Norbert PLÖTT

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 16, 2021

2020001708 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2021)

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.
14/411,221 12/24/2014 Norbert PLÖTT 2012P07172 2097
27350 7590 06/16/2021
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
Box SA
P.O. BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
EXAMINER
RASHID, WISSAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2195
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/16/2021 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):
docket@patentusa.com
office@patentusa.com
vrahimis@patentusa.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte NORBERT PLÖTT
____________________

Appeal 2020-001708
Application 14/411,221
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JASON J. CHUNG, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 15 through 23 and 26 through 37. Claims 1 through 14,
24 and 25 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, Siemens Aktiengesellschaft
are the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-001708
Application 14/411,221

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims relate generally to a control system for a power supply that
has a plurality of power generating devices. Abstract. The power generating
devices have a control device which, in an event of a change of a network
frequency of the power transmission network, vary a power output of the
power generating device by a value which is proportional to the temporal
change of the network frequency of the power transmission network. Id.
Claim 15 is reproduced below.
15. A power supply system, comprising:
a plurality of power generating devices;
a plurality of power consuming devices;
a power transmission network interconnecting said
power generating devices with said power consuming
devices; and
at least one of said power generating devices
having a control device being suitable, in an event of a
change in a network frequency of said power
transmission network, to vary a power output of said at
least one power generating device by a power variation
value being proportional to a rate of change of the
network frequency of said power transmission network.
EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2
The Examiner rejects claims 15, 16, 19, 21 through 23, 26, 27, 29, 31,
and 33 through 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Geinzer
(US 2011/0221276) and Garcia (US 2011/0153099). Final Act. 2–5.

2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed September
26, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief filed January 2, 2020 (“Reply
Br.”); the Final Office Action mailed May 2, 2019 (“Final Act.”) and the
Examiner’s Answer mailed November 1, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2020-001708
Application 14/411,221

3
The Examiner rejects claims 17, 18, 20, 28, 30, 32, and 37 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Geinzer, Garcia and Liu (US
2010/0057267). Final Act. 5–8.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 23 and 29 through 36 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). However, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection claims 26 through 28 and 37 36 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a).

Rejection Based upon Geinzer and Garcia.
Appellant argues that each of independent claims 15, 22, 26, 29, 34,
and 36 recite a limitation directed to varying a power output of at least one
power generating device by a power variation value being proportional to a
rate of change of the network frequency of the power transmission network,
which is not taught by the combination of Geinzer and Garcia. Appeal Br.
13–25. Specifically, Appellant argues that Garcia, the reference the
Examiner relies upon to teach this limitation, teaches that the power output
from the power generation device, is controlled based upon two variables,
“the inertia of the power plant and the calculated frequency
variation rate.” Id. at 19 (citing Garcia ¶¶ 15, 16, 19, 20). As the power is
controlled based upon more than one variable, Appellant asserts that Garcia
does not teach the power output is varied proportional to only the frequency
variation rate. Id. 19–20.
Appeal 2020-001708
Application 14/411,221

4
The Examiner finds that Garcia teaches detecting the frequency of the
power network and calculates the variation in the frequency rate. Answer 4
(citing Garcia ¶¶ 13, 14). Further, the Examiner finds that Garcia:
calculates a required variation of delivered power based on a
value of the inertia of the wind power plant and the calculated
frequency variation rate and calculates a requested variation of
delivered power for each wind turbine generator of the wind
power plant based on the calculated requested variation of
delivered power and a current power level of each wind turbine
generator (¶ [0015]-[0016]).

Answer 4 (citing Garcia ¶¶ 15, 16). Additionally the Examiner states that
Garcia in paragraph 53:
states that “…according to the invention, the wind power plant
is controlled to change its real power output proportional to the
variation rate of the frequency of the power network.” It is
almost verbatim to the claim language. Appellant argues that
…., the examiner could not find in the claim language that the
power delivered is only proportional to a rate of change of the
network frequency.
Answer 5. (emphasis omitted).
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 15, 22, 29, 34, and 36 (all of which are
system claims) but have not persuaded of error in the rejection of method
claim 26. Each of these independent claims recites a system and includes a
limitation directed to in the event of a change in a network frequency,
controlling the power output (or consumed) by a power generating (or
consuming) device dependent upon the condition, varying the power output
proportionally to the rate of change of the network frequency. We concur
with the Examiner’s finding that Garcia “calculates a required variation of
delivered power based on a value of the inertia of the wind power plant and
Appeal 2020-001708
Application 14/411,221

5
the calculated frequency variation rate and calculates a requested variation”
Answer 4. However, we disagree with the Examiner’s interpretation of the
claim being that power need not be varied only proportionally to the rate of
change of the network frequency that. We concur with Appellant,
“proportionality in mathematics means that two varying quantities are said
to be in a relation of proportionality, if they are multiplicatively connected to
a constant.” Reply Br. 7. This definition of proportionality is commensurate
with the use the term in Appellant’s Specification. See Spec. 10 ll. 18–24.
As such, from the cited portions of Garcia relied upon by the Examiner, we
do not find that Garcia’s teaching that output power is varied is based upon
the rate of change of frequency (a variable) and the inertia (a calculated
variable), teaches the claimed power variation proportional to the rate of
change of network frequency. See Garcia ¶ 75, 82–87, 93. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 15, 22, 29, 34,
and 36, and the claims which depend thereupon.
We reach a different conclusion with respect to independent claim 26.
Method claim 26 recites a condition precedent, which is a change in network
frequency, to perform the step of varying the power output proportional to
the rate of change of network frequency. As such, in considering the
broadest reasonable interpretation of method claim 26, the step dependent
upon the condition, varying the power output proportionally to the rate of
change of the network frequency, would not be invoked necessarily and as
such it is not incumbent upon the Examiner to show that the art performs
those steps. See Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL
6277792, at *3–4 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential) (holding that in a
method claim, a step reciting a condition precedent does not need to be
Appeal 2020-001708
Application 14/411,221

6
performed if the condition precedent is not met). See also MANUAL OF
PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (MPEP) § 2111.04(II) (9th ed. Rev.
08.2017, Jan. 2018) (citing Schulhauser) and In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381,
1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006). (“[O]ptional elements do not narrow the claim
because they can always be omitted.”). Gary M. Katz, Appeal No. 2010-
006083, 2011 WL 1211248, at *2 (BPAI Mar. 25, 2011) (citing In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments directed to claim 26 are not
commensurate with the broadest reasonable interpretation of independent
claim 26 and have not persuaded us of error in claim 26 or dependent claims
27, and 28.

Rejection Based upon Geinzer, Garcia and Liu
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 37 is in error
for two reasons: a) that the capacitor in Liu “cannot be used for variably
injecting energy in the power grid as defined in the respective claims”; and
b) the combination of Geinzer, Garcia and Liu do not teach varying the
power output of a generating device in proportion to a rate of change of a
network frequency as claimed. Appeal Br. 27, Reply Br. 8–11.
These arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 37 as neither argument is commensurate with the scope of
claim 37. Claim 37 recites “effecting a change in the power output or the
power consumption through buffering of energy in an intermediate circuit
energy store of an inverter of the power generating device or the power
consuming device” but does not recite “injecting energy in the power grid as
a function of the rate of change of the network frequency” as argued by
Appeal 2020-001708
Application 14/411,221

7
Appellant. Appeal Br. 26. Lui states the DC capacitor is to implement an
intermediate energy storage for the inverter which is used to provide power
to the grid. Lui ¶ 30. Thus, Lui teaches the capacitor stores energy and is
part of an intermediate circuit of the inverter. Further, similar to our analysis
of claim 26 above, claim 37 is a method claim which recites a condition
precedent (in and event of a change in network frequency) to the step of
varying the power output in proportion to the rate of change of the network
frequency. Thus, as with claim 26, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
method claim 37, the step dependent upon the condition, varying the power
output proportionally to the rate of change of the network frequency, would
not necessarily be invoked and as such it is not incumbent upon the
Examiner to show that the art performs those steps. As such, the two points
raised in Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of
claim 37 and we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 37. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 37.

Appeal 2020-001708
Application 14/411,221

8
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
15, 16, 19,
21–23, 26,
27, 29, 31,
33–36
103 Geinzer,
Garcia
26, 27 15, 16, 19,
21–23, 29,
31, 33–36
17, 18, 20,
28, 30, 32,
37
103 Geinzer,
Garcia, Liu
28, 37 17, 18, 20,
28, 30, 32
Overall
Outcome
26–28, 37 15–23, 29–
36
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART