Ex Parte Smith

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2016

12437387 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

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