Ex Parte SmithDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 30, 201612437387 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 12/437,387 82438 7590 GE Power & Water Fletcher Yoder PC FILING DATE 0510712009 03/30/2016 P.O. Box 692289 Houston, TX 77269-2289 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Raub Warfield Smith 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. 235875-l/GETH0028/SWA 7399 EXAMINER GOYAL,ARUN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAUB WARFIELD SMITH Appeal2014-001982 Application 12/437 ,387 Technology Center 3700 Before LINDA E. HORNER, JILL D. HILL, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Raub Warfield Smith (Appellant1) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim on appeal and is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is General Electric Company. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2014-001982 Application 12/437,387 1. A system, comprising: an inter-stage sensor configured to sense a steady- state parameter at an inter-stage location between a plurality of stages of rotary blades of a rotary machine; and a controller programmed to identify a hardware fault in the rotary machine based at least in part on the sensed inter-stage steady-state parameter. THE REJECTIONS I. Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a) as anticipated by, or alternatively, as unpatentable over, Yeung (US 6,506,010 Bl; iss. Jan. 14, 2003). II. Claims 1, 2, 6, and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over O'Brien (US 5,782,603; iss. July 21, 1998) and Yeung. III. Claims 1-8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Khalid (US 6,231,306 Bl; iss. May 15, 2001) and Yeung. OPINION Rejection I Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, and 5-10 Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner found, inter alia, that Yeung discloses "a controller programmed to identify a hardware fault ... in the rotary machine based at least in part on the sensed inter-stage steady- state parameter." Final Act. 3. The Examiner noted that Yeung does not teach whether the parameter is a steady-state parameter, but determined that "the steady-state value [is] obviously, if not inherently, contained in [the] signal[,] in order to evaluate the main component when comparing 2 Appeal2014-001982 Application 12/437,387 continuously [sensed] pressure ... to a baseline value."2 Id. The Examiner explains that Yeung' s "dynamic pressure measurements ... are a time series of steady-state pressure measurements." Adv. Act. 2 (mailed May 20, 2013); Ans. 3. The Examiner further explains that [d]uring a steady-state condition of the compressor, the dynamic pressure measurement would be a steady-state pressure measurement (average value). When there is a sudden change in pressure, the steady-state pressure measurement will be similar to dynamic pressure measurement as disclosed by [Appellant's Specification] in Fig[ure] 5 [at] point t4 to t5. Ans. 3. First, Appellant argues that "Yeung is directed towards 'a method and apparatus for monitoring and controlling the performance of an axial flow compressor or a gas turbine by detecting precursors to rotating stall and surge,"' wherein Yeung "measures dynamic pressure and dynamic velocity to sense compressor stall." Appeal Br. 7 (citing Yeung 1:9--12, 3:24--25). Appellant explains that "Yeung measures sudden abnormal air flow (e.g.; a rapid drop in pressure) in the axial flow compression system to detect rotating stall," and therefore, Yeung does not measure a steady-state parameter (e.g., static pressure)." Id. at 7-8. Appellant maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize ... the differences between a steady-state parameter and a dynamic parameter. For example, a steady-state parameter may be a measurement or property that is relatively unchanged over a period of time. In sharp contrast, a dynamic parameter may be a measurement or property that varies over the period of time. 2 Alternatively, the Examiner appears to interpret Yeung's pressure measurement as either "steady-state or high frequency," however, the Examiner fails to explain how frequency relates to the claim term "steady- state parameter." See Final Act. 3. 3 Appeal2014-001982 Application 12/437,387 Id. at 8. Appellant concludes that "if the Examiner's assertion is adopted, there would be no appreciable distinction between steady-state and dynamic parameters." Id. During patent examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, with claim language being read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The claim term "steady-state parameter" does not appear in Appellant's Specification as filed; rather, the Specification describes "exemplary 20-stage compressor 16 [reaching] a steady-state condition (e.g., before any faults)," and "pressure increase ratio 72 [reaching] a somewhat steady-state value" or "new steady-state level," which is an "increase from the previous steady-state level." Spec. i-f 40 (emphasis added). 3 In this context, we understand the claim term "steady- state parameter" to mean a parameter, such as pressure, that indicates a steady-state4 (unchanging or static) condition at the inter-stage location within the rotary machine. In other words, we understand that the pressure of the gases flowing through a stage of a multi-stage compressor may be a "sensed parameter," wherein the pressure measurement is a "sensed inter- stage steady-state parameter" when the pressure measurement is obtained while the stage is operating in a steady-state condition, and wherein the pressure measurement is a "sensed inter-stage dynamic parameter" when the 3 See Amendment filed Dec. 12, 2012. 4 A pertinent definition of the term "steady-state" is "a state or condition of a system or process ... that does not change in time." WEBSTER'S THIRD INT'L DICTIONARY 2232 (1993); see also, Appeal Br. 8 ("steady-state parameter (e.g., static pressure)." 4 Appeal2014-001982 Application 12/437,387 pressure measurement is obtained while the stage is operating in a dynamic (changing) condition. Thus, although pressure may be measured during either condition, we do not accept the Examiner's reasoning that a dynamic pressure measurement is a steady state pressure measurement, and we agree with Appellant that to fail to recognize a distinction between the two terms would be to inappropriately read the meaning of "steady-state" out of the claims. We do not agree with Appellant that Yeung' s general disclosure of an apparatus that monitors "the dynamic pressure ... of gases flowing through the compressor" necessarily means that sensors positioned in single stages must necessarily measure a dynamic pressure of gases flowing through the stage. Yeung 4:12-15 (emphasis added). However, as the Examiner determined, Yeung fails to expressly disclose that the sensed inter-stage pressure used, at least in part, to detect precursors to rotating stall is a pressure measurement obtained during a steady-state condition within the stage. 5 That said, a prior art reference may anticipate when the claim limitations not expressly found in that reference are nonetheless inherent in it. To establish inherency, the prior art must necessarily function in accordance with, or include, the claimed limitations. See In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999). "Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities," and ''[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient" Id. Here, the Examiner fails to support the finding that Yeung' s sensed inter-stage pressure, which is used, at least in part, to detect precursors to 5 See, e.g., Final Act. 3 ("Yeung does not teach whether [the] measurement is steady-state."). 5 Appeal2014-001982 Application 12/437,387 rotating stall, is necessarily a pressure measurement obtained during a steady-state condition within the stage. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, and 5-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Yeung. Regarding the Examiner's alternative rejection, the Examiner has not provided adequate suppmi for reasoning that Yeung' s sensed inter-stage pressure, which is used, at least in part, to detect precursors to rotating stall, is obviously a pressure measurement obtained during a steady-state condition within the stage. See Final Act. 3, Ans. 3. The Examiner reasons that a sensed inter-stage steady-state parameter must obviously be used in Yeung "in order to evaluate the main component when comparing continuously [measured] pressure ... to a baseline value." Final Act 3. We agree that because claim 1, as written, recites that the identification of a fault must only be "based at least in part on the sensed inter-stage steady-state parameter," the measurement of pressure during a steady-state condition within a stage that is used as a baseline against which a measurement of pressure during a dynamic condition within a stage is compared would meet this claim limitation. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). However, the Examiner has not provided support from Yeung that either the measured values or the baseline values, which are "extrapolated from the knowledge of the operating condition of compressor 14" and which are used for comparison against the measured pressure of gases flowing through compressor 14, are steady-state parameters. See Yeung 4:25-5:14. 6 Appeal2014-001982 Application 12/437,387 Accordingly, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, and 5-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yeung. Dependent claim 4 Claim 4, which depends from independent claim 1, recites, "wherein the controller is programmed to compare a baseline ratio to a real-time ratio of the steady-state parameter at the inter-stage location versus a different measurement location." 6 Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). We understand claim 4, as written, to require that the controller is programmed to first, compare a baseline ratio to a real-time ratio of the steady-state parameter at the inter-stage location defined in claim 1, and then to compare that comparison to a second comparison between the baseline ratio and a real-time ratio of the steady-state parameter at a location that is different from the inter-stage location defined in claim 1. Regarding the claimed ratios, we understand that the baseline and real-time ratios of the steady-state parameter are intended to be the value (i.e., pressure increase) of the parameter across the inter-stage location compared to the value (i.e., total pressure increase) of the parameter across the compressor. Spec. i-f 40. The Examiner relied on Yeung for disclosing the limitation of claim 4, citing, for example, Yeung at column 4, lines 25 to 41 (and also see lines 42 to 46), which states, in relevant part: When the amount of stored data reaches a predetermined level, . . . [a] number of stall precursor magnitudes obtained from respective sensors may be combined in a system 38, and the combined magnitude is compared with a combined baseline stall 6 We do not agree with the Examiner's determination that claim 4 fails to further limit the system recited in claim 1; rather, claim 4 further limits the controller by requiring additional programming. See Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 4. 7 Appeal2014-001982 Application 12/437,387 magnitude by system 42 to define an upper limit of compressor degradation. The real time control system 32 obtains pressure and velocity ratios from compressor 14 and calculates an operating condition of compressor 14 . . . The baseline stall measures may be extrapolated from the knowledge of the operating condition of compressor 14. The difference between measured precursor magnitude( s) and the baseline stall measure via existing transfer functions is used to estimate a degraded compressor operating map. Final Act. 4 (citing Yeung 4:37-39); Ans. 4 (citing Yeung 4:25--41). Appellant argues that "Yeung does not disclose the comparison of two ratios," and that the passage from Yeung above "merely states that pressure and velocity ratios are obtained." Reply Br. 3. Appellant submits that "Yeung merely teaches the comparison of 'sensor measurements with predetermined baseline values."' Id. We are persuaded by Appellant's argument. Although Yeung discloses obtaining pressure ratios of the compressor and comparing measured versus baseline magnitudes; Yeung does not expressly disclose the specific comparison between the baseline ratio and the two real-time ratios from different inter-stage locations, as required by claim 4. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner's finding. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) or 103(a) as anticipated by, or unpatentable over, Yeung. Re} ection II Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner found, inter alia, that O'Brien's sensor (i.e., 15a---e) is an inter-stage sensor configured to sense a steady-state parameter at an inter-stage location between stages of rotary blades (i.e., 11 a---e) of a rotary machine (compressor 10). Final Act. 5 (citing 8 Appeal2014-001982 Application 12/437,387 O'Brien 3: 14--22). The Examiner noted that O'Brien does not teach whether the parameter is a steady-state parameter, but determined that "the steady- state value was obviously, if not inherently, contained in [the] signal[,] in order to evaluate the main component when comparing continuously [sensed] pressure to a historical value." Id. Appellant argues, inter alia, that O'Brien's "sensors 15a-e measure sudden abnormal air flow (e.g., a rapid drop in pressure) in the axial flow compression system to detect rotating stall," and therefore, "do not measure a steady-state parameter, as recited in independent claim 1." Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner responds that "[a]bsen[t] any other teaching, []pressure measurements normally refer[] to static pressure measurements (steady-state parameter)," and because O'Brien fails to teach that sensors 15a-e measure "sudden abnormal air flow," as argued by Appellant, O'Brien is obviously teaching static pressure measurement. Ans. 4. Alternatively, the Examiner determines that during a steady-state condition of the compressor, the dynamic pressure measurement is a steady-state pressure measurement. Id. at 5. We determine that the Examiner has failed to support the conclusion that absent any other teaching, a pressure measurement from a stage of a multi-stage compressor must necessarily be a measurement obtained during a steady-state condition within the stage. Nor do we agree, for the reasons stated supra, that a dynamic pressure measurement is also a steady-state pressure measurement. The Examiner also has not provided support from 0 'Brien that baseline values are used at least for comparison against a dynamic pressure measurement to evaluate compressor operation, nor can we find any explanation in 0 'Brien that such a comparison is made. See, 9 Appeal2014-001982 Application 12/437,387 e.g., O'Brien 3:24--27 ("When a rotating stall develops ... , a signal 16a-e is sent to the engine control system 17 from the sensor 15a-e which detects the rotating stall."). Thus, the Examiner has failed to establish by a preponderance of evidence that 0 'Brien is teaching sensing a steady-state pressure measurement to determine a fault. Yeung does not cure the deficiencies in the Examiner's finding with respect to 0 'Brien, as discussed supra. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2, 6, and 8-10 depending therefrom under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over O'Brien and Yeung. Rejection III Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, 5-8, and 10 Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner found, inter alia, that Khalid's inter-stage transducer 132 is an inter-stage sensor configured to sense a steady-state parameter at an inter-stage location between stages of rotary blades of a rotary machine. Final Act. 7 (citing Khalid 3: 1-3 ). Although the Examiner noted in the Final Action that "Khalid does not teach whether [the] measurement is steady-state" ((Final Act. 8) (emphasis added)), the Examiner clarified in the Examiner's Answer that Khalid expressly states that the "'present invention has been described using particular static pressure input signals"' (Ans. 5 (citing Khalid 4:63---65) (emphasis added) (noting Appellant's statements that a steady-state parameter is a static pressure measurement)). The Examiner concludes that "[t]herefore, Khalid obviously teaches measuring [a] steady-state parameter." Ans. 5. The Examiner further found that "both Khalid and Yeung teach detecting compressor stall" (Id.; see also Final Act. 7-8), and 10 Appeal2014-001982 Application 12/437,387 that Yeung further teaches detection of a hardware fault, because Yeung discloses identifying faults caused by"[ compressor] damage due to [the] ingestion of foreign objects." Final Act. 3 (citing Yeung 1 :24--26). The Examiner reasons that "[ w ]hen Khalid monitors parameters to detect compressor stall ... , it would obviously detect compressor hardware faults as taught by Yeung." Id. at 8 (citing Yeung 1:20-27). First, Appellant argues that Khalid fails to disclose the claimed identification of a hardware fault. Appeal Br. 12. However, this argument fails to address the Examiner's combination, which relies on Yeung for disclosing identification of a hardware fault. See Final Act. 8. Second, Appellant argues that "Yeung detects stall and surge in a compressor by measuring dynamic pressure and dynamic velocity." Appeal Br. 13. However, this argument fails to address the Examiner's combination, which relies on Khalid for disclosing compressor fault detection based, at least in part, on a sensed inter-stage steady-state parameter. Third, Appellant argues that because, in Yeung, "compressor stall may not be related to a hardware fault at all," Yeung fails to disclose identification of a hardware fault, as required by independent claim 1. Reply Br. 5 (emphasis added). We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. As admitted by Appellant, when a stall is identified in Yeung because of the ingestion of foreign objects into Yeung's rotary machine, as disclosed by Yeung, the fault would be a hardware fault, as required by independent claim 1. Thus, Appellant's arguments fail to apprise us of error in the Examiner's findings with respect to Khalid and Yeung, or in the Examiner's reasoning for the proposed combination. 11 Appeal2014-001982 Application 12/437,387 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 2, 3, and 5-10 depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Khalid and Yeung. Dependent claim 4 We reverse the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 4, for the reasons discussed supra. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Yeung is REVERSED. The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yeung is REVERSED. The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 6, and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over O'Brien and Yeung is REVERSED. The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Khalid and Yeung is AFFIRMED. The Examiner's decision to reject claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Khalid and Yeung is REVERSED. 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) (2007). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation