13181892 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2017)

Ex Parte Maruyama

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 17, 2017

13181892 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 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. 13/181,892 07/13/2011 Takashi MARUYAMA 20110834A 5286 513 7590 10/19/2017 WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P. 1030 15th Street, N.W., Suite 400 East Washington, DC 20005-1503 EXAMINER GOYAL, ARUN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/19/2017 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): ddalecki@wenderoth.com eoa@ wenderoth. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TAKASHI MARUYAMA Appeal 2016-002937 Application 13/181,892 Technology Center 3700 Before JOHN C. KERINS, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 5, 6, 9, and 10 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sugishita (US 6,109,019, iss. Aug. 29, 2000), Masataka (partial translation of JP-S59-58101 A, pub. Apr. 1984), and Yamashita (US 2008/0166222 Al, pub. July 10, 2008). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2016-002937 Application 13/181,892 THE INVENTION Appellant’s invention relates to combined cycle power generating devices. Spec. 11. Claim 5, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 5. A combined cycle power generating device in which exhaust heat of a gas turbine reheats steam which is discharged from a high pressure chamber of a steam turbine so that the reheated steam is supplied to an intermediate-pressure chamber, thereby driving the steam turbine, wherein cooling steam that has cooled the gas turbine is supplied to the intermediate-pressure chamber via a cooling steam inlet different from an inlet for the reheated steam that is reheated by the exhaust heat of the gas turbine, so that the cooling steam is used for a cooling purpose, a temperature of the cooling steam is higher than a temperature of the steam discharged from the high pressure chamber, and the temperature of the cooling steam is lower than a temperature of the reheated steam. OPINION Appellant argues claim 5, but does not argue for the separate patentability of claims 6, 9, and 10. Appeal Br. 6. We consider the arguments for claim 5, and claims 6, 9, and 10 will stand or fall with claim 5. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that Sugishita discloses the invention of claim 5 except for a cooling steam inlet that is different from the reheated steam inlet and where the cooling steam has a lower temperature than the reheated steam. Final Action 3. The Examiner relies on Masataka as teaching a cooling steam inlet that is different from steam supplied from a high pressure chamber so that cooling steam is used for cooling purpose. Id. The 2 Appeal 2016-002937 Application 13/181,892 Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Sugishita with the teaching of Masataka. Id. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to cool the steam turbine. Id. at 3^4. The Examiner further relies on Yamashita as teaching a cooling steam temperature that is lower than the temperature of reheated steam. Id. at 4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use cooling steam that is lower in temperature than reheated steam as it would cool the steam turbine. Id. Appellant traverses the Examiner’s rejection by arguing that Yamashita’s cooling steam has not previously cooled a gas turbine. Appeal Br. 4. In response, the Examiner states that Yamashita is only relied on as teaching a temperature differential for effective cooling of a steam engine. Ans. 2. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive, as it attacks Yamashita individually rather than considering how it fits into the Examiner’s combination of references. Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appellant next argues that Sugishita’s “cooling steam” is not used for cooling the intermediate pressure turbine. Appeal Br. 5. This amounts to another individual attack on a reference and is similarly unpersuasive. Merck, supra; Keller, supra. Appellant next argues that Sugishita discloses using steam that has cooled a gas turbine that has the same temperature as reheated steam. 3 Appeal 2016-002937 Application 13/181,892 Appeal Br. 5. Appellant argues that Sugishita prefers this design. Id. citing Sugishita, col. 4,11. 60—63. In response, the Examiner notes that Sugishita combines two steam streams (line 17 and RH of system 02). Ans. 2. The Examiner directs our attention to Masataka as teaching a separate cooling steam inlet for operation of the turbine. Id. at 2—3. The Examiner’s position is that Sugishita modified by Masataka teaches two separate inlets for steam, one for cooling steam, and another for operation of the turbine. Id. at 3. The Examiner reasons that, in order for the cooling to be effective, the temperature of the steam that will be used to cool the intermediate pressure turbine must be lower than the temperature of the reheat steam. Id. According to the Examiner, this rationale is supported by the teaching of Yamashita. Id. In reply, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s position is unreasonable and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Sugishita in the manner proposed by the Examiner. Reply Br. 2—3. We have reviewed Figure 1 of Appellant’s disclosure (Replacement Sheet) and compared it to Figure 1 of Sugishita. The two figures are substantially similar, if not almost identical, except for Sugishita showing a confluence of steam line 17 and reheat steam upstream of intermediate pressure turbine 8. See Sugishita, Fig. 1; Appellant’s Fig. 1. Appellant’s Figure 1 schematic shows two separate inlets, elements 19 and b, into intermediate pressure turbine 2. Id. We agree with the Examiner that Yamashita teaches using cooling steam that is lower in temperature than steam from another turbine inlet. If the design objective is to cool the intermediate pressure turbine and to accomplish this with an available source of steam, it is only logical to use a 4 Appeal 2016-002937 Application 13/181,892 source of cooling steam that is lower in temperature than the reheat steam. Thus, Yamashita provides the requisite teaching despite the fact that such teaching comes from a product application other than a combined cycle power generating device, as it is well-established that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes and a person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Masataka teaches two separate inlets. The Examiner’s conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use separate inlets and to use lower temperature steam for cooling purposes is supported by sound reasoning. In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine that the Examiner's findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and that the Examiner's legal conclusion of unpatentability is well-founded. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of claims 5, 6, 9, and 10. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 5, 6, 9, and 10 is affirmed. 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 5