2021001220 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2021)

Trench Limited - Trench Group Canada

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 16, 2021

2021001220 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 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. 15/494,890 04/24/2017 Kamran Kahn 2016P08142US01 2391 28524 7590 02/16/2021 SIEMENS CORPORATION IP Dept - Mail Code INT-244 3850 Quadrangle Blvd Orlando, FL 32817 EXAMINER BAISA, JOSELITO SASIS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2837 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/16/2021 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): ipdadmin.us@siemens.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte KAMRAN KAHN ________________ Appeal 2021-001220 Application 15/494,890 Technology Center 2800 ________________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, 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 1–3, 6, 7, 11, 19, and 20. Claims 4, 5, 8–10, and 12–18 are canceled. Amend. 2 (Aug. 19, 2019). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Trench Limited. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-001220 Application 15/494,890 2 SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to an “air core reactor for use in an electric power transmission and distribution system or in an electric power system of an electrical plant.” Abstract. The air core reactor includes a “projectile resistant cylinder . . . configured as an integrated barrier to provide a first measure of survivability to the air core reactor such that the integrated barrier enables a continued operation of equipment after a threat has been eliminated.” Id. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM (disputed limitations emphasized and bracketing added) 1. An air core reactor for use in an electric power transmission and distribution system or in an electric power system of an electrical plant, the air core reactor comprising: an electrically insulated support structure; an outer surface of a coil of windings configured to operate at a potential and isolated to ground or other potentials by the electrically insulated support structure; and a projectile resistant cylinder that attaches directly to the outer surface of the coil of windings, the projectile resistant cylinder is configured as an integrated barrier to provide a first measure of survivability to the air core reactor such that the integrated barrier enables a continued operation of equipment after a threat has been eliminated, wherein the integrated barrier includes: an outer binding layer, [1] a middle fragmentation layer next to the outer binding layer, [2] wherein the middle fragmentation layer is configured to disperse energy of a projectile via fragmenting the projectile, and wherein the middle fragmentation layer comprises a plurality of hardened tiles arranged side-by-side in a two- Appeal 2021-001220 Application 15/494,890 3 dimensional array such that the plurality of hardened tiles are ceramic tiles encapsulated in a resin layer, and an inner absorption layer to sandwich the middle fragmentation layer between the outer binding layer and the inner absorption layer, wherein the inner absorption layer is configured to decelerate fragments of the projectile and absorb any remaining energy. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Name Reference Date Percival et al. (“Percival”) US 2010/0330341 A1 Dec. 30, 2010 Best et al. (“Best”) US 2016/0104568 A1 Apr. 14, 2016 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 6, 7, 11, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Best and Percival. Non-Final Act. 3–6. ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Best’s sound absorbing layer 42—with flexible members 48 affixed to the radially inner surface of the panels of sound absorbing layer 42—teaches a middle layer configured to absorb external energy (sound). Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Best ¶¶ 16–18, Figs. 1A–B, 2A–B). Thus, the Examiner relies on Best to teach most of the limitations of recitations [1] and [2], except that Best absorbs sound rather than dispersing energy of a projectile via fragmenting the projectile. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to substitute Percival’s projectile-resistant barrier for Best’s sound absorbing layer “to provide the core reactor with a strong armor barrier encapsulated Appeal 2021-001220 Application 15/494,890 4 with resin that is lighter in weight, has reduced thickness and has low cost in manufacturing.” Id. at 5 (citing Percival ¶¶ 17, 24–28, Figs. 3–5). Appellant contends the Examiner erred because neither sound absorbing layer 42 nor flexible members 48 of Best relate to decelerating fragments of a hostile projectile because they are designed to absorb acoustic energy, not ballistic energy. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant’s characterization of these structures accords with Best’s teaching that the panels of sound absorbing layer 42 comprise sound absorbing material such as “a dense mineral wool in the form of a resilient panel” (Best ¶ 20) and that flexible members 48 are stick-like, comprise a series of slots, and are spaced apart (id. ¶¶ 21, 25, 27, Figs. 1B, 2B). The Examiner acknowledges that the respective forms of energy being shielded in Best and Percival (i.e., acoustic and ballistic respectively) “are of different level and intensity.” Ans. 7. The Examiner finds, however, that the principals of operation are the same in Best and Percival, although the “level of shielding must be proportionally designed for the expected intensity of the disruptive and intrusive form of energy.” Id. Even if the sound-absorbing and projectile deflecting features of Best and Percival are similar to the extent that they both involve absorbing energy and providing a shield (id. at 6), we agree with Appellant that “the Examiner has not identified a sufficient reason for modifying Best with the teachings of Percival” (Appeal Br. 7). The Examiner has not shown, for example, that Percival’s projectile-resistant barrier also provides the sound absorbing capabilities found in Best, or that it would have otherwise been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to trade sound absorbing capabilities for projectile-resistance. The Examiner does not even show that an artisan of Appeal 2021-001220 Application 15/494,890 5 ordinary skill would have been concerned with projectile-resistance.2 Moreover, one of the key benefits of Percival’s projectile-resistant barrier is that it limits the damage due to a projectile hitting the barrier so that, overall, the barrier remains transparent. See Percival ¶¶ 6, 9. This benefit would have limited value if used as an encapsulated middle layer, which further makes it unclear why an artisan of ordinary skill would look to Percival’s teachings to modify the teachings of Best in the manner of claim 1. For these reasons, the Examiner’s findings do not show that recitations [1] and [2] would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill given the teachings and suggestions of Best and Percival. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 19, and 20, which have similar recitations. CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 6, 7, 11, 19, 20 103 Best, Percival 1–3, 6, 7, 11, 19, 20 REVERSED 2 Issues with protecting electric power grid infrastructure from physical attack have been known since at least the 2013 rifle attack on transformers in Metcalf, California. See, e.g., Physical Security of the U.S. Power Grid: High-Voltage Transformer Substations, Congressional Research Service, at 2, available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43604/6 (July 2, 2015). The Examiner does not, however, cite to any sources raising such issues. Nor does the Examiner show that an artisan would have considered such issues applicable with respect to the air core reactor of Best.