Ex Parte Pfeiffer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 9, 2016

13252633 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 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.
13/252,633 10/04/2011 Bernd-Markus Pfeiffer 5029-859-310695 5556
27799 7590
Cozen O'Connor
277 Park Avenue, 20th floor
NEW YORK, NY 10172
12/13/2016 EXAMINER
KHAN, IFTEKHAR A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2016 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):
patentsecretary @ cozen. com
patentdocket@cozen.com
patentsorter@cozen.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BERND-MARKUS PFEIFFER
Appeal 2015-004888
Application 13/252,633
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Siemens AG.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-004888
Application 13/252,633
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to:
A method for designing a process controller for a process
variable comprising a pressure or a flow rate [and] connectable
upstream in a closed control loop of a controlled system having
a positioning drive, where the closed control loop is simulated to
determine the performance of the process controller.
Spec., Abstr. Representative claim 1 is reproduced below. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013) (representative claims).
1. A method for designing a process controller for a process
variable comprising a pressure or a flow rate which is
connectable upstream in a closed control loop of a controlled
system having a positioning drive, the method comprising:
simulating, by a processor of a computer, the closed
control loop in relation to a simulated profile of one of an
actual value of the process variable, a desired value and a
system deviation to determine a performance of the
process controller;
adding, by the processor of the computer, a
predetermined noise value corresponding to fluctuations
in an actual value of the process variable at a constant
desired value and a terminated initial response to the
simulated profile of the actual value of the process
variable; and
evaluating a simulated profile of a manipulated
variable of the process controller to determine an estimate
of an energy consumption of the positioning drive.
2
Appeal 2015-004888
Application 13/252,633
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Pyotsia (US 5,992,229; iss. Nov. 30, 1999) and Ke (J. Ke et al., Energy
Efficiency Analysis and Optimal Control of Servo Pneumatic Cylinders,
2005 IEEE International Conference on Control Applications, 541—46
(2005) (Aug. 28-31, Toronto, Canada). Final Act. 2-5 (mailed Dec. 24,
2013).
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “adding ... a predetermined noise value[,]
corresponding to fluctuations in an actual value of the process variable at a
constant desired value and a terminated initial response[,] to the simulated
profile of the actual value of the process variable.” The Examiner finds
Pyotsia’s disturbance, as added to Figure 4’s process at the second
disturbance input 6’, teaches claim l’s predetermined noise value as follows
[Pyotsia] ([Pyotsia]: Figure 4) clearly shows disturbance (i.e.[,]
noise) being added to the closed loop system containing process
controller. [Pyotsia] ([Pyotsia]: column 5[,] lines 17-20)
discloses that the disturbance and noise can be set by the operator
of the system. This is a clear manifestation of a predetermined
noise[—]because operator determines the noise or disturbance
level to be injected into the system to evaluate the system
performance. This is further elaborated in [Pyotsia] ([Pyotsia] :
column 5[,] lines 54-59) wherein it states that to use or add
certain general disturbance characteristic to the control loop as a
standard test disturbance^]
Ans. 3—4; see also Final Act. 2-3.
3
Appeal 2015-004888
Application 13/252,633
Appellant argues that Pyotsia’s disturbance is not predetermined
because: “Pyotsia merely explains that it is possible for an operator to set
the disturbance and noise of measured signals, but there is no description in
this section of Pyotsia regarding the precise type of disturbance or noise that
is set.” Reply Br. 2; see also App. Br. 5-7. And, Appellant further argues:
[In Appellant’s invention,] the response of a controller to a
known noise value is determined. That the noise value is known
(i.e., predetermined) can only mean that it was acquired before
the simulation was/is performed[.]
Pyotsia, on the other hand, describes a testing system that
evaluates loop performance with the use of real time values
obtain from an actual, i.e., real process. Pyotsia fails to teach
that a predetermined noise value is obtained.
Reply Br. 4.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We find that, under
a broadest reasonable interpretation, claim l’s predetermined noise value
encompasses Pyotsia’s disturbance. We agree with the Examiner’s finding
that Pyotsia’s disturbance is “predetermined” insofar as being a standard test
disturbance set by the operator to evaluate system performance. Ans. 3^1
(citing Pyotsia col. 5,11. 17-20; col. 5,11. 54-59). As such, Pyotsia’s
disturbance is plainly chosen according to a predetermined evaluation plan;
e.g., as a standard test value of the applied process model. Accord Pyotsia
col. 3,11. 53-56; col. 5,11. 15-20, 54-69. Moreover, Pyotsia’s confirms the
disturbance can be chosen in the same manner as Appellant’s predetermined
noise; namely measured from a real system. Pyotsia col. 5,11. 54-59; claim
5; see also Final Act. 3^1 (“[Pyotsia’s] noise and disturbances[,] i.e.[,J
nonlinearities of the process that are taken into account in the simulation
4
Appeal 2015-004888
Application 13/252,633
model are measured from real control loop” (citing Pyotsia, col. 2,11. 3-15).
Thus, Appellant’s argument fails to show that Pyotsia’s disturbance is not a
predetermined noise value.
Appellant further argues “Pyotsia teaches that the position of the
valve is measured, but this does not mean that a process variable, i.e., the
pressure or flow rate, within the meaning and scope of the independent claim
1 is acquired.” App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 5. We are unpersuaded by
Pyotsia’s process output/feedback Y and added disturbance 6' (Fig. 4) teach
a variable comprising flow rate. For example, Pyotsia simulates the closed
control loop by modeling, in part, flow equations of the valve and
disturbances of the process. Pyotsia Abstr., col. 3,11. 21-24. Pyotsia
explains that “[t]he inherent flow characteristics of the valve and the pipeline
behaviour are also modelled in the system,” (Pyotsia col. 5,11. 12-14) and
that “[tjhere are different unit process models, such as tank level loops, flow
control loops, pressure control loops ... in a model library” (Pyotsia col. 5,
11. 15-17). Pyotsia also measures the valve’s responsiveness to determine
process variability; namely, unwanted variability of the process output. Id.
Fig. 7A. A skilled artisan would infer that the simulation translates all of the
above—which expressly includes a modeled valve flow and modeled
pipeline behavior—to a process output representing a flow and its
variability. See id. at col. 1,1. 53-col. 2,1. 9, col. 5,11. 12-17, Figs. 4, 7A.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not shown an error in the
Examiner’s findings for representative claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 together with the rejection of claims 2-9.
5
Appeal 2015-004888
Application 13/252,633
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6