Ex Parte Navarro et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 29, 201612779522 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121779,522 05/13/2010 101681 7590 06/29/2016 MYERS BIGEL & SIBLEY, P, A, P.O. BOX 37428 RALEIGH, NC 27627 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR George Arthur Navarro 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. 9060-284 8698 EXAMINER CA V ALLARI, DANIEL J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2836 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 06/29/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GEORGE ARTHUR NAVARRO, ROBERT WILLIAM JOHNSON, JR., and JASON SCOTT ANDERSON Appeal2015-000779 Application 12/779,522 Technology Center 2800 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. PERCURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants2 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 7, 9--13, 15-17, and 20-23. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a). 1 Our decision refers to the Specification filed May 13, 2010 (Spec.), Final Office Action mailed June 25, 2013 (Final Act.), Appellants' Appeal Brief filed Nov. 20, 2013 (Br.), and the Examiner's Answer mailed Aug 8, 2014 (Ans.). 2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Eaton Corporation. Br. 1. 3 Claims 1---6, 18, and 19 were canceled via an amendment filed Sept. 20, 2013. An Advisory Action mailed Sept. 26, 2013 stated the amendment was entered, leaving claims 7, 9--13, 15-17, and 20-23 on appeal. Appeal2015-000779 Application 12/779,522 We AFFIRM. The claims on appeal are directed to uninterruptible power supply (UPS) systems and methods (see, e.g., claims 7 and 13). UPS systems may be used to provide backup power when a primary power supply fails. Spec. i-f 1. Appellants disclose embodiments of UPS systems and methods in which variably available power sources, such as solar, wind, tidal and similar renewable energy sources, are interfaced with UPSs. Spec. i-f 18. Appellants disclose that the failure of variably available power sources can impact the output of a UPS and/or reduce system robustness and reliability. Spec. i-f 19. To address this issue, Appellants disclose UPS systems and methods in which both an AC power source and a variably available power source are coupled to UPS modules. Spec. i-f 19. An annotated copy of Figure 4 showing an embodiment of a modular UPS system is reproduced below. 2 Appeal2015-000779 Application 12/779,522 , .......................... ... ' ' i .• ;(~ ~·){~::.:':{{-:~· i ------------·------------- ' 10 401 ~ \ t Module ~.,, .. , .. , .... , ........................... ~------------. + /30 V8r~ab!y /<.vailabl:e Power Soun~e 400-/ Coo~~ni ~-1--...... ~440 ,., 404·~} Cof1.\if'rt~r \lnveder) \,_420 20~\ ~ L402 40G--\ ................. Sys!em + Cootmt Circui! FIG. 4 Figure 4 is a schematic diagram of a modular UPS system. Appellants' Figure 4 depicts a modular UPS system 400 that includes a first power conversion module 403, a second power conversion module 3 Appeal2015-000779 Application 12/779,522 404, and a bypass circuit 405. Spec. il 24. Each of the first power conversion module 403 and the second power conversion module 404 include a first converter unit (rectifier) 410, a second converter unit (inverter) 420, a DC bus interface unit 430, and a module control circuit 440. Spec. i-f 24. The first power conversion module 403 is configured to provide power to a load 20 coupled to an AC output 402 of the system 400 via power supplied by an AC power source 10 coupled to an AC input 401 of the system 400. Spec. i-f 25. The DC bus interface unit 430 of the first power conversion module 403 is coupled to one or more batteries as an auxiliary power source 40 in the event the AC power source 10 fails. Spec. i-f 25. The second power conversion module 404 is configured to interface with a variably available power source 30 (e.g., wind, solar, tidal, etc.), such as via the DC bus interface unit 430, as depicted in Figure 4. Spec. i-f 26. Independent claim 7 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. Claim 7 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief with limitations at issue in the appeal italicized: 7. An uninterruptible power supply (UPS) system, compnsmg: an AC input; an AC output; and a plurality of power conversion modules, each comprising a first converter unit, a second converter unit and a DC bus coupling the first converter unit to the second converter unit, wherein outputs of the second converter units of the power conversion modules are coupled in common to the AC output, wherein a first converter unit of a first one of the power conversion modules has an input coupled to the AC input and wherein the DC bus of a second one of the power conversion modules is coupled to a variably available power source having an availability that fluctuates with at least one environmental condition. 4 Appeal2015-000779 Application 12/779,522 Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis added). The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows: 4 (1) Claims 7, 9--11, 13, 15, 17, and 20-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Tracy '899 5 in view of Suzuki· 6 ' (2) claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Tracy '899 in view of Suzuki and further in view of Tracy '312; 7 and (3) claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Tracy '899 in view of Suzuki and further in view of Heber. 8 OPINION Rejection of Claims 7, 9--11, 13, 15, 17, and 20-23 Claims 7, 9--11, 13, 15, 17, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Tracy '899 and Suzuki. Appellants argue claims 7, 9, 10, and 15 separately. Br. 7. We individually address the separate arguments below. 4 Claims 1---6, 18, and 19 were canceled via an amendment filed Sept. 20, 2013. An Advisory Action mailed Sept. 26, 2013 stated the amendment was entered, leaving claims 7, 9--13, 15, 17, and 20-23 on appeal and rendering moot the rejections the Examiner had applied under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112 and 103. Ans. 2. 5 Tracy et al., US 7,638,899 B2, issued Dec. 29, 2009 ("Tracy '899"). 6 Suzuki et al., US 2009/0085404 Al, published Apr. 2, 2009 ("Suzuki"). 7 Tracy et al., US 7,050,312 B2, issued May 23, 2006 ("Tracy '312"). 8 Heber et al., US 7 ,566,988 B2, issued July 28, 2009 ("Heber"). 5 Appeal2015-000779 Application 12/779,522 Claims 7, 11, 13, 17, and 20-23 We select claim 7 as representative of the issues on appeal for claims 7, 11, 13, 17, and 20-23. The dispositive issue on appeal is whether Appellants have shown reversible error in the Examiner's reason to combine Tracy '899 and Suzuki. Compare Br. 5-7 with Final Act. 9 and Ans. 2-5. The Examiner finds Tracy '899 discloses a UPS system including an AC input, an AC output, and a plurality of power conversion modules that each have a first converter unit, a second converter unit, and a DC bus. Final Act. 8-9. An annotated copy of Figure 3 of Tracy '899 is reproduced below. 6 Appeal2015-000779 Application 12/779,522 340 To Othe,r CA.N Stldge Control / 330 / UPS --.z;; 324 Control Cir<:uit Assemblies ! ! ! i AC. ! ! Input ~- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Bypass Switch UO and Bypass Module ,....,_.~~---- \~---- \ 3.20 FIG. 3 AC Output 310 AC i Output i ·~~~~~,...,.,.,.,,.~·_J l l I ,_.___; Figure 3 illustrates a modular UPS assembly. Figure 3 of Tracy '899 depicts a UPS assembly 300 of UPS modules 310. Tracy '899 col. 5, 11. 44--49. Each module 310 includes a rectifier 312 7 Appeal2015-000779 Application 12/779,522 configured to receive AC input, an inverter 313 that may be connected to a load, a DC-DC converter 314 configured to be connected to a battery, and a DC bus 315 coupled to the rectifier 312, inverter 313, and the DC-DC converter 314. Tracy '899 col. 5, 11. 47-53. However, the Examiner finds Tracy '899 does not disclose a variable power source having an availability that fluctuates with at least one environmental condition. Final Act. 9. The Examiner finds Suzuki discloses a UPS system comprising a variable power source having an availability that fluctuates with at least one environmental condition. Final Act. 9. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to incorporate the variable power source of Suzuki in place of, and/or in addition to, the battery disclosed by Tracy '899 in order "to use environmentally friendly and popular Green energy." Final Act. 9. Appellants contend the Examiner's reason to combine Tracy '899 and Suzuki is inadequate because Suzuki does not relate to UPSs, modular UPSs, or interfacing variably available power sources with a modular UPS, such as the modular UPS disclosed by Tracy '899, or any other UPS system. Br. 5- 7. In view of this, Appellants argue the Examiner's proposed combination of Tracy '899 and Suzuki appears to be based upon inappropriate hindsight. Br. 7. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive that the Examiner reversibly erred. The Examiner stated a motivation to modify Tracy '899 in view of Suzuki, namely "to use environmentally friendly and popular Green energy." Final Act. 9. Moreover, in response to Appellants' arguments that the Examiner's reason to combine was inadequate and apparently based on inappropriate hindsight, the Examiner notes that a reason to combine may come from multiple sources, including knowledge common in the art. Ans. 8 Appeal2015-000779 Application 12/779,522 3. Indeed, a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the relevant prior art teachings does not have to be found explicitly in the prior art, as the teaching, suggestion, or motivation may be implicit from the prior art as a whole. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006) cited with approval in KSR Int'!. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). "A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." 550 U.S. 398, 421. Here, the Examiner finds Suzuki demonstrates the use of natural power resources in power distribution systems as known in the art, including the combination of different types of power sources, such as solar and wind power sources with "stable electrical power." Ans. 3--4. The Examiner further finds Suzuki refers to natural energy resources as "clean energy" and references the issue of "global warming," which support the Examiner's reason to combine Tracy '899 and Suzuki to enjoy the benefits of "Green energy." Ans. 4 and Final Act. 9. Moreover, the Examiner determines Appellants' statement that Suzuki is unrelated to a UPS is incorrect. Ans. 3. The Examiner finds: Suzuki does in fact teach a form of UPS system. Figure 1 of Suzuki shows multiple power supply sources ("midnight electric power", Fuel Cell, Solar Cell, Storage Battery, Wind Turbine, etc.) commonly supplied to a DC bus. If and when one of said DC sources is not available, power will be uninterruptedly supplied by another of said DC sources onto the DC bus thereby providing an uninterruptable power supply system. Ans. 3. Appellants have not responded to the Examiner's finding. For these reasons, Appellants have not shown reversible error in the Examiner's reason to combine Tracy '899 and Suzuki. 9 Appeal2015-000779 Application 12/779,522 Appellants do not argue independent claims 11, 13, 17, and 20-23 separately from claim 7. Br. 7. As a result, for the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner's Answer, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 7, 11, 13, 17, and 20-23 over the combination of Tracy '899 and Suzuki. Claims 9 and 15 For the arguments relating to claims 9 and 15, we select claim 9 as representative of the issues on appeal. Appellants assert the Examiner appears to rely on Figure 3 of Tracy '899 to provide the recitations of claim 9, with Figure 3 being inadequate to disclose a DC bus interface unit coupling a DC bus to a variably available power source, as recited in claim 9. Br. 7. "[T]he test for combining references is not what the individual references themselves suggest but rather what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art." In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). As stated by the Examiner, Appellants' argument addresses only the disclosure of Tracy '899 and not the combination of the disclosures of Tracy '899 and Suzuki as a whole. Ans. 5. The Examiner states the battery of Tracy '899 is replaced and/or supplemented by the environmental power source of Suzuki in the combination of Tracy '899 and Suzuki. Ans. 5. Appellants have not responded to the Examiner's determination. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive. Claim 10 Appellants contend the Examiner relied on Figure 3 of Tracy '899, which does not disclose the recitations of claim 10. Br. 7-8. In particular, 10 Appeal2015-000779 Application 12/779,522 the battery in Figure 3 is not the "variably available power source" recited in claim 10. Br. 7-8. Similar to the arguments for claims 9 and 15, this argument does not consider what the combination of references taken as a whole would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Examiner finds the "variably available power source" of claim 10 is disclosed by Suzuki, with Tracy Figure 3 demonstrating the location where the environmental power source of Suzuki would be located. Ans. 5---6. Appellants have not responded to the Examiner's determination. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive. Rejection of Claim 12 Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Tracy '899 in view of Suzuki and further in view of Tracy '312. Appellants rely upon the arguments we have already addressed above in reviewing the rejection of claim 7. Br. 8. Therefore, the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 12 over the combination of Tracy '899, Suzuki, and Tracy '312 is sustained for the same reasons. Rejection of Claim 16 Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Tracy '899 in view of Suzuki and further in view of Heber. Appellants rely upon the arguments we have already addressed above in reviewing the rejection of claim 7. Br. 8. Therefore, the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 12 over the combination of Tracy '899, Suzuki, and Heber is sustained for the same reasons. 11 Appeal2015-000779 Application 12/779,522 DECISION The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). AFFIRMED 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation