Ex Parte Laskaris et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2016

12287813 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2016)

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.
12/287,813 10/14/2008 Evangelos Trifon Laskaris 227239-1 1194
6147 7590 12/23/2016
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GLOBAL RESEARCH
ONE RESEARCH CIRCLE
BLDG. K1-3A59
NISKAYUNA, NY 12309
EXAMINER
MENGESHA, WEBESHET
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2016 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):
haeckl@ge.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
Lori.e.rooney @ ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EVANGELOS TRIFON LASKARIS,
JAMES PELLEGRINO ALEXANDER,
KIRUBA SIVASUBRAMANIAM, and TAO ZHANG
Appeal 2014-004944
Application 12/287,813
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, JAMES J. MAYBERRY, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Evangelos Trifon Laskaris et al. (Appellants) seek our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final rejections of claims 1—6, 8—13, and
15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2014-004944
Application 12/287,813
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a high temperature superconducting
magnet. Spec. 11. Claims 1 and 9 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A high temperature superconducting (HTS) magnet
comprising:
a HTS magnet coil disposed within a cryostat;
a thermo-siphon cooling system comprising a liquid
cryogen, the cooling system configured to indirectly conduction
cool the HTS magnet coil by nucleate boiling of the liquid
cryogen that is circulated by thermo-siphon in a cooling tube
attached to a heat exchanger bonded to the outside surface of the
HTS magnet coil; and
a supply dewar comprising a re-condenser cryocooler
coldhead configured to recondense boiloff vapors generated
during the nucleate boiling process, wherein the HTS magnet coil
and cooling tube are thermally insulated and mechanically
suspended inside the cryostat solely via a single horizontal
cantilever fiber reinforced composite shell, the cantilever
attached to the cryostat at one end and to the HTS magnet coil at
its other end.
Appeal Br. 10, Claims App.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
REFERENCES
appeal is:
Dorri
Xu
US 4,926,647 May 22, 1990
US 5,668,516 Sept. 16, 1997
US 2007/0001521 A1 Jan. 4, 2007
US 2008/0115510 A1 May 22, 2008
US 2008/0148756 A1 June 26, 2008
Kruip
Crowley
Oomen
2
Appeal 2014-004944
Application 12/287,813
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 11, and 121 2stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kruip and Oomen.
II. Claims 3 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kruip, Oomen, and Xu.
III. Claims 5 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kruip, Oomen, and Dorri.
IV. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kruip, Oomen, and Crowley.
V. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kruip, Oomen, and Crowley.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “wherein the HTS
magnet coil and cooling tube are thermally insulated and mechanically
suspended inside the cryostat solely via a single horizontal cantilever fiber
reinforced composite shell, the cantilever attached to the cryostat at one end
and to the HTS magnet coil at its other end.” Appeal Br. 10, Claims App.
Independent claim 9 recites a similar wherein clause: “wherein the HTS
magnet coil and thermos-siphon cooling coil are thermally insulated and
1 We note that claim 12 is not expressly identified in any of the five
rejections put forth by the Examiner. The subject matter of claim 12 is
identical to that of claim 2, except claim 12 depends from claim 9 and claim
2 depends from claim 1. We assume, for the purposes of this decision, that
Rejection I should have included claim 12. As we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection, Appellants are not prejudiced by this apparent typographical error.
3
Appeal 2014-004944
Application 12/287,813
mechanically suspended inside the cryostat solely via a single horizontal
cantilever fiber reinforced composite shell, the cantilever attached to the
cryostat at one end and to the HTS magnet coil at its other end.” Id. at 11,
Claims App. The Examiner finds that Kruip discloses much of the subject
matter of claims 1 and 9, except for the above-quoted claim limitations.
Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner further finds that “Oomen [referring to figure
1] teaches the well-known concept of surrounding a magnet superconducting
device [102] of a superconducting magnet assembly [illustrated in figure 1]
with a thermal insulation [heat shield 112] within a cryostat [108].” Id. at 3.
The Examiner concludes that:
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to have modified the apparatus
of Kruip to be disposed inside a cryostat, to be suspended by a
single horizontal beam and to be insulated as taught by Oomen
in order to properly secure the apparatus to a sturdy structure
and to prevent the liquid neon from rapidly evaporating.
Id. The Examiner further concludes that:
the general concept of suspending a magnetic superconducting
device via a horizontal beam inside of a cryostat falls within the
realm of common knowledge as obvious mechanical expedient
and is illustrated by Oomen which teaches the suspending of a
magnetic superconducting device [102] via a horizontal beam
[the horizontal beam disposed on top of heat shield 112] within
a cryostat [108] and one having ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to include the use of mechanically
suspending the HTS magnetic coil inside the cryostat solely via
a single horizontal cantilever fiber reinforced composite shell,
attaching the cryostat to the cantilever at one end and to the
HTS magnet coil at other end at the cantilever in order to
properly secure the apparatus to a sturdy structure, thus
reducing the vibration caused by the operation of the
superconducting magnet.
Id.
4
Appeal 2014-004944
Application 12/287,813
The Examiner explains that Oomen discloses a horizontal beam
disposed on top of heat shield 112, which is within (and connected to)
cryostat 108. Answer 8. The Examiner further explains that Oomen’s
horizontal beam is connected to superconducting device 102 at one end and
cryostat 108 at the other end. Id. The Examiner states that, because
Oomen’s superconducting element 102 is suspended within cryostat 108, a
person having ordinary skill would have been motivated to place Kruip’s
magnetic coil and thermos-siphon tube into Oomen’s cryostat to prevent the
liquid neon from rapidly evaporating. Id.
Appellants contend that Oomen fails to teach or suggest a horizontal
cantilever fiber reinforced composite shell that mechanically suspends a
superconducting magnetic device. Appeal Br. 6. Appellants first take
exception to the Examiner’s finding that Oomen discloses a horizontal beam
that suspends superconducting device 102. Id. Appellants argue that
Oomen’s heat shield 112 is supported by a fixture with a rectangular cross
section with a hole in its center, not a horizontal beam. Id.
Appellants next argue that, even if Oomen teaches a horizontal beam
that suspends heat shield 112, the beam is not “a single horizontal cantilever
fiber reinforced composite shell, the cantilever attached to the cryostat at
one end and to the HTS magnet coil at its other end as is recited in current
independent claims 1 and 9.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellants explain that:
a cantilever is a very specific mechanical structure with only
one end fixed and the other end free. A horizontal beam, on the
other hand, is a completely different structure with both ends
fixed and thus may not be equated with a cantilever beam even
though both may be horizontal.
Id.
5
Appeal 2014-004944
Application 12/287,813
In response to this specific argument, the Examiner states that “the
horizontal beam of Oomen has a horizontal component that is longer than its
vertical component and has a cantilever structure since the top outer ends of
the horizontal beam are free.” Answer 8. In reply, Appellants contend that
the Examiner has unreasonably interpreted the term “cantilever” to
encompass Oomen’s beam disposed on top of heat shield 112. Reply 5—6.
Appellants’ argument informs us of Examiner error, as the Examiner
has failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Oomen
discloses the recited “single horizontal cantilever fiber reinforced composite
shell” of independent claims 1 and 9. We reproduce an annotated version of
Oomen’s Figure 1, below:
The figure above depicts a cross-section of Oomen’s refrigeration apparatus.
Oomen 132. We added an annotation to indicate the structure the Examiner
identifies as Oomen’s horizontal beam, as the structure does not have a
6
Appeal 2014-004944
Application 12/287,813
reference numeral.2 Oomen’s Figure 1 illustrates part 102, which may be
the magnet windings of a superconducting magnet, within heat shield 112,
which is, in turn, within cryostat 108. Id. at 139.
As seen above, Oomen’s horizontal beam is not a cantilever that
mechanical suspends a superconducting magnet and cooling tube or coil as
required by claims 1 and 9. Claims 1 and 9 require the cantilever to be
attached to a cryostat at one end, with the free end supporting/suspending the
magnet and cooling tube or coil. The Examiner fails to adequately explain
how Oomen’s beams are cantilevered such that they include a free end that
supports or suspends the magnet and cooling tube or coil. The Examiner’s
conclusory finding that “the horizontal beam of Oomen is connected to
superconducting device 102 at one end and cryostat 108 at the other end”
(Ans. 7) is not supported by a preponderance of evidence. The Examiner
has not identified any element that is connected to cryostat 108 at one end
and to superconducting device 102 at the other end, and paragraph 42 of
Oomen, which is cited by the Examiner, does not describe this feature either.
For the reason above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Kruip and Oomen. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4,
6, 11, and 12 for at least the reason that these claims depend directly from
either claim 1 or claim 9.
2 Although the Examiner does not provide an annotation of Oomen’s Figure
1, we determine that the structure(s) we identify is the horizontal beam relied
on by the Examiner because the Examiner finds that the horizontal beam is
“disposed on top of heat shield 112” and the structure(s) we identify are the
only structure(s) that are disposed on top of heat shield 112. See Final Act.
7; Answer 8.
7
Appeal 2014-004944
Application 12/287,813
Rejections II—V
The Examiner rejects a) claims 3 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kruip and Oomen, as applied to claims 1 and 9, and
Xu (Rejection II); b) claims 5 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kruip and Oomen, as applied to claims 1 and 9, and Dorri
(Rejection III); c) claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Kruip and Oomen, as applied to claim 1, and Crowley (Rejection IV);
and d) claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kruip
and Oomen, as applied to claim 9, and Crowley (Rejection V). See Final
Act. 4—6. Claims 3, 5, 8, 10, 13, and 15 depend directly from either claim 1
or claim 9. See Appeal Br. 10-11, Claims App. In each of these rejections,
the Examiner relies on the same deficient finding with respect to Oomen
teaching the cantilever of claims 1 and 9 discussed above in connection with
our analysis of Rejection I. Further, the Examiner does not explain how Xu,
Dorri, or Crowley remedy the deficiency. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 3, 5, 8, 10, 13, and 15,
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—6, 8—13, and 15.
REVERSED
8