Ex Parte Mousavi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 16, 2018

13195385 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 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.
13/195,385 08/01/2011 Mirrasoul Mousavi ABBI-00096 1832
129925 7590 01/18/2018
ABB Inc
EXAMINER
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
One Indiana Square
SAAVEDRA, EMILIO J
Suite 3500
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2023
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2127
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/18/2018 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):
taft-ip-docket @ taftlaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIRRASOUL MOUSAVI and LE TANG
Appeal 2017-007495
Application 13/195,385
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—28, which are the only claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as ABB Research Ltd. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-007495
Application 13/195,385
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is generally related to
electric power system fault interrupting devices, and more particularly to the
operation of reclosers or reclosing breakers. Spec. 1.2
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below (with the disputed
limitation emphasized)'.
1. A method for controlling a fault interrupting device, the
method comprising:
gathering data before opening the fault interrupting
device to interrupt a fault;
determining from the gathered data that the fault has
occurred;
opening the fault interrupting device to interrupt the
fault;
while the fault interrupting device remains open,
analyzing the gathered data to determine if the fault is a
permanent fault', and
determining, before reclosing the fault interrupting
device, that the fault interrupting device should be locked open
if the analysis of the gathered data determines that the fault is a
permanent fault.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 12, 16, 17, 19, 23, 24, and 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Opfer et al. (US
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Action mailed Feb. 24, 2016 (“Final
Act.”); Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed Oct. 20, 2016 (“App. Br.”) and Reply
Br. filed Apr. 13, 2017 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed Feb.
13, 2017 (“Ans.”); and the original Specification filed Aug. 1, 2011
(“Spec.”).
2
Appeal 2017-007495
Application 13/195,385
2008/024142 Al; published Jan. 31, 2008) (“Opfer”) and V.V. Terzija et
al., Novel numerical algorithm for overhead lines protection and adaptive
autoreclosure, Seventh International Conference on (IEE) Developments in
Power System Protection (Apr. 9-12, 2001) (“Terzija”).
Claims 7, 8, 10, 18, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Opfer, Terzija, and McElray, Sr. et al. (US
2002/0080540 Al; published June 27, 2002) (“McElray”).
Claims 11 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Opfer, Terzija, and Fickey (US 2007/0109701 Al;
published May 17, 2007).
Claims 2-4, 13—15, 20-22, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Opfer, Terzija, and Nemir et al. (US
6,262,871 Bl; issued July 17, 2001) (“Nemir”).
ANALYSIS
The dispositive issue raised by Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs is
whether Terzija teaches or suggests “while the fault interrupting device
remains open, analyzing the gathered data to determine if the fault is a
permanent fault,” as recited in claim 1, and as similarly recited in
independent claims 12 and 19.3
The pertinent portion of Terzija relied on by the Examiner states the
following:
After a short convergence period, approximately equal to the data
window size, the unknown arc voltages are estimated. By this,
3 Although Appellants make other arguments in the Briefs, we do not
address them because we find this argument is dispositive of the appeal.
3
Appeal 2017-007495
Application 13/195,385
the decision which type of fault (transient - with arc, or
permanent -without arc) occurred is obtainable before the line
is tripped. Using this important information, the autoreclosure
should be blocked during permanent faults, and the network
elements could be by this protected from the potential damage.
Terzija 389 (emphasis added).
Citing this portion of Terzija, Appellants argue “[i]t is clear from this
that Terzija discloses the data is analyzed before the line is tripped to
determine if the fault is permanent” and, therefore, Terzija does not remedy
the deficiencies of Opfer to teach the disputed limitation. App. Br. 7.
The Examiner finds “Terzija does not state that the analysis has to be
done before tripping a line.” Ans. 2. The Examiner also finds the sentence
stating “the decision which type of fault. . . occurred is obtainable before the
line is tripped” actually means “a determination of the type of fault can be
determined (i.e., ‘obtainable’) from using information before the line is
tripped (i.e., from pre-fault and fault data gathered before opening the
autorecloser).” Id. at 2—3 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner further finds
“considering the word ‘obtainable’ in Terzija under Appellants’] scenario
would still mean that Terzija would be suggesting that a person of ordinary
skill has the flexibility of deciding the type of fault at any time prior to
closing, including while open.” Id. at 4.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred.
In particular, we agree with Appellants’ argument that Terzija suggests the
opposite of analyzing the data while the fault interrupting device remains
open because “Terzija states that the decision the fault is permanent is
obtainable before the line is tripped and is ‘important information’ that is
4
Appeal 2017-007495
Application 13/195,385
. . . used to block autorecloser into permanent faults.” Reply Br. 2—3 (citing
Terzija 389, col. 1,11). Appellants also argue, and we agree, the
Examiner’s finding that the analysis performed in Terzija is “necessarily
performed after the autocloser is opened,” because 20 ms is needed to obtain
fault data and at least 20ms more is needed to decide on the type of fault
before tripping, is incorrect. Reply Br. 3. In that regard, we agree with
Appellants’ argument that, “[a]s indicated by the Examiner, Terzija
contemplates that at least 40 ms is required to determine if the fault is
permanent, and since Terzija does disclose the decision is obtainable before
the line is tripped, Terzija contemplates more than 40 ms can be used before
the line is tripped to decide if the fault is permanent.” Id. Thus, we agree
with Appellants’ arguments that Terzija does not teach the disputed
limitation of claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as
well as dependent claims 2—11, for obviousness under § 103(a) based on the
combination of Opfer and Terzija. For the same reasons, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 12 and 19, as well as claims
13—18 and 20—28, which depend from claims 12 and 19, respectively, under
§ 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1—28 under
35U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
5