Ex Parte Bosselmann et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 21, 2012

10533014 (B.P.A.I. May. 21, 2012)

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.
10/533,014 04/28/2005 Thomas Bosselmann 2002P12570W0US 1667
28524 7590 05/22/2012
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
170 WOOD AVENUE SOUTH
ISELIN, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
VALONE, THOMAS F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2858
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/22/2012 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 THOMAS BOSSELMANN, FRANZ EIERMANN,
HANS-PETER HEINDEL, and WILFRIED SCHNELL
____________

Appeal 2009-015069
Application 10/533,014
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, ERIC B. CHEN, and BRUCE R. WINSOR,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-015069
Application 10/533,014

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 21-25 and 27-41, which are all the claims remaining in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a turbo engine with a condition
measuring element. Title.

Representative Claim
21. A turbo engine, comprising:

a plurality of rotor blades made of an electrically
conducting material having an electrically insulating surface
and arranged on a rotor shaft that is rotatably mounted in a
housing and electrically connected to a reference potential or a
plurality of fixed guide vanes made of an electrically
conducting material having an electrically insulating surface
with the electrically conducting material of the guide vanes
electrically connected to the reference potential;

a measuring element operating in a kilohertz frequency
range for measuring an electric or magnetic field strength set up
by a charge distribution on the electrically insulating surface of
the rotor blades or guide vanes and for generating a signal
indicative of the electric or magnetic field strength, wherein the
strength of the electric or magnetic field is indicative of a level
of wear or a defect that can arise in the electrically insulating
surface;

wherein the measuring element is arranged near a
radially disposed row of the rotor blades or near a radially
Appeal 2009-015069
Application 10/533,014

3
disposed row of the guide vanes, and further wherein the
frequency range is based on a rotational speed of the turbo
engine and the number of rotor blades per row or the number of
guide vanes per row; and

a monitoring unit for determining when the signal
deviates from a threshold being defined responsive to at least
one of a load condition of the turbo engine and a location of the
rotor blades or the guide vanes relative to an outlet of the turbo
engine.

Prior Art
Ding US 4,804,905 Feb. 14, 1989
Strangman US 5,514,482 May 7, 1996
Deegan US 5,552,711 Sep. 3, 1996
IEEE Interharmonic Task Force, Interharmonics in Power Systems, 2
POWER ENG’G SOC’Y SUMMER MEETING 813 (1997) [hereinafter IEEE].

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 21-25, 27-36, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ding, Strangman, and Deegan.
Claims 37-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ding, Strangman, Deegan, and IEEE.

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 21.

PRINCIPAL ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Ding,
Strangman, and Deegan teaches
Appeal 2009-015069
Application 10/533,014

4
a measuring element . . . for measuring an electric or
magnetic field strength set up by a charge distribution on the
electrically insulating surface of the rotor blades or guide vanes
and for generating a signal indicative of the electric or magnetic
field strength, wherein the strength of the electric or magnetic
field is indicative of a level of wear or a defect that can arise in
the electrically insulating surface
as recited in claim 21?

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that Ding does not teach a turbo engine that
includes a measuring element for measuring an electric or magnetic field
strength set up by a charge distribution on the electrically insulating surface
of the rotor blades or guide vanes, where the strength of the electric or
magnetic field obtained by the measuring element is indicative of a level of
wear or a defect that can arise in the electrically insulating surface. App.
Br. 5. In particular, Appellants contend that Ding’s gap sensor has nothing
to do with a charge distribution on the electrically insulating surface or the
rotor blades or guide vanes that form an electric or magnetic field indicative
of a level of wear or a defect that can arise in the electrically insulating
surface. App. Br. 6.
Claim 21 recites
a measuring element . . . for measuring an electric or
magnetic field strength set up by a charge distribution on the
electrically insulating surface of the rotor blades or guide vanes
and for generating a signal indicative of the electric or magnetic
field strength, wherein the strength of the electric or magnetic
field is indicative of a level of wear or a defect that can arise in
the electrically insulating surface.
Appeal 2009-015069
Application 10/533,014

5
The Examiner finds that using the electrically insulated blades of
Strangman in the turbo engine of Ding results in charge retention that
improves sensor performance. Ans. 5. Appellants have not provided
evidence or persuasive argument to rebut the Examiner’s finding that
replacing the blades of Ding with the electrically insulated blades of
Strangman would allow the sensor of Ding to measure the capacitance (or
“electric field strength”) between the insulated surface of the blades and the
casing. We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Ding and
Strangman teaches “a measuring element . . . for measuring an electric or
magnetic field strength set up by a charge distribution on the electrically
insulating surface of the rotor blades or guide vanes and for generating a
signal indicative of the electric or magnetic field strength” within the
meaning of claim 21.
The Examiner finds that the capacitive measurement of the rotor
clearance is related to a wear condition. Ans. 4. Appellants have not
provided evidence or persuasive argument to rebut the Examiner’s finding.
We agree with the Examiner that the capacitive measurement of the rotor
clearance teaches “the strength of the electric or magnetic field is indicative
of a level of wear or a defect that can arise in the electrically insulating
surface” within the meaning of claim 21.
Appellants contend that Deegan does not teach spectrum analysis of
the electromagnetic signal and filtering in the kilohertz frequency range.
Reply Br. 1-4. However, Ding teaches this feature. See Ans. 3. Even if
Deegan does not teach this feature, we find that the combination of Ding and
Strangman teaches the claimed “measuring element.”
Appeal 2009-015069
Application 10/533,014

6
Appellants are attempting to distinguish the turbo engine recited in
claim 21 from the prior art based on the function of “measuring” the claimed
signal. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or
functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the
prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d
1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch &
Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990) “[A]pparatus claims cover
what a device is, not what a device does” (emphasis in original). Here, the
claim term “measuring an electric or magnetic field strength” does not recite
a structural limitation of the claimed “measuring element.” Appellants have
not identified any structural limitation of the “turbo engine” that
distinguishes claim 21 from the prior art.
We sustain the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants present arguments for patentability of claim 32 similar to those
presented for claim 21 which we find unpersuasive. App. Br. 8. Appellants
have not presented arguments for separate patentability of claims 22-25, 27-
31, and 33-41 which thus fall with claim 21.

Appeal 2009-015069
Application 10/533,014

7
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Ding,
Strangman, and Deegan teaches
a measuring element . . . for measuring an electric or
magnetic field strength set up by a charge distribution on the
electrically insulating surface of the rotor blades or guide vanes
and for generating a signal indicative of the electric or magnetic
field strength, wherein the strength of the electric or magnetic
field is indicative of a level of wear or a defect that can arise in
the electrically insulating surface
as recited in claim 21.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 21-25, 27-36, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ding, Strangman, and Deegan is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 37-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ding, Strangman, Deegan, and IEEE is affirmed.
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. §
41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

babc