Ex Parte Kölscheid et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 24, 2017

13375821 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 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.
13/375,821 02/13/2012 Hans-Gerd Kolscheid 2009P06985WOUS 9408
22116 7590 08/28/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
KING, BRIAN M
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2017 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):
IPDadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HANS-GERD KOLSCHEID and KLAUS PETERS
Appeal 2016-001360
Application 13/375,821
Technology Center 3700
Before THOMAS F. SMEGAL, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Hans-Gerd Kolscheid and Klaus Peters (Appellants)1 seek our review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s rejections2 of claims 14—26.3 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Siemens
Aktiengesellschaft. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Appeal is taken from the adverse decision of the Examiner as set forth in
the Final Office Action, dated October 22, 2014 (“Final Act.”).
3 Claims 1—13 have been canceled.
Appeal 2016-001360
Application 13/375,821
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 14, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below and
illustrates the claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations emphasized.
14. An arrangement for liquefying natural gas,
comprising:
a gas turbine unit comprising a gas turbine compressor,
a steam turbine unit,
a first compressor unit,
a shiftable clutch,
a fired steam generator for supplying the steam turbine
unit with steam, and a second compressor unit,
wherein the steam turbine unit and the first compressor
unit have a common, rigidly connected first shaft assembly,
wherein the gas turbine unit and the second compressor
unit have a common rigidly connected second shaft assembly,
and
wherein the first shaft assembly and the second shaft
assembly are operable to be connected to and disconnected from
each other via the clutch.
REJECTIONS
The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 14, 15, 19-22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kolscheid (EP 1 903 189 Al, pub. Mar. 26,
2008) and Marushima (US 2008/0289337 Al, pub. Nov. 27, 2008).4
2. Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kolscheid, Marushima, and Krieger (US 3,964,891, iss.
June 22, 1976).
3. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
4 We correct the inadvertent omission of claims 20 and 22 from this
grouping. See Final Act. 3^4.
2
Appeal 2016-001360
Application 13/375,821
over Kolscheid, Marushima, and Meiller (US 2,550,844, iss. May 1, 1951).
4. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kolscheid, Marushima, and Blatter (US 6,952,926 B2, iss. Oct. 11,
2005).
5. Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kolscheid, Marushima, and Barnes (US 1,880,066, iss.
Sept. 27, 1932).
ANALYSIS
First Ground of Rejection: Obviousness of Claims 14, 15, 19—22, and
26 over Kolscheid and Marushima
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 14, 15, 19-22, and 26 over Kolscheid and Marushima.
See Appeal Br. 7—11; Reply Br. 4—8.
In rejecting claim 14, the Examiner finds that Kolscheid teaches an
arrangement for liquefying natural gas including, inter alia, a gas turbine
unit, a steam turbine unit, and “a fired steam generator for supplying the
steam turbine unit with steam.” Final Act. 2 (citing Kolscheid, Figs. 1, 4).
The Examiner also finds that “Marushima teaches a system where both a
steam turbine and a gas turbine can be connected via a clutch.” Id. at 3.
Based on the foregoing findings, the Examiner concludes that it would be
obvious “to combine the invention of K[o]lscheid with that of Marushima to
have a shiftable clutch.” Id.
In contesting the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 as obvious over
Kolscheid and Marushima, Appellants contend that “nothing in K[d]lscheid
teaches or suggests the use of a fired steam generator for supplying steam to
3
Appeal 2016-001360
Application 13/375,821
the steam turbine unit,” pointing out that “[ijnstead, K[d]lscheid discloses a
heat recovery steam generator (‘HRSG’).” Appeal Br. 9.
In response, the Examiner merely contends that “[pjaragraph 8 of
K[o]lscheid clearly states that the exhaust gas of the gas turbine can be used
in a steam generating system to fire a waste heat boiler to generate the
required steam for the steam turbine.” Ans. 9. However, the Examiner does
not inform us where Kolscheid discloses the use of a fired steam generator
for supplying steam to the steam turbine unit.
As Appellants explain,
persons of ordinary skill in the art, e.g., K[d]lscheid, would
appreciate the significant differences between a heat recovery
steam generator (“HRSG”) and the claimed fired steam
generator, as both are not one in the same, and to simply
substitute out generators without disclosing how the substitution
would work demonstrates a lack of understanding of the
differences between the two generators.[5]
Reply Br. 7. Thus, we find that the Examiner’s legal conclusion of
obviousness is not supported by evidence, and cannot stand. See In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (holding that “[t]he legal
conclusion of obviousness must be supported by facts. Where the legal
conclusion is not supported by facts it cannot stand.” (footnote omitted)).
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 14, 15, 19-22, and 26 over Kolscheid and Marushima.
5 See Spec. 121 (describing the arrangement for liquefying natural gas to
involve a transition from a fired steam generator AUXSTG to a waste heat
recovery steam generator HRSG).
4
Appeal 2016-001360
Application 13/375,821
Second through Fifth Ground of Rejections; Obviousness of Claims
16 and 17 over Kolscheid, Marushima, and Krieger; of Claim 18 over
Kolscheid, Marushima, and Meiller; of Claim 23 over Kolscheid,
Marushima, and Blatter; and of Claims 24 and 25 over Kolscheid,
Marushima, and Barnes
The rejections of claims 16 and 17 over Kolscheid, Marushima, and
Krieger; of claim 18 over Kolscheid, Marushima, and Meiller; of claim 23
over Kolscheid, Marushima, and Blatter; and of claims 24 and 25 over
Kolscheid, Marushima, and Barnes are based on the same unsupported
findings discussed above with respect to Kolscheid and must be reversed for
similar reasons.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections.
REVERSED
5