Ex Parte GURR et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2017

13716835 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 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.
13/716,835 12/17/2012 Andreas GURR 32523U 3498
20529 7590 08/31/2017
NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER
Joshua Goldberg
112 South West Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
PANCHOLI, VISHAL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3754
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2017 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):
USPTO@nathlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREAS GURR,
GERRY SCHROTER, and ANDREAS PFEIFER1
Appeal 2016-001718
Application 13/716,835
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, JAMES P. CALVE, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Action
rejecting claims 1—3 and 6—17. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as SICK Engineering GmbH.
Appeal Br. 3. SICK Engineering GmbH also is the applicant. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(b).
Appeal 2016-001718
Application 13/716,835
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants disclose a device that conditions the flow of fluid such as a
gas or a liquid through a pipe to improve the measurements of the speed of
the fluid flow with minimum pressure loss. Spec. 1:4—17, 2:21—26.
Claims 1 and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A flow conditioner (1) for conditioning a fluid flow which
comprises the following:
- a pipe (9, 11) having a constriction (15) with a reduced
pipe cross-section;
- at least one ring-shaped element (21, 23) which is
arranged inside the pipe (9, 11) and which has an outer
diameter which is smaller than the inner diameter of the
pipe (9, 11) in the axial region of the pipe (9, 11) in
which the at least one ringshaped element is arranged;
and
- at least one areal web (25, 27) whose surface normal is
not in parallel to the axis (A) of the pipe (9, 11),
wherein a plurality of webs (25) are provided which are
tapered against a flow direction (3) and a plurality of
webs (27) are provided which are tapered in the flow
direction (3), and
wherein the webs (25) tapered against the flow direction
and the webs (27) tapered in the flow direction are
alternately arranged in the peripheral direction of the pipe
(9,11).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—3, 6—15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Speldrich (US 2005/0039809 Al, pub. Feb. 24, 2005) and
Eigenberger (EP 0063729 A2, pub. Nov. 3, 1982).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Speldrich, Eigenberger, and Houston (US 2002/0179166 Al, pub. Dec. 5,
2002).
2
Appeal 2016-001718
Application 13/716,835
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—3, 6—15, and 17 as
unpatentable over Speldrich and Eigenberger
The Examiner found that Speldrich discloses a flow conditioner, as
recited in independent claim 1, including a plurality of webs tapered in one
direction, but lacks a set of webs tapered against the flow direction with a set
of webs tapered in the flow direction. Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner found
that Eigenberger teaches a flow conditioner including a pipe with a plurality
of webs with one set of webs tapered against the flow direction and another
set of webs tapered in the flow direction 5, 6 in Figure 6. Id. The Examiner
determined that it would have been obvious to modify the flow conditioning
device of Speldrich to include this arrangement “to increase the conditioning
of the fluid passing through the device and to provide more turbulence in the
flow.” Id. at 3. The Examiner made similar findings for independent claim
15, which recites a system for measuring fluid flow in a pipe having plural
webs tapered with, and plural webs tapered against, the flow direction, as in
claim 1. Id. at 5—6 (not citing Eigenberger); Ans. 7—9 (citing Eigenberger).
Appellants argue that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated
to modify the flow restrictor of Speldrich with the teachings of Eigenberger
as the Examiner has proposed because Speldrich’s flow restrictor encourages
more laminar flow with less noise in the signal, whereas Eigenberger mixes
fluids across the entire cross section of the pipe intensively to amplify non-
laminar flow of the fluids. Br. 8—9. Appellants also argue that the webs of
the flow mixer of Eigenberger would not function properly in Speldrich’s
flow restrictor and would render Speldrich’s flow restrictor inoperable for its
intended purpose. Id. at 9. We agree.
3
Appeal 2016-001718
Application 13/716,835
The Examiner’s reason for modifying Speldrich’s flow restrictor to
include plural alternating webs of Eigenberger is not supported by a rational
underpinning. We are not persuaded that a skilled artisan would have been
motivated to do so “to increase the conditioning of the fluid passing through
the device [of Speldrich] and to provide more turbulence in the flow” (Final
Act. 3) when Speldrich teaches the desirability of providing less turbulence,
more laminar flow, and a more uniform velocity distribution to fluid flowing
through restrictor 55, so there is less noise in the sensor signal and readings
are more accurate. Speldrich 122. Speldrich also teaches the desirability of
having less separation and instability near the wall of the conditioner as a
beneficial way to reduce noise in the sensor signal. Id. 123. Thus, we are
not persuaded that “accurate readings can be obtained by the flow sensor [of
Speldrich] even with the flow restrictor of Eigenberger” as the Examiner
determined. Ans. 9. The Examiner found that Eigenberger produces a more
mixed flow with its plurality of webs that are oriented alternately in different
directions. Id. at 8—9. We agree with Appellants that this orientation would
undermine the purpose and ability of Speldrich to sense fluid flow because
the more turbulent, less laminar flow generated by Eigenberger’s inversion
device would produce more noise in the signal, which Speldrich teaches is
deleterious to obtaining a proper signal and flow measurement. Speldrich
12, 21. Eigenberger’s alternating webs invert the flow of fluid through a
pipe so fluid flowing along the walls is diverted inwardly and fluid flowing
though the center is diverted outwardly thereby improving the heat transfer
significantly. See Eigenberger H 11, 12 (English machine translation).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1—3, 6—15, and
17.
4
Appeal 2016-001718
Application 13/716,835
Claim 16 as unpatentable over
Speldrich, Eigenberger, and Houston
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s reliance on Houston to teach an
ultrasound measurement device in claim 16 does not overcome the failure of
Speldrich and Eigenberger to teach a plurality of webs tapered against the
flow direction or a plurality of webs tapered in the flow direction as required
by independent claim 15, from which claim 16 depends. Appeal Br. 10. We
agree. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 16.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1—3 and 6—17.
REVERSED
5