Control No. 95/000,633
`
`Attorney Docket No. 1299600.00197USl
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Inventors:
`
`Sidney A. Barker et al.
`
`Confirmation No.:
`
`2639
`
`Control No.:
`
`95/000,633
`
`Art Unit:
`
`3992
`
`Filed:
`
`May 24, 2011
`
`Examiner:
`
`R. L. Nasser
`
`Patent No.:
`
`7,629,705
`
`Issued:
`
`December 8, 2009
`
`Title:
`
`METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR OPERATING ELECTRICAL
`
`MACHINES
`
`Mail Stop Inter Partes Reexam
`Attn: Central Reexamination Unit
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REBUTTAL BRIEF UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`
`41.71
`
`Dear Commissioner:
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.71, the Patent Owner submits this Rebuttal Brief in the above-
`
`captioned inter partes reexamination proceedings for US. Patent No. 7,629,705 (“the ’705
`
`patent”).
`
`ActiyeUS 147251552V.8
`
`

`

`Control No. 95/000,633
`
`Attorney Docket No. l299600.00197USl
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
`
`STATUS OF CLAIMS ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................ l
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Claim 1 was confirmed by a final decision in a civil action .................................... l
`
`Claim 7 is not anticipated by Wall because Wall does not disclose ZVRT ............2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments regarding “ZVRT” and “approximately zero
`volts” are germane to prosecution ................................................................2
`
`Wall disconnects when the grid voltage decreases to “approximately zero”
`volts, and therefore does not disclose ZVRT ............................................... 4
`
`Consistent with the specification, Wall discloses two types of protection
`mechanisms, neither of which teach ZVRT ................................................. 5
`
`Wall’s electrical machine does not have the structure required by claim 7.8
`
`Wall does not describe nor enable ZVRT and thus cannot serve as the
`
`basis of a 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection ........................................................ 9
`
`Claim 8 is not rendered obvious by the cited references ......................................... 9
`
`Pate, Kaura, and Erdman do not render claims 9, 13-14, and 20-21 obvious
`
`because they do not disclose a PLL regulator that facilitates ride through of grid
`voltage transients ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 12
`
`ActiveUS 14725 1552v.8
`
`_ ii _
`
`

`

`Control No. 95/000,633
`
`Attorney Docket No. 1299600.00197USl
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In response to the Examiner’s Answer dated 7/13/15 (“Answer”), General Electric
`
`Company (“Patent Owner”) files this Rebuttal Brief.
`
`II.
`
`STATUS OF CLAIMS
`
`As discussed in Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief, claims 1-6 have been confirmed by the
`
`Office of Patent Legal Administration’s decision on September 19, 2014, which found that the
`
`estoppel provisions of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 317(b) applied to these claims. Claims 7-9, 13, 14, and
`
`18-21 are subject to reexamination and have been rejected. Patent Owner appeals the rejections
`
`of claims 7-9, 13, 14, 20, and 21. Patent Owner requests that claims 18 and 19 be cancelled and
`
`is not appealing rejections of these claims.
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Claim 1 was confirmed by a final decision in a civil action
`
`Contrary to Examiner’s note stating that no claims have been indicated to be patentable,
`
`claim 1 was confirmed by a jury verdict and a final decision of a US. District Court.
`
`Furthermore, claim 1 was not confirmed “on the basis of an agreement between the parties” as
`
`stated by the Examiner. Answer at 9. As Patent Owner explained in its Appeal Brief, the ’705
`
`patent was the subject of litigation in General Electric Company v. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries,
`
`Ltd, No. 3:10-cv-00276-F (N.D. Tex) (the “Dallas Litigation”). In the Dallas Litigation, Patent
`
`Owner sued Requester Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (“Requester”) for infringement, and
`
`Requester brought counterclaims including a counterclaim of invalidity. The case was tried to a
`
`jury during an eight-day trial in February and March 2012 that included testimony from both
`
`Requester’s expert Dr. Mark Ehsani and Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Mack Grady. During that
`
`trial, Requester initially argued that the Wall patent (Ex. 4)—which is the reference that is the
`
`subject of the only anticipation rejection at issue in this appeal, and is the primary reference for
`
`the majority of the obviousness rejections at issue—anticipated claim 1 of the ’705 patent. But
`
`after cross-examination of Requester's expert, Requester withdrew its allegation that Wall
`
`anticipated. The jury in the Dallas Litigation then returned a verdict finding that claim 1 of the
`
`’705 patent was infringed and not invalid (on any of the several bases that Requester asserted)
`
`(Ex. 38). The fact that Patent Owner and Requester subsequently settled their dispute does not
`
`ActiveUS 147251552v.8
`
`

`

`Control No. 95/000,633
`
`Attorney Docket No. 1299600.00197USl
`
`change the fact that claim 1 was confirmed by a jury after a filll eight-day trial that included
`
`exhaustive expert testimony and cross-examination.
`
`As Patent Owner also explained in its Appeal Brief, claim 7 is an apparatus claim that
`
`covers the corresponding scope as the confirmed method claim 1. PO Appeal Brief at 13-15. The
`
`Examiner does not appear to dispute that both claims cover corresponding subject matter. Patent
`
`Owner therefore submits that since the validity of claim 1 has already been confirmed by a final
`
`decision in a civil action, claim 7 should also be confirmed.
`
`B.
`
`Claim 7 is not anticipated by Wall because Wall does not disclose ZVRT
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments regarding “ZVRT” and “approximately
`zero volts” are germane to prosecution
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments regarding how Wall does not show “ZVRT” is particularly
`
`relevant to prosecution as claim 7 specifically mentions “zero voltage ride through (ZVRT).”
`
`The Examiner faults Patent Owner’s arguments as to Wall “not having ZVRT” as being “not
`
`germane to prosecution, as the claims do not require ZVRT.” Answer at 9-10. However, claim 7
`
`requires “a voltage amplitude of each phase of the electric power system decreasing to
`
`approximately zero volts for a predetermined period of time, thereby facilitating zero voltage
`
`ride through (ZVRD.” Indeed, the Examiner had previously agreed that the claims of the ’705
`
`patent require ZVRT. See, 6.g. , Answer at 9 (“[T]he claims .
`
`.
`
`. require that the machine remain
`
`electrically connected to the power system for voltages that are approximately zero volts, to
`
`facilitate ZVRT”); RAN at 10/17/14 at 10 (“When read in context of the specification, it is clear
`
`that the ’705 is concerned with voltages approaching zero provided to the turbine”)
`
`Patent Owner also notes that the methods and systems disclosed by the ’705 patent treat
`
`both grid voltages of “approximately zero volts” and grid voltages of precisely zero volts in the
`
`same way. While “approximately zero volts” and “zero volts” are not identical terms,
`
`distinguishing between these two voltage levels is not helpful when determining whether a prior
`
`art reference (such as Wall) anticipates or renders obvious the claims of the ’705 patent. Rather,
`
`the more pertinent inquiry is whether the prior art shows an electrical machine that can remain
`
`connected when the grid voltage signal drops so low that the electrical machine can no longer
`
`measure the grid’s frequency and phase. And as Patent Owner has consistently argued
`
`throughout prosecution and in its appeal brief, the prior art does not show this.
`
`ActiveUS 147251552V.8
`
`_ 2 _
`
`

`

`Control No. 95/000,633
`
`Attorney Docket No. 1299600.00197USl
`
`The references to “approximately zero volts” in the claims of the ’705 patent refer to the
`
`condition in which the grid voltage, at the connection between the grid and the wind turbine,
`
`drops to zero or near zero, such that the frequency and phase of the grid voltage signal can no
`
`longer be measured. This is evident from reading the claim term in the context of the ’705
`
`patent’s specification. As the Examiner had previously noted, claim terms are to be construed “in
`
`the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” RAN dated 5/7/13 at 7 (quoting
`
`from Philips v. AWH Corp, 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005); RAN dated 10/17/14 at 10
`
`(“When read in context of the specification, it is clear that the ’705 is concerned with voltages
`
`approaching zero provided to the turbine.”); see also In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255,
`
`1259 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction
`
`consistent with the specifi’cation”)(emphasis added)). Here, the specification of the ’705 patent
`
`presents a control-based solution that facilitated a wind turbine generator remaining connected to
`
`the grid even when the grid voltage decreases to such low levels that the wind turbine’s control
`
`system can no longer measure the grid voltage’s frequency and phase. PO Appeal Brief at 7-12.
`
`This capability was referred to as “zero voltage ride through” or ZVRT, and represented an
`
`improvement over prior known systems that would trip offline when they could no longer
`
`measure the frequency and phase of the grid. See, e. g., ’705 Patent (Ex. 1) at col. 6, 11. 63-67
`
`(“ZVRT is contrasted to low voltage ride through (LVRT) features known in the art that
`
`facilitate mitigating wind turbine generator 100 trips during transients wherein the voltage
`
`amplitude rapidly decreases, yet does not decrease to zero volts.”).
`
`As Patent Owner explained in its Appeal Brief, designing a wind turbine that could
`
`accomplish ZVRT posed a particularly challenging technical problem because it required the
`
`wind turbine’s control system to remain synchronized with the grid even when the control
`
`system couldn’t sense the grid’s frequency and phase. PO Appeal Brief at 7. The system
`
`disclosed in the ’705 patent accomplished this by using a Phased Lock Loop (PLL) Regulator
`
`that included a PLL state machine having a state (i.e., State 3) that adjusts the gain and limit
`
`values of a PLL such that the PLL oscillates at a fixed frequency similar to the nominal
`
`frequency of the grid signal (e.g., 60 Hz in the United States) when the grid voltage drops to
`
`approximately zero volts. ’705 Patent (Ex. 1), col. 10, 11. 62-67; PO Appeal Brief at 11. This
`
`action drives the PLL phase angle signal to a value that would be in effect if there was no
`
`disturbance. ’705 Patent (Ex. 1), col. 10, 11. 59-67; PO Appeal Brief at 11. Notably, while in this
`
`ActiveUS 147251552V.8
`
`_ 3 _
`
`

`

`Control No. 95/000,633
`
`Attorney Docket No. l299600.00197USl
`
`state, the PLL state machine is designed to oscillate independently of the grid signal, and
`
`therefore prevents the PLL from “wandering” during a zero voltage event in which actual
`
`measurements of frequency and phase are not available. PO Appeal Brief at 11-12. Within this
`
`context, the claims’ references to “approximately zero volts” and “ZVRT” refers to grid voltages
`
`that are so low that the wind turbine generator’s control system can no longer measure the grid
`
`voltage’s frequency and phase.
`
`In light of the specif1cation’s teachings, the Examiner’s construction of the term
`
`“approximately zero volts” to mean “a voltage that is approximately, e. g. near to, about, or
`
`almost zero volts” (Answer at 10) is incomplete. In particular, the Examiner’s construction
`
`provides no guidance about how low a voltage signal has to be in order to qualify as
`
`“approximately zero volts.” Without this guidance, the Examiner’s interpretation would erase the
`
`distinction between LVRT and ZVRT, which the ’705 patent is careful to distinguish. See, e. g.,
`
`’705 patent, col. 6, ll. 63-67 (“ZVRT is contrasted to low voltage ride through (LVRT) features
`
`known in the art that facilitate mitigating wind turbine generator 100 trips during transients
`
`wherein the voltage amplitude rapidly decreases, yet does not decrease to zero volts.”).
`
`2.
`
`Wall disconnects when the grid voltage decreases to “approximately
`zero” volts, and therefore does not disclose ZVRT
`
`Wall explicitly teaches disconnecting its generator from the grid if the grid voltage
`
`reaches approximately zero volts. The Examiner alleges that the statement from column 8 of
`
`Wall, which Patent Owner had referenced in page 17 of its Appeal Brief, is “not exactly on
`
`point.” Answer at 10. With respect, however, this passage is relevant and entirely on point.
`
`The passage at issue is reproduced below:
`
`For grid connect operation, the grid power is used for starting as
`described above. When turbine 206 has reached a desired operating
`speed, converter 192 is operated at grid frequency, synchronized
`with grid 222, and essentially operates as a current source
`converter, requiring grid voltage for excitation. If grid 222
`collapses, the loss of grid 222 is sensed, the unit output goes to
`zero (0) and disconnects.
`
`Wall (Ex. 4), col. 8, ll. 45-51 (emphasis added), see also PO Appeal Brief at 17.
`
`ActiveUS 14725 1552v.8
`
`

`

`Control No. 95/000,633
`
`Attorney Docket No. 1299600.00197USl
`
`This passage specifically mentions that the turbine’s converter is “operated at grid
`
`frequency,” and is “synchronized with grid 222.” In other words, Wall’s turbine must be able to
`
`sense the grid’s frequency in order to synchronize with it, which is why it “requir[es] grid
`
`voltage for excitation.” Wall could not be clearer that its turbine must be able to sense the grid’s
`
`voltage and phase in order to function, as its turbine must synchronize with the grid. See also,
`
`e.g., Wall (Ex. 4) at col. 18, l. 66 — col. 19, l. 3 (explaining that in its utility grid-connect mode,
`
`“the electric power distribution system i.e., the utility grid, supplies a reference voltage and
`
`phase, and the turbine supplies power in synchronism with the utility grid.”). Therefore, when
`
`Wall talks about the “grid 222 collaps[ing],” and sensing “the loss of grid 222”, Wall is speaking
`
`about the grid voltage level decreasing to such low levels that the grid’s frequency and phase can
`
`no longer be sensed. Under these conditions, Wall explicitly teaches that its “unit output goes to
`
`zero (0) and disconnects.” Since Wall teaches disconnecting when the grid’s frequency and
`
`phase can no longer be measured by a turbine controller, Wall at most discloses the kind of prior
`
`known system that the ’705 patent explicitly distinguishes over. See, e.g., ’705 Patent (Ex. 1) at
`
`col. 6, 11. 63-67 (“ZVRT is contrasted to low voltage ride through (LVRT) features known in the
`
`art that facilitate mitigating wind turbine generator 100 trips during transients wherein the
`
`voltage amplitude rapidly decreases, yet does not decrease to zero volts.”).
`
`3.
`
`Consistent with the specification, Wall discloses two types of
`protection mechanisms, neither of which teach ZVRT
`
`While the Examiner alleges that Wall’s transient handling system 580 allows the machine
`
`of Wall to ride through zero voltage events, Answer at 10-11; RAN dated 10/17/14 at 14-15, the
`
`Examiner fails to appreciate that the section of Wall he relies upon is actually describing two
`
`distinct protection mechanisms for dealing with two different types of grid conditions. Neither
`
`of these protection mechanisms disclose ZVRT.
`
`As Patent Owner explained in its brief, Wall’s transient handling system has a first
`
`protection mechanism that is dedicated to protecting against “voltage transients.” See Wall (Ex.
`
`4) at col. 23, 11. 58-62 (“In accordance with the present invention, the effect of voltage transients
`
`can be minimized. .
`
`. .”); PO Appeal Brief at 19. This first protection mechanism works by
`
`“monitoring the current [in Wall’s machine] such that when it exceeds a predetermined level,
`
`switching is stopped so that the current can decay, thereby preventing the current from exceeding
`
`ActiveUS 147251552V.8
`
`_ 5 _
`
`

`

`Control No. 95/000,633
`
`Attorney Docket No. l299600.00197USl
`
`its predetermined level.” Wall (Ex. 4) at col. 23, ll. 58-63. This protection mechanism does not
`
`disclose ZVRT—it merely discloses a control system that disconnects from the grid if a
`
`monitored current exceeds a certain level. See PO Appeal Brief at 26.
`
`Wall’s transient handling system has a second, distinct protection mechanism that is
`
`dedicated to protecting against “[l]onger duration transients.” See Wall (Ex. 4) at col. 23, l. 66 —
`
`col. 24, l. l (“Longer duration transients indicate abnormal utility grid conditions. These must be
`
`detected so power controller 620 can shut down in a safe manner.”). These longer duration
`
`transients are detected using a “magnitude estimator 584” which “monitors the magnitude and
`
`duration of any change on utility grid 616.” See id. at col. 24, ll. 53-57.
`
`FIG. 17 is directed only to Wall’s second protection mechanism designed to protect
`
`against “[l]onger duration transients.” Therefore, even if FIG. 17 is interpreted to mean that
`
`Wall’s second mechanism for dealing with “longer duration transients” would not detect or deal
`
`with a zero voltage event (i.e., the fault might not be properly detected by magnitude estimator
`
`584), such a zero voltage event would still be detected by Wall ’s first protection mechanism for
`
`dealing with “voltage transients, ” which would independently cause Wall to disconnect. See,
`
`e. g., Wall (Ex. 4) at col. 23, ll. 58-62 (“when [current] exceeds a predetermined level, switching
`
`is stopped so that the current can decay.”). Put another way, even if FIG. 17 disclosed a “voltage
`
`sag region” that extended all the way down to zero volts (which Patent Owner does not concede),
`
`FIG. 17 still does not disclose that Wall’s system as a whole can ride through zero voltage
`
`events—it would only show that Wall’s second protection mechanism against “longer duration
`
`transients” is not configured to detect and disconnect Wall’s machine during zero voltage events.
`
`PO Appeal Brief at 19-20.
`
`Even if Wall’s second protection mechanism, as depicted by FIG. 17, would not cause
`
`Wall’s electrical machine to trip offline, Wall’s first protection mechanism will independently
`
`cause the electrical machine to disconnect when it encounters a zero voltage event. This is
`
`because when Wall can no longer measure the grid’s frequency and phase, it will inevitably lose
`
`synchronism with the grid. This loss of synchronism results in large current spikes which would
`
`cause Wall’s first protection mechanism to trip and disconnect from the grid. See, e. g., Grady
`
`Dec. dated 10/27/11 at 1] 3l (“[D]uring a zero voltage event, the wind turbine’s control system is
`
`ActiveUS 147251552Vs
`
`_ 6 _
`
`

`

`Control No. 95/000,633
`
`Attorney Docket No. l299600.00197USl
`
`‘blind,’ i.e., it cannot measure grid frequency and phase. . .. [This] presents the problem of
`
`maintaining synchronization when the grid recovers from the zero voltage fault. The loss of
`
`synchronism when the grid recovers can result in significant current spikes that may trip the
`
`turbine 0fi‘line.”)(emphasis added). In contrast, the electrical machine disclosed by the ’705
`
`patent avoids this loss of synchronism and its associated current spikes by maintaining
`
`synchronism with a PLL regulator and state machine even when the grid voltage’s frequency and
`
`phase cannot be measured.
`
`Although the Examiner alleges that Patent Owner “points to nothing in Wall to support
`
`this position,” Answer at ll, Patent Owner has in fact pointed to numerous reasons why FIG. 17
`
`is directed only to longer term transients. First, FIG. 17 mentions nothing about current levels,
`
`which is the precise method by which Wall’s first protection mechanism detects and deals with
`
`“voltage transients.” See PO Appeal Brief at 19. Second, FIG. 17 does show axes based on the
`
`duration and magnitude of a voltage transient. See, e.g., Wall (Ex. 4) at col. 23, ll. 44-47 (“The
`
`duration of a voltage transient, measured in seconds, is shown on the x-axis and its magnitude,
`
`measured in volts, is shown on the y-axis.”). The magnitude and duration of a voltage transient
`
`are precisely the parameters monitored by Wall’s “magnitude estimator 584,” which, again, is
`
`how Wall’s second protection mechanism detects and deals with “longer duration transients.”
`
`Indeed, the very phrase “longer duration transients” indicates that the duration of a transient is a
`
`relevant parameter in detecting and dealing with such grid conditions. See PO Appeal Brief at
`
`19-20. And third, interpreting FIG. 17 in this way is consistent with the rest of Wall’s
`
`specification. As discussed above, col. 8, ll. 45-51 and col. l8, 1. 66 to col. l9, 1. 3 of Wall could
`
`not be clearer that the electrical machine in Wall must be able to sense the grid’s reference
`
`frequency and phase in order to function. When the grid “collapses” such that the machine in
`
`Wall can no longer sense this reference frequency and phase, Wall explicitly states that its
`
`machine will “disconnect” from the grid. While the Examiner correctly acknowledges that “in
`
`certain circumstances, the generator of Wall disconnects from the grid,” the Examiner has not
`
`provided any explanation regarding how to reconcile Wall’s clear statements that its electrical
`
`machine requires the grid’s reference frequency and phase to function, and that it will disconnect
`
`if it can no longer measure said frequency and phase. Answer at 10.
`
`ActiveUS 14725 1552v.8
`
`

`

`Control No. 95/000,633
`
`Attorney Docket No. 1299600.00197USl
`
`Patent Owner respectfully disagrees with the Examiner that “PO has drawn its own
`
`version of figure 17,” Answer at 11. Instead, Patent Owner has merely annotated Figure 17 to
`
`explain the placement of dots that had already existed on the Figure. Furthermore, Patent Owner
`
`respectfully disagrees with the Examiner’s conclusions regarding (i) the placement of dots in
`
`Wall’s FIG. 17, (ii) the significance of Wall’s statement in column 26 that the system
`
`disconnects after 100 ms, and (iii) the evidence that Patent Owner submitted regarding the
`
`meaning of the term “voltage sag.” Answer at 11-12. Patent Owner submits that its
`
`interpretations of these passages and evidence, as laid out in pages 20-25 of its brief, are more
`
`consistent with the rest of Wall’s specification which explicitly states that Wall’s system
`
`disconnects during zero voltage events. See, e. g., Wall (Ex. 4) at col. 8, 11. 45-51 and col. 18, l.
`
`66 to col. 19, l. 3 (discussed above).
`
`4.
`
`Wall’s electrical machine does not have the structure required by
`claim 7
`
`Contrary to the Examiner’s assertion, Wall’s electrical machine does not have the
`
`structure required by claim 7. The Examiner dismisses Patent Owner’s argument (PO Appeal
`
`Brief at 26) that Wall does not show a single instance of a transient that resolves quickly by
`
`noting that claim 7 is not a method claim, and therefore Wall need only have the necessary
`
`structure. Answer at 12. This misses the point of Patent Owner’s argument. Claim 7 requires “[a]
`
`control system... [that] facilitates the electrical machine remaining electrically
`
`connected. . .during and subsequent to. .. a [zero voltage event].” Wall does not disclose such a
`
`control system because Wall does not ever mention that its system can resolve a transient quickly
`
`enough such that current in Wall’s system will never exceed the predetermined level at which the
`
`system will trip offline. Therefore it is possible, and indeed likely, that a utility grid voltage drop
`
`to approximately zero volts will always cause current in Wall's system to exceed the
`
`predetermined level. This is especially the case because loss of synchronism results in large
`
`current spikes which will cause a turbine to trip offline. See, e. g., Grady Dec. dated 10/27/11 at 11
`
`31. The control system in Wall would therefore not facilitate its electrical machine remaining
`
`connected during and subsequent to a zero voltage event. Since Wall does not disclose the
`
`control system required by claim 7, Wall does not disclose the structure required by claim 7. The
`
`fact that claim 7 is not a method claim is irrelevant.
`
`ActiveUS 147251552v.8
`
`

`

`Control No. 95/000,633
`
`Attorney Docket No. 1299600.00197USl
`
`5.
`
`Wall does not describe nor enable ZVRT and thus cannot serve as the
`
`basis of a 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection
`
`Patent Owner notes that the Examiner does not rebut Patent Owner’s explanation that
`
`Wall cannot serve as the basis of a 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection because it does not enable
`
`ZVRT. PO Appeal Brief at 30-3 1. Patent Owner re-iterates that since Wall is not an enabling
`
`reference, the rejections of claim 7 based on Wall should be reversed on this basis alone.
`
`C.
`
`Claim 8 is not rendered obvious by the cited references
`
`Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and incorporates its limitations therein. The Examiner
`
`does not contend that the other cited references, including Milasi (Ex. 7), Pate (Ex. 5), Kaura
`
`(Ex. 6), and Erdman (Ex. 3), make up for the deficiencies of Wall discussed above. Therefore,
`
`Patent Owner submits that claim 8 is patentable over the cited prior art references for at least the
`
`same reasons.
`
`D.
`
`Pate, Kaura, and Erdman do not render claims 9, 13-14, and 20-21 obvious
`because they do not disclose a PLL regulator that facilitates ride through of
`grid voltage transients
`
`For all the reasons set out in Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief, Patent Owner disagrees with
`
`the Examiner’s conclusion that claims 9, l3, and 14 do not require an electrical machine to
`
`remain connected when each phase of the power system decreases to approximately zero volts.
`
`Answer at 13. However, even if claims 9 and 13 do not address a voltage of approximately zero
`
`volts, the combination of Wall and Pate still would not show all the elements required by these
`
`claims.
`
`The Examiner bases his rejections on the mistaken notion that “claims 9, l3, and 14 do
`
`not require that the PLL have any relationship to ZVRT or any type of ride through.” Answer at
`
`13. As such, the Examiner erroneously dismisses Patent Owner’s statements that a state machine
`
`directed to reducing jitter would be unrelated to a state machine that facilitates ride through as
`
`being “not germane to prosecution.” Id. at 13-14. The Examiner also states that a combination
`
`that disclosed nothing more than a PLL with a jitter free sensed line voltage would meet the
`
`claim language. Id. at 14. Patent Owner respectfully disagrees.
`
`Contrary to the Examiner’s conclusion, claims 9 and 13 do require that the claimed PLL
`
`regulator be used to achieve ride through. Claim 9 recites “[a] control system .
`
`.
`
`. [that] facilitates
`
`ActiveUS 147251552V.8
`
`_ 9 _
`
`

`

`Control No. 95/000,633
`
`Attorney Docket No. 1299600.00197USl
`
`the electrical machine remaining electrically connected to the electric power system during and
`
`subsequent to at least one voltage amplitude of the electric power system operating outside of a
`
`predetermined range for an undetermined period of time.” Claim 13 includes a similar limitation.
`
`Even if these limitation do not specifically mention the words “approximately zero volts” or
`
`“ZVRT”, they are clearly directed at riding through grid voltage transients. Furthermore, claims
`
`9 and 13 both recite that the “control system” must “compris[e] at least one phase-locked loop
`
`(PLL) regulator,” wherein the PLL regulator has a “phase detection scheme,” a “proportional-
`
`integral (PI) filter scheme,” and a “PLL state machine.” Since the “control system” must
`
`facilitate ride through, the components which comprise the control system, including the PLL
`
`regulator and its constituent parts, must therefore also be used to facilitate ride through. PO
`
`Appeal Brief at 32-34.
`
`The ’705 patent’s specification also demonstrates that the PLL regulator, including its
`
`PLL and state machine, are used to enable the machine to ride through grid faults. The claimed
`
`PLL regulator is discussed at col. 6, ll. 58-63, which states that “PLL regulator 400 is configured
`
`to facilitate a zero voltage ride through (ZVRT) capability for wind turbine generator 100 such
`
`that a potential for a wind turbine generator trip and associated consequences to the
`
`semiconductor devices are mitigated during zero voltage transients. .
`
`. .” The ’705 patent’s
`
`specification then discloses in detail exactly how PLL regulator 400 can be used to facilitate
`
`ZVRT. See PO Appeal Brief at 9-12.
`
`Since the claimed PLL regulator does indeed have to be involved in ride through of grid
`
`faults/transients, Patent Owner submits that its arguments in its Appeal Brief are germane to
`
`prosecution. Pate does not disclose a PLL regulator that can be used to facilitate ride through of
`
`grid voltage transients. As Patent Owner explained in its Appeal Brief, Pate is instead directed to
`
`dealing with jitter on an input waveform being tracked by a PLL. PO Appeal Brief at 32. One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that dealing with jitter and dealing with grid faults or
`
`transients are completely different problems, thus a state machine that reduces jitter on a
`
`waveform would be unrelated to a state machine that allows a generator to ride through a grid
`
`fault. PO Appeal Brief at 33.
`
`ActiveUS 147251552v.8
`
`_ 10 _
`
`

`

`Control No. 95/000,633
`
`Attorney Docket No. 1299600.00197USl
`
`Neither the Requester nor the Examiner contend that Wall discloses a PLL regulator with
`
`a PLL and a PLL state machine. Claims 14, 20, and 21 all depend from one of claims 9 and 13
`
`and incorporate their limitations therein. Patent Owner therefore submits that claims 9, 13-14,
`
`and 20-21 are all patentable over Wall and Pate for at least the reasons discussed above.
`
`The Examiner’s rejections based on Kaura and Erdman are similarly flawed because they
`
`are also based on the mistaken notion that “nothing in claims 9, l3, and 14 require that the PLL
`
`be used to enable the machine to ride through grid faults.” Answer at 14. As Patent Owner
`
`explained above, this notion is incorrect—the claimed PLL regulator must facilitate the electrical
`
`machine remaining connected to the grid during a grid voltage transient. Kaura only discloses
`
`using a state machine to resynchronize the PLL with a grid voltage signal after a grid voltage
`
`transient, and does not disclose remaining connected to the grid during a grid voltage transient.
`
`See PO Appeal Brief at 34-36. As for Erdman, the Examiner does not contend that Erdman
`
`discloses a PLL regulator with a PLL state machine, much less a PLL regulator that is used to
`
`enable the machine to ride through grid faults. RAN at 11-13. Erdman therefore cannot make up
`
`for the deficiencies of Pate and Kaura discussed above. As such, Patent Owner submits that
`
`claims 9, 13-14, and 20-21 are not rendered obvious by Kaura and Erdman in combination with
`
`any of the cited references.
`
`ActiveUS 147251552v.8
`
`_ 11 _
`
`

`

`Control No. 95/000,633
`
`Attorney Docket No. 1299600.00197USl
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth above, Patent Owner requests that the Board reverse the
`
`outstanding rejections, remand the application to the Examiner, and direct the Examiner to
`
`confirm all pending claims.
`
`The Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any fee deficiencies, or credit any
`
`overpayments, to Deposit Account No. 08-0219.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Monica Grewal/
`
`Monica Grewal
`
`Registration No.: 40,056
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`Dated: August 13, 2015
`
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`
`(6 l 7) 526-6000 (telephone)
`(6 l 7) 526-5 000 (facsimile)
`
`ActiveUS 147251552vs
`
`_ 12 _
`
`

`

`Control No. 95/000,633
`
`Attorney Docket No. 1299600.00197US1
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`EVIDENCE
`
`Patent Owner refers the Board to the exhibits Patent Owner filed with its Appeal Brief dated
`
`2/24/ 15, which includes copies of the eVidence Patent Owner is relying on in its appeal. The
`
`location in the record where the Examiner entered each piece of eVidence is noted in Patent
`
`Owner’s Appeal Brief and is reproduced below.
`
`’705 patent
`
`’705 patent file history
`
`The ’705 patent was
`considered according to the
`Order on July 27, 2011
`granting Requester’s Request
`for Inter Partes
`
`Reexamination dated May 24,
`2011. SB08 signed by
`Examiner on Jul
`15, 2011.
`
`The ’705 patent was
`considered according to the
`Order on July 27, 2011
`granting Requester’s Request
`for Inter Partes
`
`Reexamination dated May 24,
`2011. Considered by
`Examine