would enable operating an
energy-generating installation, would have been prima facie obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art.
The Examiner finds that Hehenberger discloses “supplying the
differential drive [asynchronous machine] 7 with electrical energy [Col. 2,
lines 55-57] in case of a voltage dip or a power failure or an overvoltage of
the network [Col. 4, lines 1-19] when the differential drive 7 operates in an
operating mode as a motor [Col. 3, lines 17-19]” (Final Act. 2).
In that finding, “in case of’ and “when” are not supported by the
relied-upon disclosures. The Examiner pieces those disclosures together
using impermissible hindsight in view of the Appellant’s Specification. See
In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“A rejection based on
section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be
interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior
art”).
The Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
modify the wind power energy-generating installation of Hehenberger with
the capacity to store generated electricity as shown by Yang to effectively
absorb excess mechanical energy to be stored as electrical energy for use by
the differential drive during those times the differential drive operates as a
motor to equalize rpm between the rotor and the synchronous machine”
(Final Act. 3).
That conclusion does not establish that the relied-upon prior art would
have suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, the Appellant’s method
steps of supplying an energy generating installation’s differential drive with
4
Appeal 2015-007421
Application 13/265,053
electrical energy with the aid of a frequency converter’s DC intermediate
circuit’s electrical energy store in the case of a voltage dip, power failure, or
overvoltage of the network when the differential drive operates as a motor
(claim 13) or feeding electrical energy from an energy generating
installation’s differential drive into a frequency converter’s DC intermediate
circuit’s electrical energy store in the case of a voltage dip, power failure, or
overvoltage of the network when the differential drive operates as a
generator (claim 14).
Hence, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness of the Appellant’s claimed method.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejection of claims 13—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Hehenberger in view of Yang is reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
5
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GERALD HEHENBERGER
Appeal 2015-007421
Application 13/265,053
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion concurring by DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.
I concur in the decision to reverse the Examiner’s stated rejection but
add the following discussion to explain why Ex parte Schulhauser,
https ://www.uspto. gov/ sites/default/files/ documents/Ex%20parte%20 Schulh
auser%202016_04_28.pdf, is not controlling here.
Claim 13 reproduced above recites the “supplying” step—the only
step positively recited in the claim—as occurring “in the case of a voltage
dip or a power failure or an overvoltage of the network when the differential
drive operates in an operating mode as a motor.” Because the “supplying
step” is the only step recited in the claim, one skilled in the relevant art
would not have interpreted the “supplying” step as step that need not be
performed if the condition precedent (“in the case of a voltage dip or a
power failure or an overvoltage of the network when the differential drive
operates in an operating mode as a motor”) is not met. Otherwise, the
Appeal 2015-007421
Application 13/265,053
claimed method would not require any step at all, which would render the
entire claim meaningless. Rather, given the context of the Appellant’s
disclosure as a whole, it is my view that one skilled in the relevant art would
interpret the claim to be limited to methods in which the specified condition
does in fact occur.
2