Ex Parte Iles

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 18, 2018

14260530 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 18, 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.
14/260,530 04/24/2014 Robert lies 297.353 1005
23598 7590 01/22/2018
BOYLE FREDRICKSON S.C.
840 North Plankinton Avenue
MILWAUKEE, WI 53203
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, VIET P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2831
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/22/2018 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):
docketing @boylefred.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT ILES
Appeal 2017-006650
Application 14/260,530
Technology Center 2800
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision to finally reject claims 1—15. We have jurisdiction over
this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant claims a method of controlling an engine-driven, electrical
generator system configured to generate an alternating current (AC) power
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Generac Power Systems, Inc., which, according
to the Appeal Brief filed October 12, 2016 (“App. Br.”), is the real party in
interest. App. Br. 4.
Appeal 2017-006650
Application 14/260,530
having a desired output frequency. App. Br. 4—6. Claim 1 illustrates the
subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below:
1. A method of controlling an engine-driven, electrical
generator system configured to generate an alternating current
(AC) power at a desired output frequency for a plurality of
electrical loads, comprising the steps of:
determining a value of the AC power output by the
generator system at least once during each electrical
cycle of the AC power;
detecting a change in the value of the AC power
output greater than a preset threshold;
opening a switch to disconnect at least one of the
electrical loads from the generator system responsive to
detecting the change in the value of the AC power output
greater than the preset threshold;
accelerating the engine to a maximum operating
speed; and
closing the switch to reconnect the at least one
electrical load to the generator system upon acceleration
of the engine to the maximum operating speed.
App. Br. 15 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
The Examiner sets forth the following rejections in the Final Office
Action entered April 5, 2016 (“Final Act.”), and maintains the rejections in
the Examiner’s Answer entered January 27, 2017 (“Ans.”):
I. Claims 1—4 and 7—9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Chen (US 2014/0297155 Al, published October 2, 2014) in view of
Hausman (US 2005/0275354 Al, published December 15, 2005) and
Welches (US 2005/0140142 Al, published June 30, 2005);
II. Claims 5, 6, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chen in view of Hausman, Welches, and Desai (US
2010/0241283 Al, published September 23, 2010);
2
Appeal 2017-006650
Application 14/260,530
III. Claims 12—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Chen in view of Welches; and
IV. Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chen
in view of Welches and Hausman.
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant’s contentions, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1—15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons set forth in the Appeal
Brief and below.
All of the claims on appeal require the claimed method to comprise,
inter alia, accelerating an engine to a maximum operating speed. Therefore,
we consider only claim 1. As set forth above, claim 1 requires the claimed
method of controlling an engine-driven, electrical generator system to
comprise determining a value of the AC power output by the generator
system at least once during each electrical cycle of the AC power, detecting
a change in the value of the AC power output greater than a preset threshold,
disconnecting at least one of the electrical loads from the generator system
responsive to detecting the change in the value of the AC power output
greater than the preset threshold, accelerating the engine to a maximum
operating speed, and reconnecting the at least one electrical load to the
generator system upon acceleration of the engine to the maximum operating
speed.
The Examiner finds that Chen discloses all of the features of claim 1
except (1) determining a value of the AC power output at least once during
each electrical cycle of the AC power, and (2) accelerating the engine to a
maximum operating speed, and closing the switch to reconnect the at least
3
Appeal 2017-006650
Application 14/260,530
one electrical load to the generator system upon acceleration of the engine to
the maximum operation speed. Final Act. 3^4. The Examiner relies on
Hausman for suggesting the first feature missing from Chen’s disclosures,
and relies on Welches for suggesting the second feature. Final Act. 4—5.
With respect to the second feature, Welches discloses a variable speed
engine/generator set having an integrated power conditioning system and
control scheme that allows for load-adaptive speed control of the engine.
Welches Abstract. The Examiner finds that Welches discloses that an
engine speed command momentarily goes to the maximum speed, and as the
maximum speed is approached, the output AC voltage is then quickly
ramped back up to 100% of its nominal value, which the Examiner finds
corresponds to accelerating the engine to a maximum operating speed, as
recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4; Ans. 3^4 (citing Welches 172).
However, the Examiner fails to establish Welches actually discloses,
or would have suggested, accelerating an engine in a generator system to a
maximum operating speed. Welches discloses an apparatus for generating
AC power to a load (generator) comprising a variable speed energy
generating device (engine) that produces differing amounts of power at
different speeds, and a power conditioning system coupled to the energy
generating device. Welches Abstract, H 2, 22, 53. Welches discloses that
the power conditioning system calculates a speed command that controls the
variable speed engine generating device, and Welches discloses deriving the
speed command from the AC power output and a speed versus load table.
Welches 1122, 25,29.
Welches discloses operating the variable speed energy generating
device at reduced speed for greater efficiency. Welches 146. Welches
4
Appeal 2017-006650
Application 14/260,530
further discloses that when operating at reduced speed, the energy generating
device lacks the power overhead necessary to maintain speed and
simultaneously provide power to an instantaneously applied increase in load.
Welches 147. Welches discloses addressing this circumstance by shedding
a portion of the load long enough to accelerate the energy generating device
to the optimum speed for the new load conditions. Id.
Paragraph 72 of Welches—cited by the Examiner—discloses
determining the output power at the time of the load increase, and shedding
only enough load so that the engine has approximately 20% power output
left to accelerate to a new and higher operating speed. Paragraph 72 further
discloses that “to allow time for accurate power calculation,” the apparatus
“sets the power out to 100% for determination of the speed command. Thus,
the engine speed command momentarily goes to the maximum speed. As
the maximum speed is approached, the output AC voltage is then quickly
ramped back up to 100% of its nominal value.” (Reference characters
omitted). Paragraph 72 further discloses that “the precisely calculated load
power is then used to select the optimum engine operating speed by the
primary speed command generator via the load verses speed table.”
(Reference characters omitted).
As Appellant correctly argues, paragraph 72 of Welches discloses that
the engine speed command—rather than the engine speed itself—
momentarily goes to the maximum speed (App. Br. 9), and Welches
discloses that the engine speed command is distinct from the actual engine
speed. H 52, 100. As Appellant also correctly argues, paragraph 72 of
Welches does not disclose that the actual engine speed reaches the maximum
5
Appeal 2017-006650
Application 14/260,530
operating speed, and instead indicates only that the “the maximum speed is
approached.” App. Br. 9—10; Welches 172 (emphasis added).
Accordingly, the Examiner does not provide a sufficient factual basis
to establish that Welches discloses accelerating an engine in a generator
system to a maximum operating speed, as required by claim 1. Nor does the
Examiner provide a persuasive explanation supported by evidence as to why
Welches would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the
effective filing date of Appellant’s application, accelerating an engine in a
generator system to a maximum operating speed.
We accordingly do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of 1—15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
REVERSED
6