Ex Parte Panosyan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2017

14085392 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 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.
14/085,392 11/20/2013 Ara Panosyan 268236-1 9115
6147 7590 04/27/2017
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GLOBAL RESEARCH
ONE RESEARCH CIRCLE
BLDG. K1-3A59
NISKAYUNA, NY 12309
EXAMINER
QUIGLEY, THOMAS K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2831
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2017 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):
haeckl@ge.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
Lori.e.rooney @ ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARA PANOSYAN, SAID FAROUK SAID EL-BARB ARI
and STEFAN SCHROEDER
Appeal 2016-005851
Application 14/085,392
Technology Center 2800
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JRAdministrative Patent Judges.
CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-005851
Application 14/085,392
Appellants’ invention is best illustrated by independent claim 1,
reproduced below:
1. A power generation system comprising:
a generator mechanically coupled to an engine to
generate electrical power;
a fault ride through system connected between the
generator and a power grid, the fault ride through system
comprising:
a mechanical switch electrically connected in parallel
with a solid state switch; and
a controller for controlling the mechanical switch, the
solid state switch and ignition of the engine in coordination.
Appellants appeal the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pendray (US 2012/0175876 Al,
published July 12, 2012). Final Act. 2; App. Br. 3.
Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 12 together and rely on
these arguments to address the rejection of dependent claims 2—11, 13—20.
See generally Appeal Brief. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as
representative of the subject matter before us on appeal. Claims 2—20 stand
or fall with claim 1.
2
Appeal 2016-005851
Application 14/085,392
OPINION
We have reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for patentability
and agree with the Examiner that the subject matter of representative claim 1
is unpatentable. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s prior art rejection.
Our reasons follow.
Independent claim 1 is directed to a power generation system
comprising a fault ride through system connected between a generator and a
power grid, wherein the fault ride through system has a mechanical switch
electrically connected in parallel with a solid state switch.
The Examiner found Pendray discloses a power generation system
having a fault ride through system comprising a bypass breaker electrically
connected in parallel with a solid state switch. Final Act. 2; Pendray Figure
3,18, 28, 45 49. The Examiner found Pendray does not explicitly
disclose that the bypass breaker is a mechanical switch. Final Act. 2. The
Examiner determined it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to
modify Pendray by utilizing a mechanical switch for the bypass breaker to
minimize system costs. Final Act. 2—3.
Appellants argue Pendray does not disclose electrically connecting a
mechanical switch and a solid state switch in parallel because a parallel
connection would require the two terminals of Pendray’s bypass breaker to
be connected to the solid state switch. App. Br. 4. According to Appellants,
one terminal of Pendray’s bypass breaker is connected to the parallel line
having a plurality of resistors connected in series instead of the switch. Id.
Thus, Appellants argue, in Electrical engineering, no one would say that the
bypass breaker and the switch are electrically connected in parallel. Id.
3
Appeal 2016-005851
Application 14/085,392
We are unpersuaded by these arguments and agree with the
Examiner’s determination of obviousness. Ans. 2—3. Figure 3 of Pendray
shows a pathway comprising a bypass breaker and a pathway comprising a
plurality of switches with both pathways connected to two sets of electrically
common points, one point associated with the generator/consumer load and
another point leading to the grid load. Therefore, the pathways comprising
the respective bypass breaker and switches are electrically connected in
parallel and, as a result, the voltage across the respective element (bypass
breaker) and combined elements (switches) in each pathway would be the
same.
While Appellants assert the arrangement of Pendray’s pathways is not
considered to be a parallel arrangement in electrical engineering (App. Br.
4), Appellants have neither directed us to any evidence nor provided an
adequate explanation in support of this assertion. Appellants, at most, have
provided mere attorney arguments and such arguments of counsel cannot
take the place of evidence. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed.
Cir. 1984); In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 315 (CCPA 1979). Thus, Appellants
have not adequately explained why the two above noted pathways of
Pendray are not electrically connected in parallel.
We have also considered the arguments in the Reply Brief filed May
17, 2016 in our deliberation to the extent that they are consistent with the
Appeal Brief. We note, however, Appellants argue for the first time that
Pendray advises against mechanical switches due to their low speed. Reply
Br. 2; Pendray 145. Any argument not presented in the Appeal Brief will
not be considered when filed in a Reply Brief, absent a showing of good
cause explaining why the argument could not have been presented in the
4
Appeal 2016-005851
Application 14/085,392
Appeal Brief. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). See also, Ex parte Borden, 93
USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“the reply brief [is not] an
opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal
brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but were not.”); compare
also Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (argument raised for the first time in the Reply Brief is
considered waived). Appellants have not shown good cause why the new
arguments should now be considered.
Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1—20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons given above.
ORDER
The Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
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).
AFFIRMED
5