Ex Parte Baptista et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2013

11565252 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MARK FELIPE BAPTISTA, ADAM RASHEED, and
ANTHONY JOHN DEAN
____________

Appeal 2011-006138
Application 11/565,252
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, NEIL T. POWELL, and JILL D. HILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006138
Application 11/565,252

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Mark Felipe Baptista, Adam Rasheed, and Anthony John Dean
(Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1-
12 and 14-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER

The claimed subject matter relates to “pulse detonation systems, and
more particularly, to mechanical response based detonation velocity
measurement systems.” Spec., para. [0001]. Claim 1 illustrates the subject
matter on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A pulse detonation device, comprising:
a detonation chamber for producing a
pressure rise and velocity increase from a
detonation or a quasi -detonation;
a propagation portion downstream of said
detonation chamber; and
a plurality of mechanical response gauges
located at a known, spaced apart distance from
each other, each mechanical response gauge
measuring a strain in said pulse detonation device
due to the detonation or the quasi-detonation
traveling in a vicinity of each mechanical response
gauge, and generating a signal in response to the
strain,
wherein said plurality of mechanical
response gauges are electronically coupled to a
data acquisition system such that the signal from
each of said plurality of mechanical response
gauges is received by said data acquisition system,
and
wherein said data acquisition system
determines a velocity of the detonation or the
quasi-detonation within said pulse detonation
Appeal 2011-006138
Application 11/565,252

3
device by using the signal from each of said
plurality of mechanical response gauges and the
known, spaced apart distance between each
mechanical response gauge.

EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies on the following evidence:

Bussing US 5,855,827 Jan. 5, 1999
Dean US 6,710,878 B1 Mar. 23, 2004
Shuler US 6,943,621 B1 Sep. 13, 2005
Gysling US 7,322,245 B2 Jan. 29, 2008
Kraft US 7,007,455 B2 Mar. 7, 2006

REJECTIONS

Claims 1, 2, 4-12 and 16-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Kraft, Bussing, and Gysling (Ans. 3); and claims 14
and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kraft,
Bussing, Gysling, and Shuler (Ans. 8).1

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4-12, and 16-21

Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 4-12, and 16-21 as a group. We select
claim 1 as representative and treat claims 2, 4-12, and 16-21 as standing or
falling with representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). The
Examiner finds that Kraft and Bussing teach all of the limitations of claim 1,
except for mechanical response gauges measuring strain in the pulse

1 The rejection of claims 3 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kraft, Bussing, Gysling, and Dean (Ans. 8) is not listed by Appellants
as a ground of rejection being appealed. See App. Br. 9.
Appeal 2011-006138
Application 11/565,252

4
detonation device, and velocity of the detonation being determined by a data
acquisition device. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that Bussing teaches
measuring combustion velocities in a pulse detonation system with a series
of transducers located along a length of a detonation chamber, and concludes
that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Kraft and
Bussing to determine the velocity of a wave in addition to measuring
pressure fluctuations within a detonation chamber, so that the quality of a
combustion process can be determined for system efficiency, process
control, and user safety. Ans. 4-5.
The Examiner then finds that Gysling teaches an apparatus for
measuring a waveform, including plural mechanical response gauges 340
located at intervals along a chamber and measuring strain caused by a
pressure wave within the chamber, the gauges 340 generating signals sent to
a data acquisition system 60 that uses the signals to determine the velocity of
the waveform within the chamber. Ans. 5.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to include
mechanical response gauges as taught by Gysling in the system of Kraft and
Bussing to determine the velocity of the pressure wave caused by detonation
or quasi-detonation, because strain gauges are known, low-cost alternatives
for measuring velocity of a pressure wave. Id.
Appellants argue that Bussing does not teach how its high-speed
pressure transducers measure the combustion velocity and pressure, and that
the reference number 340 is not shown in Bussing’s Figure 13, making the
location of Bussing’s high-speed pressure transducers with respect to one
another unknown. App. Br. 11. The Examiner responds that the claims do
Appeal 2011-006138
Application 11/565,252

5
not recite how the gauges measure combustion velocity and pressure, and
that the location of Bussing’s pressure transducers 340 is adequately set
forth in its specification at col. 8, ll. 9-12 and at col. 20, ll. 62-64. Ans. 10.
We agree with the Examiner on both of these points. The claims indeed do
not recite how the gauges measure combustion velocity, and the location of
Bussing’s pressure transducers 340 is adequately set forth in its specification
at least in the passages cited by the Examiner.
Appellants take issue with the Examiner’s combination of Gysling
with Kraft and Bussing. App. Br. 12. Appellants argue that “Gysling is
incapable of combination with Kraft/Bussing because modifying the
Kraft/Bussing devices with the acoustic pressure sensors of Gysling would
render the Kraft/Bussing devices inoperable” because Gysling’s sensors are
for Mach 1 magnitude measurement and Kraft and Bussing detonate with a
velocity of Mach 5 or greater. App. Br. 12.
The Examiner responds that Gysling is used to teach the concept of
measuring the speed of a pressure wave using a given type of measurement
gauge, and the combination of Gysling with Kraft and Bussing may require
adapting the size and resistance of the actual strain gauges used, but the
difference in parameter values of the two systems would not preclude one of
ordinary skill in the art from employing the concept taught by Gysling in the
system of Kraft and Bussing. Absent any evidence that strain gauges cannot
be adapted to measure Mach 5 pressure waves, we agree with the Examiner
that the difference in parameter values/magnitudes between Gysling and
Kraft/Bussing would not preclude one of ordinary skill in the art from
employing velocity measurement with strain gauges as taught by Gysling in
the system of Kraft and Bussing.
Appeal 2011-006138
Application 11/565,252

6
Appellants argue that “the claimed invention is directed to
determining a velocity of a detonation wave in a pulse detonation device,
which is a dynamic phenomenon. On the other hand, Gysling is directed to
determining a fluid property, such as a Mach number or speed of sound of
the fluid,” the speed of sound not being a dynamic phenomenon. App. Br.
12. Appellants argue that, therefore, one skilled in the art would not be
motivated to modify the pulse detonation devices of Kraft and Bussing with
the teachings of Gysling to determine a velocity of a detonation or quasi-
detonation wave. App. Br. 12-13.
The Examiner responds that the speed of sound is a dynamic
phenomenon in the system of Gysling, because the speed of sound through
Gysling’s system is constantly changing, making velocity measurement
appropriate. Ans. 11. The Examiner further responds that, regardless of
whether the measured velocity is static or dynamic, Gysling determines the
speed of a pressure wave using multiple strain gauges, and the Examiner
provided motivation to use Gysling’s strain gauges in Kraft’s system,
whether such use is for the same parameter or the same type (e.g., static
versus dynamic) of parameter. Id. We agree with the Examiner that Gysling
teaches measuring velocity of a pressure wave with strain gauges, regardless
of whether one chooses to label that pressure wave as static or dynamic.
Appellants further argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the
velocity of Gysling’s detonation waves changes, because “the speed of
sound is a property of a fluid, whereas the velocity of a wave in a PDC is a
phenomena of the wave.” App. Br. 14. The Examiner responds that “the
fact remains that Gysling . . . determines the speed of a pressure wave using
certain means,” and motivation was provided to use Gysling’s measuring
Appeal 2011-006138
Application 11/565,252

7
means in Kraft, regardless of whether Kraft would use Gysling’s measuring
means to measure the same parameter or the same parameter type. Ans. 13.
We agree with the Examiner for the reasons set forth above with respect to
Gysling’s teachings and their application to Kraft and Bussing.
Appellants lastly argue that much different data acquisition
technology is required to adapt Gysling’s concept to Kraft’s system. App.
Br. 13. The Examiner responds that the test for obviousness is not whether
the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference, and that “utilizing the appropriate data
acquisition technology for the task at hand would be within the abilities of
one having ordinary skill in the art.” Ans. 12; see In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852,
859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Indeed, the test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those having
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332-33, (Fed.
Cir. 2012). Appellants have not disputed that it would be within the level of
one skilled in the art to utilize the appropriate data acquisition technology
for the task at hand in adapting Gysling’s concept to the system of Kraft and
Bussing.
For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kraft, Bussing, and Gysling.
We therefore also sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4-12 and 16-21, which
fall with claim 1.

Appeal 2011-006138
Application 11/565,252

8
Claims 3 and 9
Appellants do not appeal the rejection of claims 3 and 9 over Kraft,
Bussing, Gysling, and Dean. We therefore summarily sustain the rejection
of claims 3 and 9.
Claims 14 and 15
Appellants do not argue that claims 14 and 15 might be patentable
over Kraft, Bussing, Gysling, and Shuler if claim 7 is obvious over Kraft,
Bussing, and Gysling. We therefore also sustain the rejection of claims 14
and 15.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-12 and 16-21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kraft, Bussing, and Gysling.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 3 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Kraft, Bussing, Gysling, and Dean.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kraft, Bussing, Gysling, and Shuler.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. §
1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Klh