Ex Parte Popescu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

11978740 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
111978,740
13077 7590
Sutherland GE
Suite 2300
999 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
10/30/2007 Bogdan Cristian Popescu
09/28/2016
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.
19441-1030 6934
EXAMINER
LOPEZ ALVAREZ, OLVIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2121
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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):
patent. docket@sutherland.com
pair_sutherland@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BOGDAN CRISTIAN POPESCU
Appeal2014-007059
Application 11/978,740
Technology Center 2100
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the Examiner's
Non-Final rejections of claims 1-13, 15, 17-20, 28-30, and 32. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-007059
Application 11/978,740
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The invention is directed to a system and method for controlling a
multi-feed power distribution network. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A system for controlling a multi-feed power distribution
network, the network including a first network sector that
includes a first plurality of devices distributed along a first feeder
connected to a first power source and a second network sector
that includes a second plurality of devices distributed along a
second feeder connected to a second power source, the system
compnsmg:
a first substation controller and a second substation
controller, wherein the first substation controller is configured to
control operation of each of the first plurality of devices in the
first network sector and exchange data with the second substation
controller, and the second substation controller is configured to
control operation of each of the second plurality of devices in the
second network sector;
a control application accessible by each substation
controller and configured to store a variable size data array of
topology data representing each of the first substation controller,
the second substation controller, the first plurality of devices and
the second plurality of devices, the control application being
executed by either the first substation controller or the second
substation controller to isolate a fault by controlling topology of
the network based on the topology data and to restore power
dynamically based on requesting and receiving power
availability information.
2
Appeal2014-007059
Application 11/978,740
Mitsuo
Williams
Nelson ("Nelson II")
Bowles
Stoup is
Nelson ("Nelson I")
REFERENCES
JP 05-219664
us 5,973,899
US 6,347,027 Bl
US 6,535,797 Bl
US 7,751,166 B2
US 2005/0251296 Al
REJECTIONS 1
Aug. 27, 1993
Oct. 26, 1999
Feb. 12,2002
Mar. 18,2003
July 6, 2010
Nov. 10, 2005
Claims 1--4, 6, 7, 13, 15, 17-20, 28-30, and 32 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Stoupis, Nelson I, Mitsuo, and
Nelson II. Non-Final Act. 7-8.
Claims 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Stoupis, Nelson I, Mitsuo, Nelson II, and Bowles. Non-Final Act. 46.
Claims 8-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Stoupis, Nelson I, Williams, Mitsuo, and Nelson II. Non-Final Act. 35.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's
contentions, and adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief.
We highlight the following for emphasis.
1 The Examiner's rejection of claims 3 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, i-f 1 for
failure to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn.
Ans. 2.
3
Appeal2014-007059
Application 11/978,740
Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15, 17-20, 28-30, and 32
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims
1, 13, 20, and 28 because none of the references the Examiner cited to reject
these claims teaches or suggests "restor[ing] power dynamically based on
requesting and receiving power availability information," as recited in claim
1, and as similarly recited in claims 13, 20, and 28. App. Br. 6-8. We are
not persuaded by Appellant's arguments.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Stoupis teaches that each
master IED 5 (i.e., first or second substation controller) can execute a control
application to isolate a fault in the network and dynamically restore power
based on received network topology and power availability information.
Non-Final Act. 10-12. For example, Stoupis teaches each master IED 5
receives local network topology and power availability information (current
load and capacity) from its slaves, and receives remote network topology
and power availability information from its peers. See Stoupis 7:20-8:67.
Moreover, each master IED 5, upon detecting a local network default,
executes a control application to select a precomputed power restoration
plan based on the location of the default and the received network topology
and power availability information. Id. at 9:57-11 :25.
The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that Stoupis teaches or
suggests network power can be dynamically restored based on requested
network topology and power availability information, e.g., because Stoupis
teaches peered master IED's 5 can poll one another for that information.
Ans. 44 (citing Stoupis, Fig. 4A). Figure 4A of Stoupis is provided below.
4
Appeal2014-007059
Application 11/978,740
MASTER IED
5
-CONSTANT POLUNG
MASTER !ED
-
5
FIG.4A
Figure 4A is a schematic illustration of a power grid in which two master
IED's 5, each of which receives local network topology and power
availability information from slave devices (e.g., S2 and S3), poll one
another to receive overall network topology and power availability
information. Moreover, the Examiner finds, and we agree that Nelson II
teaches that network controllers can "communicat[ e] between them and
establish the capability of each of the controllers to restore power from one
to another based on their capabilities." Ans. 46. We also note that Nelson II
teaches that receiving network topology and power availability information
from remote network controllers by polling (i.e., requesting) or spontaneous
transmission (i.e., broadcast) are interchangeable methods of receiving the
information to a person of ordinary skill in the art,. See Nelson II 28:48---60.
Appellant further argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 13,
20, and 28 because (1) Mitsuo's controller 5000 requests power rather than
power information from controller 6000, (2) Nelson II's sideline team nodes
5
Appeal2014-007059
Application 11/978,740
are not substation controllers because they do not control power flow in the
network, and (3) Stoupis cannot be combined with either Mitsuo or
Nelson II because the combination would change Stoupis' principle of
operation, which requires receiving network topology and power availability
information from remote network controllers via broadcast. App. Br. 10-13.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments.
Regarding Appellant's first argument, the Examiner finds the
combination of Stoupis and Mitsuo teaches a first network controller
dynamically restoring power by sending a request to a second network
controller. See Ans. 44--45; Non-Final Act. 13-14. The Examiner further
finds the combination of Stoupis, Mitsuo, and Nelson II teaches the request
from the first network controller to the second network controller includes a
request for power availability information. See Ans. 48; Non-Final Act. 15.
Regarding Appellant's second argument, Nelson II is directed toward
a power distribution system in which "devices within the system recognize
the existence of cooperating devices outside of the team's domain of direct
control." Nelson II, Abstract (emphasis added). Thus, Nelson II's sideline
nodes do not control power flow within the distribution network because
they are not part of the distribution network, not because they are not
substation controllers. Indeed, Nelson II specifically teaches that substation
controllers in one power distribution network (i.e., team) "may be
configured to supply information over communication channels ... as
sideline team members of other teams." Nelson II 5:52-55; Fig. 1 (emphasis
added). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's finding that:
the terms or adjectives "[s]ubstation", node, primary, secondary,
sideline, first, computer, processor, module, device, apparatus,
6
Appeal2014-007059
Application 11/978,740
and so on are irrelevant as .... [a ]ny of these terms added to the
term "controller" are representative of a device or computer
capable of performing the steps or method limitations as stated
in the claim.
Ans. 46.
Regarding Appellant's third argument, we disagree with Appellant's
contention that the combination of Stoupis, Mitsuo, and Nelson II would
change the principle of Stoupis' operation. As noted supra, Stoupis teaches
each master IED 5 executes a control application to select a power
restoration plan in response to detecting a local network default. Stoupis
5:55-7:19; 9:57-11:25. The restoration plan is based on local and remote
network topology and power availability information. Id. The local network
information is obtained by polling the slave devices controlled by each
master IED 5, and the remote network information is received from
broadcasts of remote master IED controllers. Id. at 5:28--45; 7:20-8:67.
Thus, although modifying Stoupis to receive the remote network topology
and power availability information by polling the remote master IED
controllers would change an operational aspect of Stoupis, it would not
change the principle of operation of Stoupis, which is to reroute network
power in the event of a network default based on received network topology
and power availability information.
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 1, 13, 20, and 28. Appellant does not separately argue for the
patentability of claims 2--4, 6, 7, 15, 17-19, 29, 30 and 32. App. Br. 12.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims for the
same reasons as claims 1, 13, 20, and 28.
7
Appeal2014-007059
Application 11/978,740
Appellant argues claim 8 is patentable for essentially the same reasons
as claims 1, 13, 20, and 28, and argues claims 9--12 are patentable for the
same reasons as claim 8. See App. Br. 12-13. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 8-12 for the same reasons as claims 1, 13,
20, and 28.
Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 1, and requires the first and second
substation controllers to be SCADA (supervisory control and data
acquisition) controllers. App. Br. 17.
The Examiner finds Bowles teaches an electrical power distribution
system that uses SCADA controllers to monitor and control other devices,
and concludes that Stoupis' IED's 5 are SCADA controllers because they
also monitor, supervise, and control other devices in an electrical power
distribution system. Ans. 50; see also Non-Final Act. 46-47.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 because:
Bowles states that "[i]ntelligent electronic devices (IED) ...
transmit a signal .... to the single control unit of the SCAD A
system." That is, Bowles indicates that an intelligent electronic
device (such as master IED 5 of Stoupis) is not a SCADA
controller but, instead, communicates with a SCAD A controller.
App. Br. 14.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument.
What a reference teaches to one of ordinary skill in the art is not an
ipsissimis verbis test. See, e.g., In re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 317 (CCPA
1978). The distinction Bowles draws between a SCADA controller and an
IED is a semantic rather than a substantive distinction. Bowles' electrical
power distribution system includes a number of substations 16, each of
8
Appeal2014-007059
Application 11/978,740
which includes a communications device 20 configured to receive data from
and control a plurality of IEDs. Bowles 3:31--4:4, 5:25-55. We agree with
the Examiner that Bowles' substation devices 20 are SCADA controllers
because they perform supervisory control and data acquisition functions.
See Ans. 50. Similarly, Stoupis' master IEDs 5 are SCADA controllers
because they perform the same supervisory control and data acquisition
functions. Id. Indeed, Stoupis explicitly teaches that the system application
queue that is stored in the memory of each master IED 5 can be accessed via
a SCADA/HMI interface. See Stoupis 9:2-5; Fig. 4C.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 5.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 7, 13, 15, 17-20, 28-30, and 32 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Stoupis, Nelson I, Mitsuo, and
Nelson II is sustained.
The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Stoupis, Nelson I, Mitsuo, Nelson II, and Bowles is sustained.
The rejection of claims 8-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Stoupis, Nelson I, Williams, Mitsuo, and Nelson II is sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9