Ex Parte LehmannDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 19, 201613376898 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/376,898 04/12/2012 22116 7590 08/23/2016 SIEMENS CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230 Orlando, FL 32817 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Christoph Lehmann 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 2009P04773WOUS 6330 EXAMINER NGUYEN, VIET P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2831 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/23/2016 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): IPDadmin.us@siemens.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHRISTOPH LEHMANN Appeal2015-003957 Application 13/376,898 Technology Center 2800 Before PETER F. KRATZ, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2015-003957 Application 13/376,898 Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision2 finally rejecting claims 8, 9, and 12-143 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kandil et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,838,779 Bl, issued January 4, 2005 ("Kandil")). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. The invention relates to an arrangement for the turning operation of a turbogenerator that eliminates the need for an external hydraulic motor. Specification filed December 8, 2011 ("Spec."), 2. Claim 8 is representative of the invention, and reads as follows: 8. An arrangement, comprising: an electrical generator; a main exciter machine; an auxiliary exciter machine; a polyphase feeder; and a changeover switch, wherein the auxiliary exciter machine is designed to produce electrical voltage during normal operation and to be used as a turning motor during turning operation, 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Siemens Aktiengesellschaft. Appeal Brief filed October 22, 2014 ("App. Br."), 2. 2 Final Office Action mailed June 9, 2014. 3 In an Amendment After Final, filed July 31, 2014, Appellant amended claim 8 and cancelled claims 10 and 11. In an Advisory Action mailed August 7, 2014, the Examiner stated that these amendments would be entered, and identified the status of the claims as: "Claim(s) rejected: 8, 9 and 12-14." It is unclear, therefore, why the Appeal Brief identifies claims 8-13 as rejected and on appeal and claim 14 as cancelled (App. Br. 3-9; but see id. at 8, Claims Appendix (listing claims 10 and 11 as cancelled)), the Reply Brief identifies claims 8-14 as rejected and on appeal (Reply Brief filed February 12, 2015 ("Reply Br."), 2), and the Examiner's Answer identifies claims 8-14 as rejected (Examiner's Answer mailed December 16, 2014 ("Ans."), 2). 2 Appeal2015-003957 Application 13/376,898 wherein a polyphase feeder supplies a variable-frequency electrical voltage to the auxiliary exciter machine, and wherein the changeover switch designed for switching between normal operation and turning operation, wherein the main exciter machine includes a stator winding which is supplied with electric current from the auxiliary exciter machine, and wherein an electrical voltage is induced via the stator winding in a rotor winding of the main exciter machine. See July 31, 2014 Amendment After Final (emphasis added). The sole issue on appeal is: does a preponderance of the evidence support the Examiner's finding that Kandil describes an arrangement that inherently includes the limitations recited in the two final wherein clauses of independent claim 8? See App. Br. 5---6. The Examiner relies on column 4, lines 31-37 of Kandil for a teaching of the limitations recited in the last two wherein clauses of claim 8. See Advisory Action, 2; Ans. 2-3. The cited disclosure in Kandil reads as follows: Moreover, support motor 26, a permanent magnet generator, may also supply power to control circuitry due to its mechanical link with dynamoelectric machine 14. Such power may be passed through a voltage regulator of a general control unit of the aircraft. Power supplied to exciter 28 may be varied by the voltage regulator to control the output voltage. Kandil 4:31-37; see Advisory Action 2 (asserting that this description "is similar to the present invention wherein in Fig. 2, current from the auxiliary exciter 16 is sent to voltage regulator 17 to send power to main exciter 18" (emphasis added)). The Examiner finds this disclosure "means that power from permanent magnet generator 26 [ (an auxiliary exciter machine)] is delivered to the stator winding of exciter 28 [ (a main exciter machine)]" and "a current is then induced in the rotating component [(a rotor winding)] of the exciter 28 in order to control the rotating 3 Appeal2015-003957 Application 13/376,898 component of generator 14." Ans. 3. The Examiner further finds that "[s]ince the only connection between the exciter 28 and generator 14 is located on rotor 22, the stator winding of exciter 28 must induce a current in the rotor winding of exciter 28 in order for exciter 28 to control generator 14." Id. (emphasis added). Appellant contends claim 8 requires an arrangement in which a stator winding of the main exciter machine is supplied with electric current (I) from the auxiliary exciter machine and electrical voltage (V) is induced in a rotor winding of the main exciter machine via the stator winding, i.e., an arrangement in which voltage (in the rotor winding) and current (in the stator winding) originate separately. See Reply Br. 2-3. Appellant contends Kandil's support motor 26 (the alleged auxiliary exciter machine) supplies power (P=V·I) to exciter 28 (the alleged main exciter machine), meaning voltage and current originate from the same source, the support motor 26. Id. (further noting the Examiner's anticipation rejection is based on a finding that Kandil's exciter 28 inherently includes a stator winding that induces current in the rotor winding, but claim 8 recites that an electrical voltage is induced in the rotor winding via the stator winding). Based on Appellant's explanation of the differences in the claimed arrangement and that of Kandil, we are persuaded that the facts and reasons relied on by the Examiner are insufficient to support a finding that Kandil' s exciter 28 inherently includes the limitations recited in the two final wherein clauses of claim 8. See In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (explaining that inherency may not be established by probabilities or possibilities). Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 8 or its dependent claims 9, 12, and 13.4 4 Claim 13 improperly depends from a cancelled claim (i.e., claim 10); however, for purposes of deciding this appeal, we treat claim 13 as if it depends from claim 8. See 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph (2007) ("[A] claim in dependent form 4 Appeal2015-003957 Application 13/376,898 Claim 14, the only other independent claim on appeal, does not recite a main exciter machine (or stator winding). Thus, Appellant's arguments, which are limited to a contention that Kandil does not describe the inventive features relating to the stator winding component of the main exciter machine (see App. Br. 5---6), fail to identify error in the Examiner's finding that Kandil anticipates claim 14 (see Final Act. 4). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 14. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed."). 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation