Ex Parte Harper

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 27, 2009

09916548 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
____________________ 2
3
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4
AND INTERFERENCES 5
____________________ 6
7
Ex parte CHARLES N. HARPER 8
____________________ 9
10
Appeal 2009-0549 11
Application 09/916,548 12
Technology Center 3600 13
____________________ 14
15
Decided:1 March 30, 2009 16
____________________ 17
18
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and DAVID B. 19
WALKER, Administrative Patent Judges. 20
21
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. 22
23
24
DECISION ON APPEAL 25
26
STATEMENT OF THE CASE27

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2009-0549
Application 09/916,548

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection 1
of claims 21 to 42. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). 2
Appellant invented a system and method for supporting decisions 3
related to electricity production by power generation facilities that also 4
sustain industrial production (Specification 1). 5
Claim 21 under appeal reads as follows: 6
7
21. A computer-implemented method for 8
identifying an excess energy capacity in a 9
production supply chain operated by a supply 10
chain operator, comprising: 11
identifying, by a supply chain optimizer, a 12
potential production configuration for the 13
production supply chain, wherein: 14
(i) the supply chain operator also operates at 15
least one power generation facility to sustain 16
industrial production by the production supply 17
chain, 18
(ii) the supply chain operator is capable of 19
both consuming and selling electricity produced by 20
the power generation facility while operating the 21
production supply chain, 22
(iii) the potential production configuration is 23
related to a target electricity production by the 24
power generation facility, and 25
(iv) the potential production configuration 26
reduces a production output and energy 27
consumption for at least some portion of the 28
production supply chain or increases electricity 29
production by the power generation facility during 30
a given time period; 31
determining, using a potential action 32
valuation model, whether to reduce the production 33
output of the production supply chain or increase 34
electricity production by the power generation 35
Appeal 2009-0549
Application 09/916,548

3
facility according to the potential production 1
configuration to create the excess energy capacity 2
during the time period; and 3
if production output is determined to be 4
reduced or electricity production by the power 5
generation facility is determined to be increased, 6
selling the excess energy capacity created by 7
implementing the potential production 8
configuration during the time period for the 9
production supply chain and the power generation 10
facility. 11
12
The Examiner rejected claims 21 to 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as 13
being anticipated by Takriti. 14
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on 15
appeal is: 16
Takriti US 6,021,402 Feb. 1, 2000 17
18
ISSUE 19
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Takriti 20
discloses a method which includes a supply chain operator that operates at 21
least one power generation facility to sustain industrial production by the 22
supply chain and the step of determining whether to reduce supply chain 23
production or increase electricity production in order to create excess 24
energy? 25
26
FINDINGS OF FACT 27
Appellant discloses that changes in regulations have altered the value 28
of industrial power generation facilities which have been used in production 29
Appeal 2009-0549
Application 09/916,548

4
support for operations that require large amounts of electrical power such as 1
oil field electric pump networks, refineries, and iron production facilities 2
(Specification 1). These changes in regulations make it possible for 3
companies that have electrical generation capacity to sell the excess energy 4
not needed for production. There is a need according to the Appellant for a 5
decision support system and method for handling the problems arising from 6
changing the strategic importance of electrical generation facilities from 7
solely production support to potential profit centers with additional electrical 8
customers (Specification 2). In Appellant’s claimed invention a supply 9
chain operator operates at least one power generation facility to sustain 10
industrial production by the production supply chain. A determination is 11
made whether to reduce production output of the production supply chain or 12
increase electricity production to create excess energy capacity. 13
Takriti discloses a method for managing generating units 12 of an 14
electric utility which handles multiple fuel, fuel constraints, varying fuel 15
prices, power trading, and load uncertainty (col. 4, ll. 54 to 57). The system 16
allows the user to model accurately the uncertain trading transactions and the 17
changing fuel prices given many factors such as electric-load forecasts and 18
fuel prices, reserve requirements for the system, and estimate of the price of 19
electricity in the open market (col. 4, l. 64 to col. 5, l. 3). Takriti does not 20
disclose a supply chain operator that operates at least one power generation 21
facility to sustain industrial production by a production supply chain. 22
Appeal 2009-0549
Application 09/916,548

5
PRINCIPLES OF LAW 1
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in 2
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior 3
art reference. Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 4
(Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). 5
6
ANALYSIS 7
We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 8
102(b), because Takriti does not disclose a supply chain operator that 9
operates a generation facility to sustain industrial production of a production 10
supply chain. In this regard, we do not agree with the Examiner that element 11
12 depicted in Figure 2 is a production supply chain. Rather, element 12 is a 12
generating plant which is connected to transmission lines for delivery to 13
electrical power customers and to other utilities (col. 6, ll. 11 to 15). As 14
such, there is no step disclosed in Takriti of determining whether to reduce 15
production output or increase electricity production so as to create excess 16
energy capacity. 17
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection 18
of independent claim 21 and claims 22 to 26 dependent thereon. We will 19
also not sustain this rejection as it is directed to independent claims 28 and 20
35 and claims 29 to 34 and 36 to 42 dependent thereon because claims 28 21
and 35 also recite a supply chain operator and the determination step 22
regarding the industrial production output. 23
24
Appeal 2009-0549
Application 09/916,548

6
CONCLUSION OF LAW 1
On the record before us, Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred 2
in rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). 3
4
DECISION 5
The decision of the Examiner is REVERSED. 6
7
REVERSED 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
hh 17
18
AIR LIQUIDE 19
Intellectual Property 20
2700 POST OAK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1800 21
HOUSTON, TX 77056 22