Ex Parte Kehrli

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 12, 2011

10658597 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 12, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte ARNOLD P. KEHRLI
________________

Appeal 2009-013997
Application 10/658,597
Technology Center 2800
________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, GREGORY J. GONSALVES, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-013997
Application 10/658,597

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
1

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner‘s final
rejection of claims 1, 3 – 11, 13 – 15, and 19 – 23. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Invention
The invention relates to power flow regulation for utility power
systems (Spec. 1). Independent claims 1 and 23 are directed to multi-line
utility power transmission systems comprising first and second power
transmission lines and a power flow controller. Independent claim 10 is
directed to a method of regulating such power transmission systems.
Exemplary Claim
1. A multi-line utility power transmission system
comprising:
a first power transmission line having a first
impedance characteristic;
a second power transmission line including a
superconductor, in parallel with the first power
transmission line, and having a second impedance
characteristic less than the first impedance characteristic;
and
a power flow controller, coupled to the second
power transmission line, for selectively regulating

1
For purposes of this appeal, we refer to the Examiner‘s Final Rejection,
June 10, 2008 (Fin. Rej.), Appellant‘s Appeal Brief, November 3, 2008
(App. Br), Appellant‘s Amendments to the Appeal Brief, December 23,
2008 (Amend. App. Br), the Examiner‘s Answer, March 20, 2009 (Ans.),
and Appellant‘s Reply Brief, April 24, 2009 (Reply Br.).
Appeal 2009-013997
Application 10/658,597

3
during normal operating conditions of the power
transmission system by a variable amount at least one of
the magnitude and direction of the power flowing
through the second power transmission line;
wherein the power flow controller is configured to
selectively regulate the power flowing through the
second power transmission line to provide at least one of
load balancing between the first power transmission line
and the second power transmission line and flow
optimization between the first power transmission line
and the second power transmission line;
wherein the power flow controller is configured to
provide incremental flow change of current.
(Emphases added).
Evidence Examiner Relies Upon
Parton 4,045,823 Aug. 30, 1977
Hingorani 5,420,495 May 30, 1995
Talisa 5,878,334 Mar. 2, 1999
Couture US 2002/0005668 A1 Jan. 17, 2002
Morita US 6,344,956 B1 Feb. 5, 2002
Sinha US 2003/0183410 A1 Oct. 2, 2003
(filed Sept. 14, 2001)
Shimomura JP 11122793 A Apr. 30, 1999
Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 23
2
under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sinha and Morita.

2
Claim 23 was introduced in an Amendment After Final, July 8, 2008. The
Examiner entered claim 23, but indicated in an Advisory Action, August 7,
2008, that the claim was rejected based on findings previously used to reject
claims 16 – 18, now canceled. These findings relied on the teachings and
suggestions of Sinha and Morita (Fin. Rej. 2 – 3 and 5 – 7). Moreover,
Appellant submits that claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sinha and Morita (Amend. App. Br. 2; Reply Br. 3).
Appeal 2009-013997
Application 10/658,597

4
The Examiner rejects claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sinha, Morita, and Talisa.
The Examiner rejects claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sinha, Morita, and Shimomura.
The Examiner rejects claims 8 – 11, 13, 14, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sinha, Morita, and Hingorani.
The Examiner rejects claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sinha, Morita, Hingorani, and Shimomura.
The Examiner rejects claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sinha, Morita, and Parton.
The Examiner rejects claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sinha, Morita, and Couture.
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that Morita teaches or suggests a
power transmission system power flow controller for selectively regulating
by a variable amount at least one of the magnitude and direction of the
power flowing through a power transmission line, as recited in claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in finding that Morita teaches or suggests that
the power flow controller is configured to provide incremental flow change
of current, as recited in claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in finding that Morita teaches or suggests that
the power flow controller selectively regulates power flow during normal
operating conditions of the power transmission system, as recited in claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in finding that it would have been obvious to an
artisan of ordinary skill to combine the teachings and suggestions of Sinha
and Morita?
Appeal 2009-013997
Application 10/658,597

5
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Morita teaches that:
superconductive/normal conductive transition-type
current-limiting devices most directly utilize the
superconduction/normal conduction transition properties
of superconductors. When carrying a load current, the
current flowing to the superconductor is never greater
than the critical current, and therefore the resistance of
the superconductor is extremely low. In the event of a
short-circuit accident, however, the current flowing to the
superconductor exceeds the critical current, and the heat
generated thereby causes transition of the superconductor
from a superconductive state to a normal conductive
state, thus generating electrical resistance. This resistance
limits the fault current.
(Col. 1, ll. 44 – 55).
2. Morita teaches that:
[b]y applying an external magnetic field it is possible to
generate a larger Rf in the current-limiting element even
at the same conduction current value. This raises the
entire current-limiting element above the critical
temperature more rapidly, thus avoiding local damage by
local quenching and allowing the necessary electrical
resistance to be generated.
(col. 7, ll. 12 – 17).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim construction
During ex parte prosecution, the USPTO determines the scope of the
claims by giving the language the ―broadest reasonable construction ‗in light
of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the
art.‘‖ Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
Appeal 2009-013997
Application 10/658,597

6
(quoting In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2004)).
Obviousness
―[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.‖ KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(internal quotations and citation omitted).
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Selectively regulating by a variable amount
Appellant contends, ―Morita‘s current-limiting element clearly
provides a substantial, non-incremental change in current; it is not
configured to provide incremental change in current, nor can it regulate the
power flow by a variable amount‖ (App. Br. 9) (emphasis added). Appellant
argues that this is ―because the operation of Morita‘s current-limiting
element is based on a large change in resistance as a result of quenching
from superconductivity to normal conductivity‖ where the change ―in
resistance results in a . . . well-defined reduction in the flow of power‖ (id.).
The Specification does not provide a clear definition for the limitation
―variable.‖ Absent a clear definition, we apply the broadest reasonable
interpretation. Here, ―variable,‖ as broadly claimed, includes something that
is not fixed.
The Examiner finds that in Morita the ―increase in resistance limits
the current (and in turn, the power) by an incremental and variable amount
depending upon the amount of current that was flowing initially and the
Appeal 2009-013997
Application 10/658,597

7
increase in resistance level‖ (Ans. 4). We find that the Examiner‘s
reasoning—that the current flowing during normal conductivity would
depend on the current flowing during superconductivity—is reasonable.
Furthermore, Morita discloses that current-limiting devices generate
electrical resistance when ―the current flowing to the superconductor
exceeds the critical current‖ (FF 1) (emphasis added). This means that the
current flowing through such devices for them to enter a normal conductive
state merely must exceed the critical current threshold, rather than being
fixed. As such, in Morita both the initial current and the limited-current that
follows are unfixed (i.e., variable). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner
that Morita teaches or suggests the claimed selectively regulating by a
variable amount.
Incremental flow change of current
Appellant contends that ―Morita‘s transition from superconductive
power flow to normal power flow is non-incremental; rather, it is sudden
and induces a significant change in resistance‖ (App. Br. 8) (emphasis
added). Appellant submits that ―Morita‘s current-limiting element ostensibly
has only two states of resistance‖ (App. Br. 8) where a sudden transition
from a superconducting state to a normal-conducting state ―results in a step-
like, non-incremental change in power flow‖ (App. Br. 9).
The Specification discloses coupling a phase angel regulator with a
superconducting line if ―finer incremental flow change is desired‖ (Spec. 7)
(emphasis added). However, this disclosure falls short of providing a clear
definition for the term ―incremental.‖ Absent a clear definition, we apply the
broadest reasonable interpretation. Since the Specification does not specify a
minimum number of steps needed for power flow change to be considered
Appeal 2009-013997
Application 10/658,597

8
―incremental,‖ we find that, as broadly claimed, ―incremental‖ includes a
power flow change of only a single step.
Morita teaches current-limiting devices in which heat causes transition
of the superconductor from a superconductive state to a normal conductive
state, creating current-limiting resistance (FF 1). This produces at least one
step of (i.e., incremental) flow change of current.
Normal operating conditions
Appellant contends that ―Morita‘s current-limiting element does not
play any role during normal operating conditions of the power transmission
system‖ because ―Morita discloses a current-limiting element that operates
only upon detection of a fault‖ (App. Br. 10) (emphases added).
Appellant identifies descriptions in the Specification of some
conditions in which the claimed invention can operate (Reply Br. 5 – 6).
However, these descriptions fall short of providing a clear definition of
―normal operating conditions.‖ As such, we apply the broadest reasonable
interpretation.
The Examiner finds that ―normal operating conditions‖ can mean
―whenever current is flowing through said superconductor‖ (Ans. 8). We
agree with Appellant (Reply Br. 5) that this claim construction is
unreasonably broad. However, we do not read ―normal operating conditions‖
so narrowly as to preclude any fault from being detected and managed.
Instead, we construe ―normal operating conditions‖ as meaning ―whenever
current is flowing through the transmission system at a rate that can be
managed such that damage to the transmission system is avoided.‖
Morita teaches applying an external magnetic field to raise the
current-limiting element to a critical temperature more rapidly, thus
Appeal 2009-013997
Application 10/658,597

9
avoiding local damage by local quenching (FF 2). Because local damage is
avoided, the current flowing through the system at the time of quenching is
current flowing at a rate that can be managed (through quenching) such that
damage to the transmission system is avoided.
Appellant contends that the quenching in Morita does not occur
during normal operating conditions because Morita teaches applying a
magnetic field after detecting abnormal current (App. Br. 11). However,
because such currents can be managed while avoiding damage to the
transmission system, we find that ―normal operating conditions‖ does not
preclude detecting abnormal current.
Sinha and Morita
Appellant contends that ―coupling a power flow controller to a second
power transmission line including a superconductor (such as Sinha‘s
superconducting transmission line) is counterintuitive since doing so could
decrease the level of power flow through the lower impedance second power
transmission line‖ (App. Br. 12). However, Morita‘s current-limiting device
includes a state in which the superconductor is in a superconductive state
(FF 1). Since the level of power flow would not decrease during this state,
we do not agree with Appellant that combining Sinha and Morita would
have been counterintuitive.
Furthermore, Appellant‘s arguments are not responsive to the
Examiner‘s articulated reasoning that ―[i]t would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add a reactor onto
the superconductor transmission line of Sinha‘s invention to regulate the
power flow through the line and also reacts [sic] quickly to short-circuit
accidents‖ (Ans. 4) (emphasis added). Morita teaches the use of current-
Appeal 2009-013997
Application 10/658,597

10
limiting devices for use ―[i]n the event of a short-circuit accident‖ (FF 1).
This shows that the Examiner‘s reasoning as to why the combination of
Morita and Sinha would have made obvious the claimed invention has a
rational underpinning.
Appellant disputes (Reply Br. 7) the Examiner‘s statement that
―Morita does teach his power flow controller being coupled to a
superconducting cable‖ (Ans. 9). However, even if Morita alone would not
have taught or suggested such coupling, the combination of Morita and
Sinha—which we agree with the Examiner would have been obvious—
would have taught or suggested such coupling.
For at least the reasons discussed above, we find no error in the
Examiner‘s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Morita and Sinha.
Claims 3 – 9 and 19 – 22
Appellant makes the same arguments with respect to claims 3 – 9 and
19 – 22, which depend from claim 1 (App. Br. 7 and 13). Accordingly, for
the reasons discussed above, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claims 3 – 9 and 19 – 22.
Claims 10, 11, and 13 – 15
Appellant‘s arguments for claim 10 (App. Br. 13 – 14) are similar to
those made for claim 1 (App. Br. 7 – 13). Accordingly, for the reasons
discussed above, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 10.
Appellant groups claims 10, 11, and 13 – 15 together (App. Br. 13 –
14). As such, we find that claim 10 is representative of, and find no error in
the Examiner‘s rejection of, claims 11 and 13 – 15.
Appeal 2009-013997
Application 10/658,597

11
Claim 23
Appellant‘s arguments for claim 23 (App. Br. 14 – 15) are similar to
those made for claim 1 (App. Br. 7 – 13), except that claim 23 does not
include the incremental flow change of current limitation. Accordingly, for
the reasons discussed above, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claim 23.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Examiner did not err in finding that Morita teaches or suggests
a power flow controller for selectively regulating a power transmission
system by a variable amount at least one of the magnitude and direction of
the power flowing through a power transmission line, as recited in claim 1.
2. The Examiner did not err in finding that Morita teaches or suggests
that the power flow controller is configured to provide incremental flow
change of current, as recited in claim 1.
3. The Examiner did not err in finding that Morita teaches or suggests
that the power flow controller selectively regulates power flow during
normal operating conditions of the power transmission system, as recited in
claim 1.
4. The Examiner did not err in finding that it would have been obvious
to an artisan of ordinary skill to combine the teachings and suggestions of
Sinha and Morita.
5. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3 – 11, 13 – 15, and
19 – 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2009-013997
Application 10/658,597

12
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner‘s decision rejecting claims 1, 3 – 11, 13 – 15,
and 19 – 23.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ke