Ex Parte Pinappu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 10, 2017

13872786 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 10, 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.
13/872,786 04/29/2013 Sai Reddy Pinappu IND4-53384-US 3910
87884 7590 07/12/2017
Mossman, Kumar and Tyler, PC
P.O. Box 421239
Houston, TX 77242
EXAMINER
TSAI, HSIEN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2881
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/12/2017 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):
docket @ mktlaw .u s .com
tthigpen@mktlaw.us.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAI REDDY PINAPPU, BRADLEY G. HARRELL, RANDY G.
RECHTIEN, JERRY J. WEERS, CORINA L. SANDU, and
J. MICHAEL BROWN
Appeal 2016-007928
Application 13/872,786
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3—7, 9-13, 15, 17, 18, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Baker Hughes Incorporated.
Appeal Brief filed December 22, 2015 (“App. Br.”), 3.
Appeal 2016-007928
Application 13/872,786
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants claim a system and process for monitoring industrial
fluids. App. Br. 3—5.
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
below:
1. A process for monitoring industrial fluids comprising:
employing a differential ion mobility spectrometry (DMS)
apparatus to sample the industrial fluids at a collection
point selected from the group consisting of a pipeline
transporting crude oil, a refinery, and combinations
thereof; wherein the industrial fluids are selected from a
group consisting of cooling water, process water, oil field
drilling and completion fluids, oil and gas well
production fluids, crude oil, feed streams to desalting
units, outflow from desalting units, refinery and chemical
plant heat transfer fluids, gas scrubber fluids, chemical
plant and refinery unit feed streams, refinery and
chemical plant intermediate streams, and refinery and
chemical plant production and finished product streams;
outputting a signal from the DMS apparatus to at least one
external device; wherein the at least one external device
is external to the DMS apparatus; and
changing an industrial process upstream or downstream with
the at least one external device selected from a group
consisting of changing the speed of a valve or pump for a
specific industrial fluid; changing the pH of a specific
industrial fluid; changing the dosage of an additive
selected from a group consisting of a corrosion inhibitor,
a hydrate inhibitor, an anti-fouling agent, an antifoaming
agent, an anti-scaling agent, a demulsifier, and mixtures
thereof; and combinations thereof.
App. Br. 24—25 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal 2016-007928
Application 13/872,786
Appellants request review of the following rejections set forth in the
Final Office Action entered July 23, 2015 (“Final Act.”), which the
Examiner maintains in the Answer entered June 13, 2016, 2016 (“Ans.”):
I. Claims 1, 5—7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hodges (US 2009/0011517 Al, published
January 8, 2009) in view of Wilson et al. (US 6,810,718 B2, issued
November 2, 2004) (“Wilson”); and
II. Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hodges in view of Wilson and Miller et al. (US
2005/0051719 Al, published March 10, 2005) (“Miller”).
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellants’ contentions, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1, 3—7, 9-13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the
reasons set forth in the Final Action, the Answer, and below.
Rejection I
Appellants argue claims 1, 5—7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 18 as a group on
the basis of claim 1, to which we limit our discussion. App. Br. 16—22. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Hodges discloses a portable equipment set that includes a micro-ion
mobility/differential mobility spectrometer (differential ion mobility
spectrometer or DMS) used to analyze a fluid used in an industrial process.
Hodges H24, 54, 82. Hodges discloses that the equipment set can be taken
to the location of a sample to be analyzed (collection point), such as a
refinery (Hodges H 56, 68), and discloses that the equipment set can be used
3
Appeal 2016-007928
Application 13/872,786
to measure the acidity of a refinery feedstock, a refinery intermediate, or a
product of a refinery process (Hodges Tflf 27, 31). Hodges discloses that the
analyses performed by the equipment set can be used for process
optimization. Hodges | 66. The Examiner finds that Hodges fails to
explicitly teach outputting a signal from the DMS to an external device that
changes the speed of a valve or pump for a specific industrial fluid, changes
the pH of a specific industrial fluid, or changes the dosage of an additive,
and the Examiner relies on Wilson for suggesting this feature. Final Act. 3—
4.
Wilson discloses an apparatus for analyzing a fluid used in an
industrial process that includes a meter for measuring a parameter of the
process fluid, and a controller for controlling the meter and collecting data
from the meter. Wilson col. 3,11. 24—26, col. 5,11. 17—22, col. 6,11. 63—65,
Fig. 1.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants’ invention to incorporate an
external controller into Hodges’ equipment set as disclosed in Wilson to
receive output from the DMS and change a parameter of Hodges’ industrial
process such as the pH of a specific industrial fluid, to achieve process
optimization as taught by Hodges. Final Act. 4.
Appellants argue that Hodges discloses fluid analysis in a refinery
process, but does not teach or suggest taking any action directed to the
refinery process based on the information provided. App. Br. 16.
Appellants contend that Hodges thus does not teach or suggest outputting a
signal from the DMS apparatus to an external device and changing an
industrial process. Id. Appellants further argue that Wilson uses an external
4
Appeal 2016-007928
Application 13/872,786
controller to control meters and collect data from the meters in order to
detect a problem or characteristic of an industrial fluid. Id. Appellants
assert that Wilson does not offer any direction or teaching about using the
characteristic of the industrial fluid to control and treat the fluid. App. Br.
16—20. Appellants contend that Wilson therefore does not disclose or
suggest using a signal output from the controller to change an industrial
process. Id.
We note initially that Appellants acknowledge that claim 1 does not
recite changing an industrial process “in response to” a signal output from a
DMS apparatus (Reply Br. 6), despite the fact that Appellants’ arguments
seem to imply such a requirement in claim 1 (App. Br. 16—20). Although
Appellants assert that “the claimed sequence” in claim 1 “recites the
consequential result of the method” (Reply Br. 6), the plain language of
claim 1 requires only outputting a signal from the DMS apparatus to at least
one external device, and changing one or more of the enumerated industrial
processes with the external device.
Nevertheless, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have
understood Hodges’ disclosures to imply changing an industrial process with
an external device based on data output from a DMS apparatus to the device,
as discussed in greater detail below. Therefore, even assuming arguendo
that Wilson would not have suggested using a signal output from a controller
to change an industrial process as Appellants assert, Hodges’ disclosures in
view of the level of ordinary skill in the art would have suggested the
process recited in claim 1.
Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
that using the analyses performed by the equipment set disclosed in Hodges
5
Appeal 2016-007928
Application 13/872,786
for process optimization as described in the reference would involve some
sort of change to the industrial process being optimized. In re Preda, 401
F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not only
specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled
in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”). Accordingly,
one of ordinary skill in the art seeking to analyze feedstocks, intermediates,
or products of a refining process with a DMS apparatus as disclosed in
Hodges, and seeking to optimize the refining process as also disclosed in
Hodges, reasonably would have been led to output a signal from the DMS
apparatus to a controller as disclosed in Wilson as a way to implement a
change in the process necessary for optimization. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (an obviousness analysis “need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for [an Examiner] can take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”); cf. In re
Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95 (CCPA 1958) (“[I]t is well settled that it is not
‘invention’ to broadly provide a mechanical or automatic means to replace
manual activity which has accomplished the same result.”)
In view of Hodges’ disclosure of measuring the acidity of a refinery
feedstock, a refinery intermediate, or a product of a refinery process, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood that such a process change as
suggested by Hodges necessary for process optimization could involve
changing the pH of one of these fluids, as recited in claim 1, using a
controller as suggested by Wilson. Preda, 401 F. 2d at 826; KSR 550 U.S. at
418; cf. Western Union Co. v. Money Gram Payment Sys., 626 F.3d 1361,
1370 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding obvious “routine modifications that are a part
6
Appeal 2016-007928
Application 13/872,786
of adapting a new technology to an existing system”). Therefore,
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive of reversible error.2
Accordingly, on this record, the preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness, and we therefore sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5—7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 18 under
35U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejection II
In addressing this rejection, Appellants rely on the arguments
discussed above that they provide for claim 1, and contend that Miller fails
to remedy the deficiencies of Hodges and Wilson. App. Br. 22. Because we
are unpersuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
set forth above, Appellants’ position as to this ground of rejection is also
without merit. We accordingly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3,
4, 10, 11, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
In view of the reasons set forth above, and in the Final Action and the
Answer, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3—7, 9-13, 15, 17,
18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
2 Although Appellants provide additional arguments directed to Guevremont
et al. (US 7,045,778 B2, issued May 16, 2006) (App. Br. 21—22), as the
Examiner explains in the Answer, this reference was not “used to reject the
appealed claims” (Ans. 5). Appellants’ arguments regarding Guevremont
are therefore unpersuasive of reversible error in the rejection as presented by
the Examiner in the Final Action.
7