Ex Parte Pauli et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2017

13030288 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 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.
13/030,288 02/18/2011 Ernst Pauli 1033275-000823 2439
7590 06/02/2017117185
ALSTOM
C/O Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
1737 King Street, Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
PICKETT, JOHN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3728
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2017 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):
ADIPDOCl@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERNST PAULI and ALEXANDER DERKSEN
Appeal 2015-006348
Application 13/030,288
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ernst Pauli and Alexander Derksen (“Appellants”)1 seek our review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s rejection2 of claims 11 and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ainsworth (US 2004/0237535
Al, pub. Dec. 2, 2004); and of claims 1—10 and 13—15 as unpatentable over
Ainsworth and Ceric (US 2007/0251210 Al, pub. Nov. 1, 2007). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM—IN—PART.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is ALSTOM Technology
Ltd. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Appeal is taken from the adverse decision of the Examiner as set forth in
the Final Office Action, dated June 2, 2014 (“Final Act.”).
Appeal 2015-006348
Application 13/030,288
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced
below and illustrates the claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations
emphasized.
1. A method for cooling down a gas turbine after operation
of the gas turbine, the method comprising:
operating a rotor of the gas turbine at a rotor rotation
cooling speed (n) to cool down the gas turbine;
controlling the cooling speed (n) from the start of the
cooling process as a function of at least one of at least one
critical temperature (Tk), and time; and
increasing the cooling speed over time based on the
function of the at least one of the at least one critical
temperature and time.
ANALYSIS
Anticipation of Claims 11 and 12 by Ainsworth
Appellants argue claims 11 and 12 together in contesting the rejection
of these claims as anticipated by Ainsworth. Appeal Br. 8. We select claim
11 as the representative claim for this group, and claim 12 stands or falls
with claim 11. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that “Ainsworth discloses a gas turbine 10
comprising a rotor 28 and a means for controlling the cooling speed 22,” and
“is capable of functioning as claimed.” Final Act. 3,6. After further
explaining that Ainsworth “demonstrates the ability of the control system to
increase [0035] or decrease [0036] speed, such a limitation being considered
an intended use,” the Examiner concludes that “[i]f the prior art structure is
capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.” Ans. 5.
At page 2 of the Appeal Brief, Appellants state that they are traversing
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 12 as being anticipated by
2
Appeal 2015-006348
Application 13/030,288
Ainsworth.3 However, their sole contention is that “claim 11 is
distinguishable over the cited references for reasons similar to those
discussed above with respect to independent claim 1Appeal Br. 8. In that
this contention is not responsive to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11,4 we
summarily sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 12 as anticipated by
Ainsworth.
Obviousness of Claims 1—10 and 13—15 over Ainsworth and Ceric
Claims 1—10
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1—10 over Ainsworth and Ceric. See Appeal Br. 2—8;
Reply Br. 2—5.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Ainsworth for disclosing a
method for cooling down a gas turbine by, inter alia, “controlling the
cooling speed from the start of the cooling process as a function of either
temperature or time.” Final Act. 3. While recognizing that Ainsworth “does
not expressly disclose increasing the speed during the cool-down operation,”
the Examiner finds that “Ceric teaches increasing the rotor speed, in
combination with the addition of liquid, in order to reduce the cooling time
(e.g. Abstract, [0006], [0012], [0028], [0029]).” Id. Based on Ceric
teaching increasing rotor speed, the Examiner concludes that “one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to increase rotor speed
3 Appellants also state that they are traversing the rejection of claims 13—15
as being obvious over Ainsworth and Ceric.
4 In an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), it is the Examiner’s final rejection
that we review. See In re Webb, 916 F.2d 1553, 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
3
Appeal 2015-006348
Application 13/030,288
of Ainsworth during the cool-down procedure based on desired temperatures
and times.” Id.
In contesting the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as obvious over
Ainsworth and Ceric, Appellants “disagree with the Examiner’s assertion
that Ceric overcomes the deficiencies of. . . Ainsworth,” correctly
explaining that while Ceric “teaches the choice of a higher rotor speed for
water injection,” that “[tjhere is no hint or indication to increase the speed as
a function of a temperature and/or a time.” Appeal Br. 7.
In response, the Examiner reasons that “Ceric is highly relevant to the
speed of cooling and uses its water injection technique to cool both the
compressor and downstream components,” because “Ceric teaches
increasing the rotor speed, in combination with the addition of liquid, in
order to reduce the cooling time.” Ans. 4 (citing Ceric, Abstract, || 6, 12,
28, 29). The Examiner concludes “[sjince Ainsworth is concerned with the
speed of cooling . . ., the reduction in cooling time suggested by Ceric would
have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with sufficient motivation to
modify Ainsworth.” Id. (citing Ainsworth 136).
However, we agree with Appellants that “there is no disclosure in
[Ceric] of increasing the cooling speed over time based on the function of at
least one of at least one critical temperature and time,” as recited by claim 1.
Reply Br. 4. Rather, as noted by Appellants, Ceric teaches “a dry mode and
a wet cooling mode which use different speeds,” where the choice of speeds
is dependent on the mode, not a critical temperature or time. Appeal Br. 7.
Thus, even if Ainsworth was modified in the manner proposed by the
Examiner, the resulting method would not meet the limitations at issue.
4
Appeal 2015-006348
Application 13/030,288
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1—10 over Ainsworth and Ceric.
Claims 13—15
In rejecting claims 13—15, which depend directly or indirectly from
claim 11, the Examiner determines Ainsworth and Ceric disclose “the
claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the critical
temperatures as being the casing, rotor, or rotor cover,” and that “one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the
temperature measuring devices upon those components or within the gas
passages.”5 Final Act. 4—5.
Appellants make no specific reference to the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 13—15. See generally Appeal Br. and Reply Br.6 Thus, we
summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13—15 over Ainsworth
and Ceric.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 12 as
anticipated by Ainsworth.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—10 as obvious
over Ainsworth and Ceric.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13—15 as obvious
over Ainsworth and Ceric.
5 In an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), we review the Examiner’s final
rejection. See In re Webb, 916 at 1556.
6 We note being admonished by our reviewing court that “applicant can
waive appeal of [any] ground of rejection.” Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F. 3d 1307,
1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
5
Appeal 2015-006348
Application 13/030,288
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN—PART
6