Ex Parte Rocha Alves et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 1, 2018

12992565 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 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.
12/992,565 03/04/2011 Jose Eduardo da Rocha Alves JR. 10-1244-WO-US 8263
20306 7590 02/01/2018
MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
300 S. WACKER DRIVE
3 2ND FLOOR
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
SCHECHTER, ANDREW M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2857
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2018 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 JOSE EDUARDO DA ROCHA ALVES JR.,
LUIZ CARLOS GRILLO DE BRITO, CESAR JORGE BANDIM,
FABIO CAVALIERE DE SOUZA, and
JULIO CESAR REIS DOS SANTOS
Appeal 2017-006777
Application 12/992,565
Technology Center 2800
Before GEORGE C. BEST, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision to finally reject claims 53, 81, 92, and 104.2 We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Centro De Pesquisas De Energia Electrica as the real
party in interest. Appeal Brief filed September 6, 2016 (“App. Br.”), 1.
2 The Examiner objects to claims 55, 72—80, 82—91, 93—103, and 105—115 as
depending from a rejected base claim, but deems these claims to be
allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all the limitations of
Appeal 2017-006777
Application 12/992,565
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants claim an individualized self-monitoring system for
transformers in an electric power measurement installation. App. Br. 1—3.
Independent claims 53 and 81 illustrate the subject matter on appeal and are
reproduced below:
53. An individualized self-monitoring system for
transformers in an electric power measurement installation, the
system comprising:
at least one self-monitoring current transformation unit
which comprises: a current transformer in the electric power
measurement installation, a time-integrated current meter in a
series connection with a secondary winding of the current
transformer, and a remote communication module connected to
an output of the time-integrated current meter;
a consumption unit or substation which receives electric
current from the primary winding of the current transformer;
an external measurement unit for measuring an electrical
quantity received therein, wherein the external measurement
unit is in a serial connection with a secondary circuit of the self-
monitoring current transformation unit, and wherein the
external measurement unit is configured for connection to the
electrical power measurement installation; and
a record and communication unit which receives and
stores electrical quantity measured data sent by at least one of
the remote communication module and the external
measurement unit;
wherein the consumption unit or substation is in a series
connection with a primary circuit of the self-monitoring current
transformation unit.
the base claim and any intervening claims. Final Office Action entered
August 19, 2015 (“Final Act.”), 19—20. Although the Examiner also
indicates that these claims should be “rewritten to overcome the rejection(s)
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action,”
we find no such rejection in the Final Office Action, and therefore interpret
inclusion of this statement in the Final Action as an inadvertent error. Id.
2
Appeal 2017-006777
Application 12/992,565
81. An individualized self-monitoring system for
transformers in an electric power measurement installation, the
system comprising:
at least one self-monitoring current transformation unit
which comprises: a current transformer in the electric power
measurement installation, a time-integrated current meter in a
series connection with a primary winding of the current
transformer, a time-integrated current meter in a series
connection with a secondary winding of the current
transformer, and a remote communication module connected to
an output of the time-integrated current meter;
a consumption unit or substation which receives electric
current from the primary winding of the current transformer;
an external measurement unit for measuring an electrical
quantity received therein, wherein the external measurement
unit is in a serial connection with a secondary circuit of the self-
monitoring current transformation unit, and wherein the
external measurement unit is configured for connection to the
electrical power measurement installation; and
a record and communication unit which receives and
stores electrical quantity measured data sent by at least one of
the remote communication module and the external
measurement unit;
wherein the consumption unit or substation is in a series
connection with a primary circuit of the self-monitoring current
transformation unit.
App. Br. 30, 33 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
The Examiner rejects claims 53, 81, 92, and 104 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Deaver (US 2008/0109387 Al, published May 8,
2008) in view of Alvarenga (US 5,737,730, issued April 7, 1998) and
REF542plus Manual Part 3: Installation and Commissioning, ABB Power
Distribution 1—80 (October 4, 2001) in the Final Office Action, and
maintains this rejection in the Examiner’s Answer entered January 26, 2017
(“Ans.”).
3
Appeal 2017-006777
Application 12/992,565
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellants’ contentions, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 53, 81, 92, and 104 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 53 and 92
Independent claims 53 and 92 each require the claimed individualized
self-monitoring system for transformers in an electric power measurement
installation to comprise inter alia (1) at least one self-monitoring current
transformation unit comprising inter alia a current transformer and a time-
integrated current meter in a series connection with a secondary winding of
the current transformer, and (2) an external measurement unit for measuring
an electrical quantity received therein.
Appellants’ Specification explains that electrical consumption units or
substations include current transformers that provide a current signal to an
external electric power meter, which indirectly measures the amount of
electricity consumed for billing purposes. Spec. 3,11. 16—26. Appellants’
Specification further explains that “[f]rom the secondary windings of the
current transformers to the inside of electric power meters, various
irregularities by way of frauds may occur, such that the electric power values
recorded by these meters are lower than those genuinely consumed by a
consumption unit.” Spec. 3,11. 27—30. Appellants’ Specification indicates
that a means does not currently exist for monitoring the transformers
internally so as to allow effective and on-going verification of whether the
current signal fed to an external electric power meter accurately represents
the electricity consumed. Spec. 3,11. 21—26.
4
Appeal 2017-006777
Application 12/992,565
According to Appellants’ Specification, the claimed individualized
self-monitoring system for transformers utilizes a time-integrated electrical
quantity meter directly coupled to a secondary winding of the transformer to
measure and record the electrical quantity of the winding, and compares this
reading with a reading obtained from an external measurement unit that
measures an electrical power quantity delivered at the power input of the
power receiving point. Spec. 9,11. 13—15, 23—24; 12,11. 5—30. Accordingly,
under a broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellants’
Specification, the time-integrated current meter and external measurement
unit recited in claims 53 and 92 are separate units having distinct purposes.
In re Morris, 111 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (explaining that a
broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification corresponds
with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification).
The Examiner finds that Deaver discloses an individualized self-
monitoring system for transformers, but does not disclose that the system
comprises at least one self-monitoring current transformation unit
comprising a current transformer, and a time-integrated current meter in a
series connection with a secondary winding of the current transformer. Final
Act. 2—3, 10 (citing Deaver Abstract). The Examiner finds that Alvarenga
discloses a current transformer and a circuit connected to the secondary of
the transformer that integrates the value of the current with time (a time-
integrated current meter). Final Act. 3,10 (citing Alvarenga Abstract,
Figure 5).
The Examiner finds that Deaver discloses an external measurement
unit for measuring an electrical quantity received, but does not disclose that
the external measurement unit is in a serial connection with a secondary
5
Appeal 2017-006777
Application 12/992,565
circuit of a self-monitoring current transformation unit. Final Act. 4, 13
(citing Deaver Figs. 12, 13, 21; 1145). The Examiner relies on Alvarenga’s
disclosure of an integrated circuit that measures consumption (external
measurement unit) in serial connection with a secondary circuit of a current
transformer. Final Act. 4—5, 13 (citing Alvarenga Fig. 5, col. 11,11. 19-32).
The Examiner concludes that at the time of Appellants’ invention, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to use the teaching of
Alvarenga in the invention of Deaver for the purpose of proposing a solution
that meets the requirements of reduced cost and scope relating to the aspects
of quality.” Final Act. 5, 13 (citing Alvarenga col. 3,11. 20—22).
As Appellants point out, however, the Examiner relies on Alvarenga’s
integrated circuit as corresponding to both the time-integrated electrical
quantity meter and the external measurement unit recited in claims 53 and
92, and the Examiner proposes to incorporate this single integrated circuit
into Deaver’s system to meet both claim elements. App. Br. 8—9, 13—14. To
this end, the Examiner asserts that claim 53 (and claim 92) do not explain
“why the [at] ‘least one self-monitoring current transformation unit’ and the
‘external measurement unit’ are separate devices, the ‘external measurement
unit’ is ‘external’ to what.” Ans. 2—A.
Claims 53 and 92, however, must be interpreted in light of the
description provided in Appellants’ Specification, as it would be interpreted
by one of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603
F.3d 1255, 1259-60 (Fed. Cir. 2010). As discussed above, Appellants’
Specification makes clear that the time-integrated electrical quantity meter
and external measurement unit recited in claims 53 and 92 are separate units
having distinct purposes. By failing to consider this disclosure in
6
Appeal 2017-006777
Application 12/992,565
Appellants’ Specification, the Examiner applies an unduly broad
interpretation of claims 53 and 92 in which the time-integrated electrical
quantity meter and external measurement unit can be a single unit. In re
Baker Hughes, Inc., 215 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the PTO cannot
adopt a construction that is “beyond that which was reasonable in light of the
totality of the written description” in the Specification).
Because we determine that claims 53 and 92 require a separate time-
integrated electrical quantity meter and external measurement unit, the
Examiner does not establish that the combined disclosures of the applied
prior art would have suggested an individualized self-monitoring system for
transformers in an electric power measurement installation that includes both
a time-integrated current meter in a series connection with a secondary
winding of a current transformer, and an external measurement unit for
measuring an electrical quantity received therein, as required by claims 53
and 92. Accordingly, the Examiner’s evidence and explanation are
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the subject
matter recited in claims 53 and 92 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he examiner bears
the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of
presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.”)
We therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 53 and
92 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 81 and 104
Claims 81 and 104 both require the claimed individualized self­
monitoring system for transformers in an electric power measurement
installation to comprise inter alia at least one self-monitoring current
7
Appeal 2017-006777
Application 12/992,565
transformation unit comprising inter alia a current transformer, a time-
integrated current meter in a series connection with a primary winding of the
current transformer, and a time-integrated current meter in a series
connection with a secondary winding of the current transformer.
The Examiner finds that Deaver discloses an individualized self-
monitoring system for transformers in an electric power measurement
installation, but does not disclose that the system comprises at least one self­
monitoring current transformation unit comprising a current transformer, a
time-integrated current meter in a series connection with a primary winding
of the current transformer, and a time-integrated current meter in a series
connection with a secondary winding of the current transformer. Final Act.
6, 14—15 (citing Deaver Abstract). The Examiner relies on REF542/?/z/.s to
remedy these deficiencies of Deaver, and finds that REF542/?/z/.s discloses an
example connection diagram for a transformer differential protection with
transformers, which the Examiner finds corresponds to a self-monitoring
current transformation unit. Final Act. 6, 15 (citing REF542/?/z/.s Fig. 10).
The Examiner finds that REF542/?/z/.s discloses that the transformer
differential protection with transformers comprises a ring core current
transformer TI/0 (current transformer) and three current transformers
TI1/L1, TI1/L2, TI1/L3 having respective analog inputs All, AI2, and AI3,
which the Examiner finds corresponds to a current meter in series
connection with a primary winding of the ring core current transformer TI/0.
Final Act. 7, 15; Ans. 6 (citing REF542plus Fig. 10, Table 10). The
Examiner finds that REF542/?/z/.s discloses that the transformer differential
protection with transformers also comprises analog input AI7, which the
Examiner finds corresponds to a current meter in series connection with a
8
Appeal 2017-006777
Application 12/992,565
secondary winding of the ring core current transformer TI/0. Final Act. 7,
15; Ans. 6 (citing REF542plus Fig. 10).
The Examiner concludes that at the time of Appellants’ invention, it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to use the
teaching of REF542/?/m^ in the invention of Deaver for purpose of protection
and control.” Final Act. 7, 15—16.
As Appellants correctly argue, however, the Examiner does not
identify any disclosure in REF542/?/z/.v, or provide any other objective
evidence to establish, that the combination of current transformers Til/LI,
TI1/L2, TI1/L3 and respective analog inputs All, AI2, and AI3 illustrated in
Figure 10 of REF542/z/zz^ is a current meter. Reply Br. 4—5. Nor does the
Examiner identify any disclosure in REF542/?/z/.v, or provide any other
objective evidence to establish, that analog input AI7 illustrated in Figure 10
ofREF542/?/Hs is also a current meter. The Examiner does not articulate
reasoning having rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the
art would have understood the combination of current transformers Til/LI,
TI1/L2, TI1/L3 and respective analog inputs All—AI3 to be a current meter,
and would have understood analog input AI7 to be a current meter. KSR
Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[R]ejections on
obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”)
Therefore, the Examiner fails to provide a reasoned explanation
supported by objective evidence sufficient to establish that REV 5 Alp Ins
discloses or would have suggested a time-integrated current meter in a series
connection with a primary winding of the current transformer, and a time-
9
Appeal 2017-006777
Application 12/992,565
integrated current meter in a series connection with a secondary winding of
the current transformer, as required by claims 81 and 104. Accordingly, the
Examiner’s evidence and explanation are insufficient to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness of the subject matter recited in claims 81 and 104
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445.
We therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 81 and
104 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 53, 81, 92, and 104
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
10