Ex Parte Ackermann et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 25, 2011

11009146 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 25, 2011)

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.
11/009,146 12/10/2004 Robert Adolf Ackermann 132097-1/YOD
(GERD:0316)
4941
41838 7590 01/25/2011
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI)
C/O FLETCHER YODER
P. O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
LE, DANG D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2834
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/25/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ROBERT ADOLF ACKERMANN, EVANGELOS TRIFON
LASKARIS, XIANRUI HUANG, and JAMES WILLIAM BRAY
____________________

Appeal 2009-010740
Application 11/009,146
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-010740
Application 11/009,146

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1-8, 10, 13, 15-19, and 21-23. Claims 9, 11, 12, 14, 20, and 24-46 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
Exemplary Claims
Exemplary independent claims 1 and 13 under appeal read as follows:
1. A system for cooling a superconducting rotary machine
comprising:
a plurality of sealed siphon tubes sealed from one another and
disposed in balanced locations around a rotor adjacent to a
superconducting coil, each of the sealed siphon tubes including a
tubular body and a heat transfer medium disposed in the tubular body
that undergoes a phase change during operation of the machine to
extract heat from the superconducting coil; and
a siphon heat exchanger thermally coupled to the siphon tubes
for extracting heat from the siphon tubes during operation of the
machine.

13. A system for cooling a superconducting rotary machine
comprising:
a plurality of cooling tubes disposed in balanced locations
around a rotor adjacent to a superconducting coil for cooling the
superconducting coil during the operation of the machine; and
a cryogenic refrigeration system coupled to the cooling tubes
for maintaining a cryogenic fluid in a liquid state, wherein the
cryogenic refrigeration system includes a first dewar chamber
configured to hold a reservoir of cryogenic liquid, and a second dewar
chamber coupled to the first dewar chamber and configured to hold
liquid cryogen, vapor in the second dewar chamber being recondensed
by transfer of heat to the reservoir of cryogenic fluid to cool the
cooling tubes during operation and when the machine is not operated.

Appeal 2009-010740
Application 11/009,146

3
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 10, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Corman (US
3,801,843) and Dustmann (US 4,578,962).
The Examiner rejected claims 13, 15-19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Dustmann and
Weghaupt (US 4,365,479).
The Examiner rejected claims 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Corman, Dustmann, and Weghaupt.2

Appellants’ Contentions
1. At pages 5-10 of the Appeal Brief, Appellants contend for
numerous reasons that the Examiner erred and there is “no realistic way
in which Corman and Dustmann could be realistically combined” (App.
Br. 10).
2. At page 11 of the Appeal Brief, Appellants contend that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 13, 15-19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Dustmann and
Weghaupt because:
The cited references, taken alone or in hypothetical
combination with one another, fail to teach or suggest, vapor in
the second dewar chamber being recondensed by transfer of
heat to the reservoir of cryogenic fluid to cool the cooling tubes
during operation and when the machine is not operated as
recited by independent claim 13. Both Dustmann and
Weghaupt fail to teach or suggest the foregoing claim features.

2 The rejection of dependent claims 5-8 under § 103(a) is not separately
argued from the rejection of the independent claim 1 under 103(a) (App. Br.
11).
Appeal 2009-010740
Application 11/009,146

4
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-8, 10, 13, 15-19, and 21-23
as being obvious because the references fail to teach or suggest the claim
limitations at issue?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
As to claims 1-8, 10, and 23, we agree with Appellants’ contention
above.
As to claims 13, 15-19, 21, and 22, we disagree with Appellants’
conclusion. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion reached by the
Examiner.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-8, 10, and 23 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 13, 15-19, 21, and
22 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) On this record, claims 1-8, 10, and 23 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
(4) Claims 13, 15-19, 21, and 22 are not patentable.

Appeal 2009-010740
Application 11/009,146

5
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 15-19, 21, and 22 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-8, 10, and 23 are reversed.
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).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

babc

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI)
C/O FLETCHER YODER
P. O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289