Ex Parte Stewart

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 8, 2011

11455444 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 8, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GREGORY E. STEWART
____________

Appeal 2009-012394
Application 11/455,444
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, JOHN C. KERINS, and
MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-012394
Application 11/455,444

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Gregory E. Stewart (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-28 and 30-41 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Sun (US 7,165,403 B2, issued Jan. 23, 2007) and
claims 29, 42, and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sun and
Ebrahim (US 7,045,913 B2, issued May 16, 2006). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
The Invention
The claims on appeal relate to controlling multistage series
turbochargers from a feedback control point of view. Spec. 1:24-25.
Claim 1, reproduced below with paragraphing added, is illustrative of
the subject matter on appeal.
1. A multistage series turbocharger apparatus which
comprises:
a low pressure turbocharger comprising a low
pressure compressor and a low pressure turbine;
a high pressure turbocharger comprising a high
pressure compressor and a high pressure turbine;
the low pressure turbocharger being connected in
series with the high pressure turbocharger such that the
low pressure compressor admits ambient air at a
parameter xa and discharges the air to the high pressure
compressor at a parameter x12,
which high pressure compressor discharges the
air at a parameter xi to an intake manifold of an
internal combustion engine; and
which high pressure turbine admits exhaust gas
from an exhaust manifold of the internal combustion
engine at a parameter xe and
Appeal 2009-012394
Application 11/455,444

3
which high pressure turbine discharges the
exhaust gas to the low pressure turbine at a parameter
x21,
which low pressure turbine discharges the
exhaust gas to an exhaust;
wherein the operation of at least two of the low
pressure compressor, high pressure compressor, low
pressure turbine and high pressure turbine are variable
such that at least two of parameters xi, x12, xe and x21 are
variable;
sensors for continually measuring at least two of the
parameters xi, x12, xe and x21;
at least two independently controlled actuators for
continually adjusting at least two of the parameters xi,
x12, xe and x21; and
a multivariable controller having a control algorithm
for continually controlling the operation of at least two of
the low pressure compressor, high pressure compressor,
low pressure turbine and high pressure turbine by
continually reading measurement values from the sensors
of at least two of the parameters xi, x12, xe and x21;
continually comparing the measurement values from
the sensors of at least two of the parameters xi, x12, xe and
x21 to selected values, and then adjusting at least two of
the parameters xi, x12, xe and x21 with at least two
actuators, such that at least one of parameters xi, x12, xe
and x21 is maintained at about a selected value.

OPINION
For the reasoning provided by Appellant in the Appeal Brief on pages
10 and 11 and the Reply Brief on page 4, we agree that Sun’s electronics fail
to function as set forth in claims. The Examiner’s rejection (Ans. 4) and
response to Appellant (Ans. 12-14) fail to adequately explain how the
electronics disclosed in Sun is a multivariable controller that outputs
Appeal 2009-012394
Application 11/455,444

4
actuator signals as a function of sensor history and desired setpoint targets
for the sensors as called for in the claims on appeal. As a result, we cannot
agree with the Examiner that Sun discloses by a preponderance of the
evidence a multivariable controller as arranged in the claims on appeal.
The Examiner does not use Ebrahim to remedy the deficiency with
Sun as noted above.
DECISION
In view of the Appellant’s arguments, we reverse the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1-43 as either anticipated or unpatentable with Sun.

REVERSED

Klh

HONEYWELL TURBO TECHNOLOGIES
PATENT SERVICES
101 COLUMBIA ROAD
MORRISTOWN, NJ 07962