Ex Parte Papallo et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 14, 2011

10662971 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 14, 2011)

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.
10/662,971 09/15/2003 Thomas F. Papallo 138562 1096
7590 02/14/2011
Paul D. Greeley, Esq.
Ohlandt, Greeley, Ruggiero & Perle, L.L.P.
10th Floor
One Landmark Square
Stamford, CT 06901-2682
EXAMINER
WILLOUGHBY, TERRENCE RONIQUE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2836
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/14/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte THOMAS F. PAPALLO, GREGORY P. LAVOIE,
and JOHN S. VANDEVANTER
_____________

Appeal 2009-008089
Application 10/662,971
Technology Center 2800
______________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and ROBERT
E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-008089
Application 10/662,971
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4 through 16, 18 through 21, 32 through 38, 40 through 44,
46 through 53, 55 through 57, and 59.
We reverse.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method to protect a circuit having power
switching devices. See pages 2 through 3 of Appellants’ Specification.
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A method of protecting a circuit having power switching devices, the
method comprising:
defining characteristics of a zone of protection of the circuit;
defining a protection matrix based at least in part upon said
characteristics;
performing a zone protective function on said zone of protection using
said protection matrix, wherein said protection matrix comprises a matrix of
protection coefficients used by said zone protective function, wherein the
step of performing said zone protective function is based at least in part upon
electrical parameters of said zone of protection, said electrical parameters
being communicated over a data network to a microprocessor, said
microprocessor performing said zone protective function; and
controlling said microprocessor to perform instantaneous overcurrent
protection of the switching devices based at least in part on said electrical
parameters.

REFERENCES
Matsko US 5,875,088 Feb. 23, 1999
Engel US 6,167,329 Dec. 26, 2000
Qin US 6,411,865 B1 Jun. 25, 2002

2

Appeal 2009-008089
Application 10/662,971

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 4 through 11, 32 through 38,
and 40 through 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Qin
in view of Engel.2 The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 3 through 8 of the
Answer.3
The Examiner has rejected claims 12 through 16, 18 through 21, 44,
46 through 53, 55 through 57, and 59 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Qin in view of and Matsko and Engel. The Examiner’s
rejection is on pages 8 through 16 of the Answer.

ISSUE
Claims 1, 2, 4 through 11, 32 through 38, and 40 through 43
Appellants argue on pages 6 through 8 of the Brief, and 4 through 5 of
the Reply Brief4, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 11, 32
through 38, and 40 through 43 is in error. Appellants’ arguments present us
with the issue whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Qin
and Engel teaches a microprocessor to perform zone protection and
instantaneous overcurrent protection of the devices.

2 We note the statement of the rejection on page 3 of the Answer does not
identify claims 33, 34, and 37 as included in the rejection. However, on
pages 5 and 6 of the Answer these claims are identified as included in the
rejection.
3 Throughout this decision we refer to the Examiner’s Answer dated
September 15, 2008.
4 Throughout this decision we refer to the Brief dated August 7, 2008, Reply
Brief November 14, 2008.
3

Appeal 2009-008089
Application 10/662,971
Claims 12 through 16, 18 through 21, 44, 46 through 53, 55 through
57, and 59
Appellants’ arguments present us with same issue as discussed above.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4 through 11, 32 through 38, and 40 through 43
Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection. On pages 16 and 17 of the Answer, the Examiner responds to the
Appellants’ arguments by finding Qin teaches a circuit which controls
switching devices and zone protection while Engel teaches a microprocessor
which provides instantaneous overcurrent protection. Based upon these
findings, the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to have a
microprocessor perform both overcurrent and zone protection for plural
switching devices. Answer 18. We disagree with the Examiner’s
conclusion.
Independent claim 1 recites a microprocessor to perform a zone
protection function and instantaneous overcurrent protection for the
switching devices. Independent claim 32 recites a processing unit
performing all primary power distribution functions and performing the zone
protection functions.
We concur with the Examiner’s finding that Qin teaches one device
controlling multiple circuit breakers in a centralized manner, however, Qin
makes no mention of instantaneous overcurrent. We also find Engel teaches
two microprocessors are used to control a circuit breaker. The first
processor performs instantaneous overcurrent protection; the other processor
performs voltage protection, and functions associated with monitoring such
as communication with a central control. Col. 4, ll. 19-22, 49-54, and 65-67.
4

Appeal 2009-008089
Application 10/662,971
Thus, while Engel teaches that a microprocessor performs the instantaneous
overcurrent protection, it does not suggest the same microprocessor
performs functions associated with other forms of protection or controls
other circuit breakers. As such, we do not find the Examiner has presented
sufficient evidence to show the combination of the references teaches a
microprocessor to perform zone protection and instantaneous overcurrent
protection (or all primary power distribution functions for more than one
device). Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1, 2, 4 through 11, 32 through 38, and 40 through 43.
.
Claims 12 through 16, 18 through 21, 44, 46 through 53, 55 through
57, and 59
Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection. On pages 18 and 19 of the Answer, the Examiner responds to the
Appellants’ arguments in the same manner discussed above. We disagree
with the Examiners rationale.
Independent claims 12 and 14 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to claim 1. Independent 46 recites limitations similar
to those discussed above with respect to claim 32. Thus, we will not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of 12 through 16, 18 through 21, 44, 46 through 53,
55 through 57, and 59 for the reasons discussed above with respect to claims
1 and 32.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 1, 2, 4 through 16, 18 through 21, 32 through 38, 40 through
44, 46 through 53, 55 through 57, and 59.
5

Appeal 2009-008089
Application 10/662,971
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4 through 16, 18
through 21, 32 through 38, 40 through 44, 46 through 53, 55 through 57, and
59 is reversed.

REVERSED

ELD
PAUL D. GREELEY, ESQ.
OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, L.L.P.
10TH FLOOR
ONE LANDMARK SQUARE
STAMFORD, CT 06901-2682
6