John Eastman et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 22, 202013771789 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 13/771,789 02/20/2013 John Eastman FEC0160-04-US 5065 150796 7590 05/22/2020 FRANKLIN C/O Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 300 NORTH MERIDIAN STREET SUITE 2500 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204 EXAMINER THOMAS, LUCY M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2836 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/22/2020 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): inteas@faegredrinker.com mickie.potter@faegredrinker.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN EASTMAN and STEVEN CARL SHAVER Appeal 2019-001679 Application 13/771,789 Technology Center 2800 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–13. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Franklin Fueling Systems, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-001679 Application 13/771,789 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to methods of monitoring humidity within a circuit breaker. See, e.g., claims 1 and 4. The methods of claims 1 and 4 differ. The first method, for which claim 1 is illustrative, involves forecasting the need for maintenance on the circuit breaker system. Claim 1. The second method, for which claim 4 is illustrative, monitors the relative humidity of a fill gas. Claim 4. Turning first to the method of claim 1, we note the following disclosures to provide context for that method. Figure 1 depicts an exemplary circuit breaker system 100 that includes an enclosure 102 housing circuit breaker 110. Spec. ¶ 22; Fig. 1. The interior 120 of enclosure 102 may be filled with a gas that suppresses arc events, such as sulfur- hexafluoride (SF6). Spec. ¶ 24. Because moisture may degrade components of the circuit breaker, enclosure 102 includes drying members 122, such as desiccant bags, to remove moisture. Spec. ¶ 25. “Utilities periodically replace the desiccant bags in an attempt to prevent saturation of the desiccant bags.” Spec. ¶ 26. Appellant uses a sensor 152 to obtain relative humidity data and a monitoring system 150 to forecast a maintenance event, such as the need to replace desiccant bags 122. Claim 1; Fig. 1; Spec. ¶¶ 30– 33, 36. Forecasting may be accomplished by, for instance, using monitoring system 150 (Fig. 7), which may determine a slope of stored historical humidity values 194 to forecast when the humidity value will cross threshold line 182 (Fig. 8). Spec. ¶¶ 33, 36. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis on the limitation most at issue, is illustrative of the method: 1. A method of monitoring a circuit breaker having a first conductive element and a second conductive element moveable relative to the first conductive element, the first Appeal 2019-001679 Application 13/771,789 3 conductive element and the second conductive element cooperating to provide a closed state that permits an electrical current to flow between the first conductive element and the second conductive element and an open state wherein the first conductive element is spaced apart from the second conductive element, the first conductive element and the second conductive element being positioned in an interior of an enclosure including an arc quenching gas, the method comprising the steps of: positioning at least one fluid characteristic sensor in fluid communication with the interior of the enclosure; monitoring a relative humidity of the interior of the enclosure with the at least one fluid characteristic sensor; and forecasting a maintenance event of the circuit breaker based on the relative humidity. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added). The method of claim 4 is not directed to the forecasting of claim 1, but to a monitoring that takes place during the filling of the enclosure with the arc-quenching gas, e.g., sulfur-hexafluoride (SF6). The method of claim 4 is consistent with the method shown in Figure 9, which shows an example fill operation. Spec. ¶ 44. In that method, when the enclosure is filled with arc-quenching gas (SF6), monitoring system 150 monitors the relative humidity of the fill gas. Spec. ¶ 43. If the fill gas relative humidity is above a threshold level, monitoring system 150 ends the fill operation, but if the relative humidity remains below the threshold, filling continues. Spec. ¶ 45. Claim 4 is reproduced below, with the limitation most at issue highlighted: 4. A method of monitoring conditions within an interior of an enclosure of a circuit breaker, the enclosure including a first conductive element and a second conductive element moveable relative to the first conductive element, the method comprising the steps of: Appeal 2019-001679 Application 13/771,789 4 introducing a fluid containing an arc-quenching gas into the interior of the enclosure; monitoring relative humidity of the fluid within the interior of the enclosure; comparing the relative humidity of the fluid to a predetermined threshold value; and maintaining a flow of the fluid into the interior of the enclosure when the relative humidity of the fluid is less than the predetermined threshold value. Appeal Br. 19 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Ralston US 5,502,435 Mar. 26, 1996 Chetay US 7,184,895 B2 Feb. 27, 2007 Rhodes US 7,257,496 B2 Aug. 14, 2007 WIKA SF6 Gas Excellence, Analytics, Leak Location & Density, WIKA Instrument Corp. Aug., 2011 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections: Claims 1, 2, 4–6, and 9–13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rhodes in view of WIKA. Claim 3 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rhodes and WIKA further in view of Ralston. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rhodes and WIKA further in view of Chetay. Appeal 2019-001679 Application 13/771,789 5 OPINION The Rejection over Rhodes and WIKA Claim 1 To support an obviousness rejection, the Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). We agree with Appellant that the Examiner failed to show that the prior art teaches or suggests the forecasting step of claim 1. Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 2–3. Rhodes teaches a method of monitoring temperature and pressure and calculating the molar content of the SF6 gas within a tank containing electrical switching components. Rhodes col. 1, ll. 14–18, col. 2, ll. 12–27. Changes in the molar content indicate a leak. Rhodes col. 2, ll. 12–27. Rhodes forecasts the need for maintenance activities, presumably repairing the leaking tank, by tracking the change in molar content. Id. As acknowledged by the Examiner, Rhodes does not teach monitoring a relative humidity within the enclosure. Final Act. 4. The Examiner turns to WIKA to support the conclusion of obviousness, but WIKA does not suggest forecasting a maintenance event based on a reading of relative humidity. WIKA recognizes that moisture is a problem in switchgear. See WIKA p. 2 ¶ 2 (“Over time, switching operations in SF6 -insulated switchgear leads to an increasing amount of moisture as well as highly toxic and corrosive decomposition products in the tank, impeding the safe operation of switchgear.”). WIKA states that it sells “analytic equipment and accessories to accurately access the SF6 gas percentage as well as the Appeal 2019-001679 Application 13/771,789 6 moisture and other decomposition products present in SF6 tanks.” Id. But WIKA does not describe using that equipment to forecast a maintenance event based on relative humidity. Accessing moisture content is not the same as forecasting a maintenance event. The Examiner does not fill the gap with any supportive technical reasoning. According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to monitor humidity in Rhodes’s method as taught by WIKA “in order to accurately assess the [SF6] gas percentage as well as the moisture content to ensure safe operation of the circuit breaker by forecasting the maintenance events.” Final Act. 4–5 (emphasis added). But WIKA does not disclose forecasting and the Examiner does not provide a technical explanation why such forecasting based on relative humidity would have followed from the teachings of the prior art. The analysis supporting obviousness should be made explicit, KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007), and must rest on a factual basis with these facts being interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior art. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967); see also In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“hindsight” is inferred when the specific understanding or principal within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art leading to the modification of the prior art in order to arrive at appellant’s claimed invention has not been explained). We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and by extension the rejection of claims 2 and 3, which depend from claim 1. Appeal 2019-001679 Application 13/771,789 7 Claim 4 Claim 4 requires steps of “introducing a fluid containing an arc- quenching gas into the interior of the enclosure” and “maintaining a flow of the fluid into the interior of the enclosure when the relative humidity of the fluid is less than the predetermined threshold value.” The Examiner finds that Rhodes teaches introducing the necessary fluid via service port 12 and service valve 14 shown in Rhodes’s Figure 1. Final Act. 5. The Examiner further finds that Rhodes teaches maintaining a flow of the fluid through service valve 14 when “the relative fluid characteristic” (Rhodes’s molar ratio of SF6) is less than the predetermined threshold value, citing column 2, lines 12–15 of Rhodes. Final Act. 5–6. The Examiner relies on WIKA for a suggestion of monitoring relative humidity along with SF6 molar ratio in the method of Rhodes. Final Act. 6. Appellant has identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that Rhodes teaches maintaining flow based on a relative fluid characteristic. Appeal Br. 13–14. Column 2, lines 12–15 of Rhodes summarizes the use of SF6 pressure and temperature to calculate the number of moles present in the gas and its container. The information about the number of moles is used to monitor changes in molar content of the gas in the container. Rhodes col. 2, ll. 12–28. Rhodes is not concerned with monitoring any fluid characteristic during filling and, thus is not concerned with maintaining a flow of the fluid into the container based on any fluid characteristic. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 4 over Rhodes in view of WIKA. Nor do we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 5, 6, and 9– 13. Appeal 2019-001679 Application 13/771,789 8 The Rejections adding Ralston and Chetay The Examiner’s does not rely on either Ralston or Chetay in a way that cures the defects. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 3 over Rhodes, WIKA, and Ralston or the rejection of claims 7 and 8 over Rhodes, WIKA, and Chetay. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–13 is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4–6, 9– 13 103(a) Rhodes, WIKA 1, 2, 4–6, 9– 13 3 103(a) Rhodes, WIKA, Ralston 3 7, 8 103(a) Rhodes, WIKA, Chetay 7, 8 Overall Outcome 1–13 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation