Ex Parte De Doncker

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 13, 2017

13060955 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2017)

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.
13/060,955 02/25/2011 Rik W.A.A. De Doncker 11385-PT-WO-US(JOST:0108) 2765
69590 7590
International IP Law Group
P.O. BOX 691927
HOUSTON, TX 77269-1927
01/18/2017 EXAMINER
NGUYEN, VIET P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2831
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/18/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing @ iiplg. com
barry.blount@iiplg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RIK W.A.A. DE DONCKER
Appeal 2015-007334
Application 13/060,9551
Technology Center 2800
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision2 finally rejecting claims 19, 20, and 23—37 in the above-identified
application. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies Rheinisch-Westfalisch-Technische Hochschule Aachen
as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2, Dec. 23, 2014.
2 Office Action, Aug. 5, 2014 [hereinafter Action]; Examiner’s Answer, June
3, 2015 [hereinafter Answer],
Appeal 2015-007334
Application 13/060,955
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention relates to reducing carbon dioxide emissions in
power plants that bum fossil fuels. See Spec. 1 8. Independent claim 19 is
representative:
19. A power plant in which a fossil fuel is used to
generate power, the power plant comprising:
a generator;
a turbine that drives the generator, which generates
electricity;
a separator with which carbon dioxide is separated out of
exhaust gas of the power plant; and
a compressor with which the separated carbon dioxide is
liquefied, the compressor being coupled to an electric drive for
driving the compressor;
the generator supplies its generated electricity to an
alternating-voltage medium voltage network;
wherein the electric drive is connected to the alternating-
voltage medium voltage network in order to obtain its electric
power, and
wherein the electric drive has a rated output that is
approximately 5% of a rated output of the power plant.
Corrected Appeal Br. 3, Feb. 26, 2015 (emphasis added). Independent
claims 36 and 37 contain similar limitations. See id. at 5—6.
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 19, 20, 23—26, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the Applicant’s admitted prior art
(“AAPA”) in view of Jensen.3 See Action 2—6.
3 Davis Jensen, U.S. Patent No. 6,066,898 (issued May 23, 2000).
2
Appeal 2015-007334
Application 13/060,955
2. Claims 27—33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jensen in view of Richards.4 See Action 6—8.
3. Claims 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jensen in view of Richards and Teichmann.5 See
Action 8—9.
4. Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jensen in view of Teichmann. See Action 9—11.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues independent claims 19 and 37
based on substantially the same grounds, and makes no separate arguments
regarding dependent claims 20, 23, 28—33, or independent claim 36. See
Appeal Br. 6—14. Appellant presents additional substantive arguments for
dependent claims 24—26. See id. at 10-13. Appellant also argues that
Richards and Teichmann do not remedy the alleged deficiencies in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 19. See id. at 11—13. Therefore, we limit our
discussion to claims 19 and 24—26. Dependent claims 20, 23, and 29-35,
and independent claims 36 and 37 stand or fall with claim 19. Dependent
claims 27 and 28 stand or fall with claim 26, from which they depend.
4 Bryn Richards, Inf 1 Patent Pub. No. WO 2008/068453 A1 (published June
12, 2008), published as U.S. Patent Application Pub.
No. US 2010/0018203 A1 (published Jan. 28, 2010).
5 Ralph Teichmann, U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 2007/0100506 A1
(published May 3, 2007).
3
Appeal 2015-007334
Application 13/060,955
DISCUSSION
Claim 19
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 primarily relies on the AAPA, as
reflected in Figure 2 and the corresponding text of the Specification. See
Action 2—3; Answer 3—5. Figure 2 is reproduced below:
200
Figure 2 shows “a schematic block diagram of a conventional power plant
with CO2 sequestration.” Spec. 129. The plant 200 bums fossil fuel 103 to
drive a steam turbine 102, and a generator 105 converts the mechanical
energy to electricity, which, via an alternating-voltage medium voltage
network 106 and a high-voltage transformer 107, is fed to a transmission line
108. See id. 127. The plant diverts steam 207 from the turbine 102 to
power an auxiliary turbine 206, which drives a compressor 204 that liquefies
4
Appeal 2015-007334
Application 13/060,955
CO2 stream 203 that has been separated from the plant’s exhaust gas 111.
See id. 1130-31.
The Examiner finds that the AAPA teaches all the limitations of claim
19, except for the following:
f. the compressor being coupled to an electric drive for driving
the compressor;
g. wherein the electric drive is connected to the alternating-volt­
age medium voltage network in order to obtain its electric power;
and
h. wherein the electric drive has a rated output that is approxi­
mately 5% of a rated output of the power plant.
Action 3. However, the Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine limitations f, g,
and h with the AAPA, in light of the teachings of Jensen. See Action 3^4;
Answer 3—5. Figure 1 of Jensen is reproduced below:
5
Appeal 2015-007334
Application 13/060,955
Figure 1 is a block diagram of a microturbine power generating system.
Jensen 1:66—67. The system includes a turbine 14, a compressor 12, and an
electrical generator 16. See id. at 2:10-20. The turbine 14 is powered by the
hot exhaust gases from a combustor 24, which is fed with gaseous fuel from
a compressor 25, which is driven by an electric motor 25a. See id. at 2:38—
52, 3:20—22. Motor 25a is powered by a battery 46 from which DC is
converted to AC by either a main inverter 40 (in startup mode) or a
secondary inverter 48a (in run mode). See id. at 3:12—27, 59-67.
The Examiner finds that Jensen teaches that a compressor (25) may be
driven by an electric drive (25a).6 See Action 3; Answer 3—5. The Examiner
also finds that “one of ordinary skill in the art would replace the power
source of Jensen with the power source of AAPA since the alternating-
voltage medium voltage network provides more power and would not have
to be recharged.” Answer 5. Regarding the limitation in claim 19 that “the
electric drive has a rated output that is approximately 5% of a rated output of
the power plant,” Corr. Appeal Br. 3, the Examiner finds that the sizing of
the electric drive is a result effective variable, and that it would have been
6 The Examiner identifies the “electric drive” in Jensen as the electric motor
25a. See Action 3. This is consistent with Appellant’s summary of claimed
subject matter in the Appeal Brief, which identifies electric motor 303 as an
electric drive. See Appeal Br. 3. It is also consistent with the original claim
1, which makes the same identification. See Spec. 17. Alternatively, the
Specification indicates that the converter 301, inverter 302, and electric
machine 303 may collectively be considered an electric drive. See Spec.
138. Therefore, we interpret the phrase “electric drive” broadly, as
including either an electric drive alone, or in combination with a converter
and inverter. See In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (during prosecution, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification).
6
Appeal 2015-007334
Application 13/060,955
discovered by routine optimization by a person of ordinary skill in the art,
who “would have been motivated to do so to control the output of the
compressor . . . and to optimally use the output of the generator to maximize
the performance of the electric drive.” Action 3^4 (citing Jensen 4:13—21).
Appellant argues that neither Jensen nor the AAPA discloses an
electric drive that obtains its electrical power from an alternating-voltage
medium voltage network. See Appeal Br. 8. Moreover, Appellant argues
that neither the AAPA nor Jensen discloses any service use of an alternating-
voltage medium voltage network. See Reply Br. 2. According to Appellant,
[w]hen combining the teaching of AAPA and Jensen, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would connect the rectifier (38) inverter
(40) combination of Jensen in accordance with the teaching of
AAPA in combination with the teaching of Jensen directly to the
generator (105) to supply electrical energy from the main turbine
to the motor 25a, which may drive a compressor (204).
Reply Br. 2 (emphasis added).
Appellant’s argument does not persuade us of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 19. The Examiner cites Jensen for teaching
the use of an electric drive to drive a compressor. See Answer 3—5. While
Jensen uses a battery 46 to power electric motor 25a, see Fig. 1, Appellant
has not pointed to persuasive evidence or technical reasoning to dispute the
Examiner’s finding that “one of ordinary skill in the art would replace the
power source of Jensen with the power source of AAPA since the
alternating-voltage medium voltage network provides more power and
would not have to be recharged.” A claimed invention is obvious if it
consists of a structure already known in the art that is altered by the mere
substitution of other elements known in the field, which do no more than
yield a predictable result. See KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
7
Appeal 2015-007334
Application 13/060,955
416 (2007). The preponderance of the evidence on this record shows that
the combination of the AAPA with the teaching of Jensen, and the
substitution of the battery of Jensen with the alternating-voltage medium
voltage network of the AAPA, would have yielded the predictable result of
providing more power to the compressor and avoiding the need to recharge.
See Answer 5. Moreover, because this is a desirable result, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution
when combining the teachings of Jensen with the AAPA.
Appellant further argues that neither the AAPA nor Jensen teaches that
the electric drive has a rated output of approximately 5% of the rated output
of the power plant, as required by claim 19. See Reply Br. 3. According to
Appellant, the claim limitations including the required 5% output rating
require the electric drive to be sized for high efficiency; however, inverter 40
of Jensen is for startup operation, and is therefore not designed to provide
efficient continuous operation. See Appeal Br. 9. Appellant also argues that
[e]ven in case of a motor 25a being able to be operated at a power
of 5% of the output of the power plant, the rated output of this
motor 25a might be much higher, resulting in a more expensive
component 25a being operated at conditions not optimized for
best energy efficiency.
Reply Br. 3 (emphasis added). These arguments are not persuasive of
reversible error, because the Examiner does not rely on Jensen to teach the
required output rating of claim 19. See Action 3^4. Appellant does not
point to persuasive evidence or technical reasoning disputing the Examiner’s
findings, see Action 3—4, that the electric drive’s output rating is a result
effective variable, and that a 5% output rating would have been the result of
routine optimization by a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
8
Appeal 2015-007334
Application 13/060,955
Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (“[DJiscovery of an optimum value of a result
effective variable ... is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”)
Next, Appellant argues that the compressor disclosed in Jensen is not
used for liquefying carbon dioxide, but is instead a gaseous fuel compressor.
See Appeal Br. 9. However, the Examiner cites the AAPA, not Jensen, for its
teaching that the compressor liquefies carbon dioxide. Answer 4—5.
Therefore, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. See In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not
whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references.
Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”)
Finally, Appellant argues that the prior art teaches away from the
combination of Jensen and the AAPA because Jensen “is related to
microturbines operating in a low voltage range.” Appeal Br. 10. According
to Appellant, “Layouts for such turbines are not appropriate to be applied in
power plants providing electrical power to a supply grid. In fact, such power
plants operate via a medium-voltage internal network, which uses voltages
of 1—2 magnitudes higher than used in microturbines.” Id. This argument is
not persuasive of reversible error because the Examiner cites Jensen for the
teaching that a compressor may be driven by an electric motor. See Answer
5. Again, the test for obviousness is not whether the layout for the
microturbine disclosed by Jensen may be bodily incorporated into the
AAPA. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
9
Appeal 2015-007334
Application 13/060,955
For the above reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us that the
Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 19. For the same reasons, we
are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejections of claims 20, 23, 29—
33, 36, and 37.
Claims 24—28
Claim 24 depends from claim 19, and also includes “a converter that
is connected to the alternating-voltage medium-voltage network in order to
generate direct current that is converted by an inverter into an alternating
voltage for purposes of supplying the electric drive of the compressor with
energy.” Corr. Appeal Br. 3^4. Claims 25—27 depend directly or indirectly
from claim 24, and specify further structural features relating to the
converter. See id. at 4. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 24 because the converter (rectifier) 38 in Jensen “is clearly not
connected to the alternating-voltage medium-voltage network.” Appeal Br.
10. We do not find this argument persuasive because, as discussed above,
the preponderance of the evidence on this record supports the Examiner’s
finding, see Answer 5, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
substituted the alternating-voltage medium voltage network 106 of the
AAPA for the battery 46 of Jensen.
Claim 25 requires that “the converter is an active rectifier.” Corr.
Appeal Br. 4. The Examiner finds that “passive and active rectifiers are
known in the art and it is known in the art to use active rectifiers in
combination with alternating-voltage medium voltage network.” Answer 5.
Appellant argues that Jensen does not specify whether or not rectifier 38 is
active or passive, and that unlike at medium voltages, active rectifiers are
not necessary in the context of a low-voltage system. Appeal Br. 10. We do
10
Appeal 2015-007334
Application 13/060,955
not find this argument persuasive of reversible error. Jensen teaches the use
of a rectifier, and the Specification states that active rectifiers “are nowadays
the preferred methodology when it comes to variable electric drives in the
medium-voltage range.” Spec. 133. Thus, the preponderance of the
evidence supports the finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have used an active rectifier when combining an electric drive with the
AAPA.
Claim 26 requires that “the converter and the inverter are connected to
each other via a direct-current medium-voltage network.” Corr. Appeal Br.
4. The Examiner finds that Jensen teaches a DC network connecting
rectifier 38 to inverter 40, see Action 5, and that this DC network would be
in the medium voltage range when the power source of Jensen is substituted
with the alternating-voltage medium voltage network disclosed by the
AAPA, see Answer 6. Appellant argues that because Jensen only generates
low voltage with a microturbine, the DC connection between rectifier 38 and
inverter 40 would be a low-voltage DC connection, rather than a medium-
voltage DC connection. See Appeal Br. 11. We do not find this argument
persuasive of reversible error because, as discussed above, the Examiner
relies on the AAPA for its teaching of a medium-voltage AC network. The
test for obviousness is not whether all the features of Jensen, such as the
chosen voltage range, may be incorporated into the AAPA, but rather “what
the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art.” Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
For the above reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 24—26. For the same reasons, we are not
persuaded of reversible error in the rejections of claims 27 and 28.
11
Appeal 2015-007334
Application 13/060,955
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2016).
AFFIRMED
12