Ex Parte Colman et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 11, 201511597836 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DEREK ALAN COLMAN and JAMES ADAM TOWNSEND1 ____________ Appeal 2013-003910 Application 11/597,836 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before CHUNG K. PAK, CHARLES F. WARREN, and KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. PAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision2 finally rejecting claims 1 through 9, which are all of the claims pending in the above-identified application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). STATEMENT OF THE CASE The subject matter on appeal is directed to a system and “a method for the monitoring and control of a process using computational fluid dynamics 1 The real party in interest is said to be BP Chemicals Limited, a corporation of the United Kingdom. (Appeal Brief filed August 14, 2012 (“App. Br.”) at 3.) 2 Final Action mailed February 17, 2012 (“Final Act.”) at 3‒8 and the Examiner’s Answer mailed November 16, 2012 (“Ans.”) at 3‒7. Appeal 2013-003910 Application 11/597,836 2 [(CFD)].” (Spec. 1, ll. 1‒2.) The system and method involve, inter alia, controlling a first process or a second process linked to the first process in response to a real-time simulation of one or more properties of the first process at a future time t1 generated from inputting to the computational fluid dynamics3 model data representing the situation at an initial time t0 on the feed to the first process. (Id. at 2, ll. 20‒28 and 3, ll. 4‒14.) The Specification defines the term “real-time simulation” as: [A] simulation from which the simulation output (simulation result) is available in a time period short enough to enable the process conditions to be predicted as, or faster than, they happen and thus controlled as necessary in response to the output; i.e., from data applicable at an initial time t0, the system is capable of calculating a property at a later time t1 and, if necessary, using that calculation to control the process (or a second process) at or before time t1. (Id. at 2, ll. 29‒32.) The Specification also states that: In order to generate a real-time simulation of one or more properties of said first process at a future time t1, the data on the feed must relate to the feed [fed] into the first process at a time t0 which is up to time t1, and may include, for example, feed rate and composition for all feed streams to be fed to the first process up to this time. (Id. at 3, ll. 23‒27.) 3 The term “computational fluid dynamics” is defined as “a well-known tool for modelling fluid flow, by utili[z]ing computational methods to solve the momentum and mass conservation equations governing fluid flow.” (Id. at 1, ll. 3‒5.) Appeal 2013-003910 Application 11/597,836 3 According to the Specification: The CFD model will generate a “property map” (or one or more property maps) which shows how the one or more properties vary within the first process, for example, a map of the concentration of a chemical reagent within a reaction vessel, or a map of the density of a fluid or component composition within a mixing vessel. (Id. at 5, l. 31‒6, l. 2.) Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in representative independent claims 1 and 7, which are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief: 1. A method for process control, said method comprising: (a) providing a computational fluid dynamics model of a first process, wherein said first process is a reaction in a reaction vessel or a mixing process in a mixing vessel, (b) inputting to the computational fluid dynamics model data on the feed to said first process, said data representing the situation at an initial time t0, (c) generating a real-time simulation of one or more properties of said first process at a future time, t1, using said computational fluid dynamics model, and (d) controlling said first process or a second process to which the first process is linked using the real-time simulation generated by said computational fluid dynamics model in step (c). 7. A control system for a process, which comprises: (a) a computer programmed to run a computational fluid dynamics model of a first process, wherein said first process is a reaction in a reaction vessel or a mixing process in a mixing vessel, (b) an input system for inputting to the computational fluid dynamics model, data on the feed to said first process, said data representing the situation at an initial time t0, such Appeal 2013-003910 Application 11/597,836 4 that the model generates a real-time simulation of one or more properties of said first process at a future time t1, and (c) a controller responsive to said simulation to use said simulation for control of said first process or for control of a second process to which the first process is linked. (App. Br. 18‒19 (emphasis added).) Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1‒9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Carr4 in view of Ueda.5 (App. Br. 9.) DISCUSSION Upon consideration of the evidence on this record in light of the arguments advanced by the Examiner and Appellants, we concur with Appellants that the Examiner has not carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness regarding the subject matter recited in claims 1‒9 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As explained by Appellants at pages 13 through 16 of the Appeal Brief and pages 1 through 4 of the Reply Brief, the Examiner has not shown that Ueda’s computational fluid dynamics model for use with an extractor or plants is suitable or useful for Carr’s real-time simulation of a process based on a different model (a set of complex mathematical equations) for controlling a complex chemical process, e.g., hydrocracking. On this record, the Examiner has not supplied any evidence or explanation to show that Ueda’s computational fluid dynamics model and Carr’s complex mathematical model are so similar that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to employ Ueda’s model 4 US 3,725,653 issued to Carr et al. on April 3, 1973 (“Carr”). 5 US 6,336,085 B1 issued to Ueda et al. on January 1, 2002 (“Ueda”). Appeal 2013-003910 Application 11/597,836 5 in the same manner taught by Carr to control Carr’s complex chemical process. (Final Act. 3–10; Ans. 4–15.) Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 1‒9 for the reasons set forth in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief. ORDER In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1‒9 is REVERSED. REVERSED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation