Ex Parte Rotzoll et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 24, 201812121616 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/121,616 05/15/2008 Robert R. Rotzoll 54698 7590 05/29/2018 MOSER TABOADA 1030 BROAD STREET SUITE 203 SHREWSBURY, NJ 07702 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. EE035 7193 EXAMINER PILLAY, DEVINA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1726 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/29/2018 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): docketing@mtiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT R. ROTZOLL, RAJAN N. KAPUR, and SUHAS S. PATIL 1 Appeal2017-007586 Application 12/121,616 Technology Center 1700 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner's rejections of claims 44--47 and 52-55 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Toshiaki (JP 2000-166097A; June 16, 2000; as translated) 2 and of claims 48-50 and 56-58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Toshiaki in view of Hill (US 6,362,540 Bl; Mar. 26, 2002). 1 Enphase Energy, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest (App. Br. 4). 2 The Examiner and Appellants refer to this reference as "Toshiakai" (see, e.g., Final Action 2, App. Br. 9). Appeal2017-007586 Application 12/ 121,616 We AFFIRM. Appellants claim an apparatus and system for converting energy ( e.g., for converting DC power from photovoltaic modules into AC power) comprising a gateway 406 remotely located from an inverter 404 and having a first terminal, "wherein the gateway obtains data pertaining to operation of the inverter via the first terminal using power line communications" (independent claim 44, Fig. 4; see also remaining independent claim 52). A copy of representative claim 44, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below. 44. Apparatus for use in an energy conversion system, comprising: a gateway remotely located from an inverter and having (i) a first terminal for coupling to AC wiring upon which the inverter couples AC power, wherein the AC power is generated by the inverter from DC power, and wherein the gateway obtains data pertaining to operation of the inverter via the first terminal using power line communications, and (ii) a second terminal for coupling information related to the data to a communications network, wherein the gateway communicates control signals to the inverter for operably controlling the inverter. Appellants do not present separate arguments specifically directed to dependent claims 45-50 and 53-58 (App. Br. 9-12). Therefore, these dependent claims will stand or fall with their parent independent claims, of which claim 44 is representative. We sustain the Examiner's rejections for the reasons given in the Final Office Action, the Answer, and below. 2 Appeal2017-007586 Application 12/ 121,616 In rejecting the independent claims as anticipated by Toshiaki, the Examiner finds that Toshiaki's gateway 7 obtains data pertaining to operation of inverter 4 "using power line communication (AC wiring [29] contains devices which output signals, therefore perform[ing] powerline communication)" (Final Action 2-3). Appellants state that "transmission line [29 of Toshiaki] does not simultaneously carry both data and AC electric power transmission" and argue that, as such, Toshiaki "fails to teach or suggest a gateway obtaining data pertaining to operation of the inverter via the first terminal using power line communications as recited in claim 44" (App. Br. 10-11). In response, the Examiner states that "Appellant[ s] ha[ ve] not claimed ... using a communication protocol that uses the electrical wiring to simultaneously carry both AC power and data" and that "Appellant[s'] [S]pecification recites powerline communication in the following manner[:] 'Communications may occur via powerline, wired and/or wireless channels.' see para. [0036]" (Ans. 6). 3 For these reasons, the Examiner determines that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim phrase "using power line communications" (claim 44) encompasses Toshiaki's use of devices or sensors for communicating inverter data to gateway 7 (see, e.g., Toshiaki 3 See also Spec. ,r 48 ( cited by Appellants at App. Br. 6) which discloses that "[t]he communication between the gateway 406 and the microinverters 404, 414 may be performed over the AC wiring 405, wirelessly, or by other suitable means such as independent wiring." 3 Appeal2017-007586 Application 12/ 121,616 Fig. 2 showing devices/sensors PT, CT, DC-CT, DC-ZCT interconnecting power supply line 29 and gateway 7 via independent wiring) (Ans. 6). Appellants reply by contending that "using sensors connected to a power line to measure various parameters associated with the power line ... is not the same as communicating over a powerline" (Reply Br. 3). The deficiency of Appellants' unembellished contention is that it does not address, and therefore does not show error in, the Examiner's above discussed interpretation of claim 44. On the other hand, the record before us supports a broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim consistent with the Specification as including Toshiaki's communication system comprising sensors interconnecting power line 29 and gateway 7. In summary, Appellants fail to provide this record with convincing support for their position that claim 44 distinguishes from Toshiaki because "transmission line [29 of Toshiaki] does not simultaneously carry both data and AC electric power transmission" (App. Br. 10). The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation