Ex Parte N¿hse et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 2, 2016

12989434 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/989,434 01/05/2011
22116 7590 06/06/2016
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
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.
2008P05583WOUS 9152
EXAMINER
KUAN, JOHN CHUNY ANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2857
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/06/2016 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 ANDREAS NURSE and GEORG WINKES 1
Appeal 2015-001117
Application 12/989,434
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
decision of the Examiner finaHy rejecting ciaims 15----28. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Appellants' claimed invention relates to a method for monitoring the
efficiency of a compressor. Abstract.
1 According to the Appeal Brief, the real party in interest is Siemens
Aktiengesellschaft. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-001117
Application 12/989,434
Claim 15 is the only independent claim on appeal, and is reproduced
below from the Claims Appendix (App Br. 15):
15. A method for monitoring the efficiency of an at least two
stage compressor, during the compression of a process medium,
compnsmg:
monitoring a flow rate through the compressor;
monitoring an entry pressure of the drawn-in process
medium;
monitoring an exit pressure of the compressed process
medium;
monitoring an entry temperature of the drawn-in process
medium;
monitoring an exit temperature of the compressed process
medium;
using the flow rate, the entry pressure, the exit pressure, the
entry temperature, and the exit temperature as a plurality of
parameters;
using a computer to ascertain a performance factor from the
plurality of parameters;
measuring a stage entry temperature and a stage entry
pressure directly or indirectly as measurement parameters at an
inlet of each stage;
measuring a stage exit temperature and a stage exit pressure
directly or indirectly as measurement parameters at an outlet of
each stage; and
assigning a module to each stage that uses the computer to
determine stage efficiency as a performance factor from the
measurement parameters,
wherein an intermediate cooling stage is provided between
the stages.
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants appeal, the following
rejections:
2
Appeal2015-001117
Application 12/989,434
1. Claims 15-21and24--27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Ispas2 in view of Lugg3 and Woodason; 4
2. Claim 22 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ispas in
view of Lugg and W oodason, and further in view of Staroselsky5
and Gorla; 6
3. Claim 23 7 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ispas,
Lugg, and W oodason, and further in view of Staroselsky; and
4. Claim 28 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ispas,
Lugg, and W oodason, and further in view of Shu 8 and Khots. 9
Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of any dependent
claim, and therefore, claims 16-28 stand or fall with independent claim 15.
OPINION
We sustain the above rejections based on the Examiner's findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttals to Appellants' arguments, as
expressed in the Final Action and Answer. The following comments are
added for emphasis.
2 Ispas et al., US 5,290,142, issued Mar. 1, 1994.
3 Lugg, US 2008/0175703 Al, published July 24, 2008.
4 Woodason et al., US 5,517,852, issued May 21, 1996.
5 Staroselsky et al., US 4,949,276, issued Aug. 14, 1990.
6 Gorla et al., Turbomachinery: Design and Theory, Mechanical
Engineering 25-28 (Marcel Dekker, Inc., 2003).
7 Appellants mistakenly caption this ground of rejection as being applied to
claim 22. See App. Br. 12.
8 Shu et al., US 2009/0071148 Al, published Mar. 19, 2009.
9 Khots et al., US 6,317,655 Bl, issued Nov. 13, 2001.
3
Appeal2015-001117
Application 12/989,434
The Examiner finds that Ispas discloses a multistage compressor with
intermediate cooling, and concerns the performance of the compressor. Ans.
3; Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner further finds that Ispas teaches monitoring
parameters such as flow rate through the compressor, entry pressure and
temperature of the drawn-in process medium, and exit pressure and
temperature of the compressed process medium. Ans. 3; Final Act. 2-3.
The Examiner acknowledges that Ispas does not disclose individual stage-
related measurements, but determines that "[ t ]he teachings of each stage-
related measurement come from the combination of the referenced prior art."
Ans. 4.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Lugg demonstrates that "stage
efficiency was known in the art and was of interest to a person skilled in the
art" and that W oodason provides "motivation to determine if performance is
up to established specifications and if not, to help determine the source of
performance problems." Id. at 3 (citing Lugg i-f 56 and Woodason, 1:5-7)
(emphasis omitted). The Examiner further finds that W oodason teaches
calculating compressor efficiency using pressure and temperature values
measured at entry and exit points of a compressor. Id. at 3--4. In view of
this, the Examiner determines that "[b ]ased on the motivation to determine
the performance and the source of performance problems in a multi-stage
compressor and with the knowledge of compressor stage efficiency
calculations, it would have been obvious to determine stage efficiency." Id.
at 4 (also stating that "[i]t was a common engineering principle to determine
each sub-system performance in a system to help identify the source of the
performance problems").
4
Appeal2015-001117
Application 12/989,434
Appellants argue that Ispas is focused on operating a compressor close
to its pumping limit, and that "[t]he measurement of entry and exit pressures
and temperatures of every stage has no bearing on the formulation of the
pump limit function." App. Br. 7. Appellants therefore contend that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to measure
pressure and temperature at each stage of Ispas, because it was not
necessary, beneficial, or advantageous to the ultimate goal of Ispas. Id. As
the Examiner points out, however, Ispas "does not exclude making
measurements and calculations related to stage efficiencies," and a person of
ordinary skill in the art, in view of Lugg and W oodason, would have
understood the benefits and advantages of these kinds of measurements.
Ans. 5; see KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 551 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) ("A
person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton."); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) ("The test [for
obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.").
Nor are we persuaded by Appellants' argument that although Lugg
mentions "a benefit of measuring stage efficiency," a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood Lugg to teach only that a baseline
stage efficiency may be determined during a design phase, as opposed to
measuring stage efficiency during actual operation of a compressor as
required by the claims. App. Br. 7-8 (arguing that "actual operation of the
compressor" is different from the "preliminary design phase"); Reply Br. 2-
3. Claim 1, however, requires monitoring the efficiency of a compressor
"during the compression of a process medium," and Appellants have not
directed us to adequate evidence sufficient for us to determine that "during
5
Appeal2015-001117
Application 12/989,434
the compression of a process medium" should be construed as being limited
to during "actual operation of the compressor" and excluding the design
phase. We agree with the Examiner's finding that preliminary design of a
reactor reasonably would include compression of a process medium "to
measure various parameters and evaluate the performance of the compressor
to help with the design." Ans. 6.
Finally, Appellants do not contest that Woodason teaches calculating
compressor efficiency based on temperature and pressure measurements at
intake and discharge, and performing tests to determine "if performance is
up to established specification and to help determine the source of
problems." App. Br. 8-9 (emphasis omitted); Woodason, 1 :5-8. Instead,
Appellants argue that "[ t ]he efficiency referred to in W oodason is not an
individual stage efficiency, but an overall efficiency" (Reply Br. 4 ), and that
W oodason therefore does not "supply the missing features of Ispas in view
of Lugg," namely measurement of parameters and calculation of stage
efficiency for each and every stage of a multistage intercooled compressor.
App. Br. 9-10. The Examiner, however, does not rely on Woodason for an
explicit disclosure of taking measurements or determining efficiency at each
stage. Rather, the Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have applied the teachings of W oodason (calculation of compressor
efficiency based on temperature and pressure measurements and entry and
exit points) to the multistage compressor of Ispas because "[i]t was known in
the art and taught by Ispas et al. that a multistage compressor is basically a
cascading of compressors (i.e., stages)." Ans. 6. Specifically, the Examiner
determines that "[i]n order to identify the source of the performance
problems in a multistage compressor of Ispas et al., one skilled in the art
6
Appeal2015-001117
Application 12/989,434
would have monitored the stage efficiency for each stage." Id. at 6-7. In
view of this, we find that Appellants arguments are unavailing, as they do
not directly or adequately address the Examiner's rejection.
We have considered Appellants' remaining arguments and, for the
reasons given by the Examiner, find none that warrant reversal of the
appealed rejections. Cf In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1294
(Fed. Cir. 2012).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of
claims 15-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (1) (iv).
AFFIRMED
7