Ex parte Utamura

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 31, 2000

08460086 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 2000)

THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written
for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MOTOAKI UTAMURA
____________
Appeal No. 1998-1248
Application No. 08/460,086
____________
HEARD: May 15, 2000
____________
Before FLEMING, GROSS, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 10 through 33. Claims 1 through 9 have been canceled.
The invention relates to the control of gas turbine power
generators. On page 2 of the specification, Appellant
Appeal No. 1998-1248
Application No. 08/460,086
2
identifies that the system makes use of a variable speed gas
turbine, which allows for high power output at elevated
temperature. On page 8 of the specification, Appellant
describes the generator as one where there is an alternating
current applied to the rotor windings. Appellant states that
by controlling the frequency of the alternating current
supplied to the rotor windings the frequency of the power
generated at the stator can be controlled. Appellant
identifies on pages 8 and 9 of the specification that by
controlling the alternating current applied to the rotor
windings, a constant frequency power is generated by the
variable speed turbine generator. Appellant identifies on
page 10 of the specification that the fuel flow to the gas
turbine is responsive to the load demand. As Appellant shows
in figure 3, plot 120, this results in the turbine speed
increasing in response to increase load and ambient
temperature. Appellant identifies on page 10 of the
specification that by operating the turbine at increased speed
at higher ambient temperature, the compressor will intake more
air and allow the turbine to maintain a high power output.
Appellant also discloses on page 10 of the specification that
Appeal No. 1998-1248
Application No. 08/460,086
3
the frequency of the alternating current applied to the rotor
is adjusted based upon load demand and ambient temperature.
Independent Claim 10 is representative of the invention:
10. An adjustable speed gas turbine power generation
apparatus comprising:
a compressor for taking in and compressing air;
a combustor for combusting fuel with the compressed air
from the compressor to generate combustion gas;
a gas turbine driven by the generated combustion gas;
a fuel control device for controlling an amount of fuel
to be supplied to the combustor in response to a load demand
signal;
and
a power generator having a primary winding connected to a
power transmission system and a secondary winding which is
excited with alternating current; and wherein
the generator and compressor are connected to the gas
turbine by a drive shaft, and wherein a rotational speed of
the drive shaft increases to adjust an output of the gas
turbine in response to an increase in the load demand signal
and an increase in the ambient temperature.
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Carroll (Caroll) 4,321,791 Mar. 30, 1982
Geary, Jr. et al. (Geary) 4,452,048 Jun. 5, 1984
Lauw et al. (Lauw) 4,994,684 Feb. 19, 1991
Appeal No. 1998-1248
Application No. 08/460,086
Appellant filed an appeal brief on April 7, 1997. On1
September 16, 1997 Appellant filed a reply brief. On January
15, 1998 the Examiner mailed a letter stating that Appellant's
request to enter the reply brief was granted.
4
Claims 10 through 12 and 18 through 23 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll and
Lauw.
Claims 13 through 17 and 24 through 33 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll, Lauw
and Geary.
Rather then reiterate the arguments of the Appellant and
the Examiner, we refer to the briefs and the answer for the1
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 10 through 33
based upon 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Examiner has not set forth a
prima facie case. It is the burden of the Examiner to
establish why one having ordinary skill in the art would have
been lead to the claimed invention by the express teachings or
suggestions found in the prior art or by the implication
contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker,
702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Appeal No. 1998-1248
Application No. 08/460,086
5
“Additionally, when determining obviousness, the claimed
invention should be considered as a whole; there is no legally
recognizable ‘heart’ of the invention. “Para-Ordinance Mfg. V
SGS Importers Int’l Inc., 73 F.3d. 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237,
1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v.
Garlock Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), Cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984)).
Appellant argues on page 7 of the appeal brief (brief)
that the Examiner erroneously analyzed the claims to only
include that the control is responsive to ambient temperature.
Appellant asserts that the Examiner overlooked the claimed
recitation of the control being responsive to ambient
temperature and load demand. On page 8 of the brief,
Appellant asserts that none of the references of record
“varies the rotational speed of the power generator to adjust
an output of the gas turbine in response to the load demand
signal and ambient temperature.” Appellant asserts on pages 8
and 9 of the brief that Carroll does not teach controlling
drive shaft speed in accordance with ambient temperature as
asserted in the rejection. Rather, Appellant asserts that
Appeal No. 1998-1248
Application No. 08/460,086
6
Carroll teaches that ambient temperature is used to modify the
acceleration characteristics of the gas turbine control.
Further, Appellant argues on page 11 of the brief that there
is no motivation to combine Lauw with Carroll.
The Examiner asserts on page 5 of the answer that Carroll
teaches in Column 9, lines 11 through 14 and Column 3, lines
10 through 14, that the turbine control is responsive to
ambient temperature and load. Further, the Examiner asserts
that Lauw provides motivation to combine with Carroll as Lauw
states that the generator control can be used with gas
turbines.
First, we consider the rejection of claims 10 through 12
and 18 through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Carroll and Lauw. As pointed out by our reviewing court,
we must first determine the scope of the claim. “[T]he name
of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362,
1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Claims will be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification, and limitations appearing in the
Appeal No. 1998-1248
Application No. 08/460,086
7
specification are not to be read into the claims. In re
Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
We find that the scope of independent claim 10 includes
that the fuel flow to the gas turbine is controlled in
response to the load and that the speed of the turbine is
increased with increasing ambient temperature and load. This
is shown in the following limitations of claim 10:
“controlling the fuel supplied to the combustor in response to
a load demand signal” and “wherein the rotational speed of the
drive shaft increases to adjust an output of the gas turbine
in response to an increase in the load demand signal and an
increase in the ambient temperature.” The scope of claims 11
through 12 and 18 through 23 all include these limitations as
the claims are all ultimately dependent upon claim 10.
Having determined the scope of claims 10 through 12 and
18 through 23, we next consider the teachings of the
references applied by the Examiner in the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103. We find that Carroll teaches a speed control
system for a gas turbine engine, which is responsive to the
speed demanded of the turbine. See Column 1, lines 57 to 60
Appeal No. 1998-1248
Application No. 08/460,086
8
and Column 5, lines 40 through 48. Carroll teaches that the
speed of the turbine is controlled in accordance with the
speed vs. fuel flow chart shown in figure 3. Thus, we find
that Carroll does not teach turbine control responsive to a
load signal, but rather responsive to a speed demand signal.
As such we do not find that Carroll teaches that the speed of
the turbine is responsive to demanded load or ambient
temperature. We note that, Carroll discloses that increasing
load to the turbine may decrease the speed of the turbine. In
figure 3, the plot 46 shows the full load maximum fuel flow
line and plot 60 shows the no-load fuel flow line. See Column
3, lines 36 through 39. In plot 58 the turbine speed is
decreasing as the turbine transition between no-load idle (end
of line segment 60) to full load idle (point 44).
We find that Lauw teaches a generator control circuit for
a variable speed generator. See column 1, lines 6 through 10.
Lauw’s system is such that alternating current may be applied
to the generator rotor windings. See Column 11, lines 36
through 44. The power output from the variable speed
generator is at the same frequency as the power grid. See
Column 7, lines 35 through 27. Further, Lauw teaches that
Appeal No. 1998-1248
Application No. 08/460,086
9
controlling the energy delivered to the turbine response based
upon the desired energy power demand. See Column 13, lines 4
through 18. However, we do not find that Lauw teaches that
the speed of the turbine is responsive to load and ambient
temperature.
Thus, we find that neither Carroll nor Lauw teaches or
suggests that the speed of the turbine is controlled based
upon load demand signal and that the speed of the generator is
responsive to load and ambient temperature. Accordingly, we
will not sustain the rejection of claims 10 through 12 and 18
through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We next consider the rejection of claims 13 through 17
and 24 through 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Carroll in view of Lauw and Geary. We find that the
scope of independent claims 13, 16 and 17 includes the
limitation that generator is controlled based upon load
demanded and that the speed of the generator is responsive to
load and ambient temperature. This scope is shown in the
following limitations of claim 13: “controlling an amount of
fuel supplied to the combustor in response to a load demand
signal,” and “means for controlling the rotational speed of
Appeal No. 1998-1248
Application No. 08/460,086
10
the generator to adjust an output of the gas turbine in
response to the load demand signal and ambient temperature.”
This scope is also shown in the following limitations of
claims 16 and 17: “a fuel control device for controlling an
amount to be supplied to the combustor in response to a load
demand signal” and “controlling a rotational speed of the
generator and gas turbine on the one axis in response to an
ambient temperature and load demand signal.” The scope of
claims 14 through 15 and 24 through 33 includes these
limitations as all of these claims ultimately depend upon
either claim 13, 16 or 17.
On page 8 of the brief, Appellant asserts that the
arguments applied to the rejection of claim 10 also apply to
the rejection of claims 13, 16 and 17. Further, with respect
to claim 13, Appellant asserts that Geary’s control teaching
utilizing ambient air temperature is different then the
claimed control.
On page 4 of the final office action, dated September 5,
1996, the Examiner asserts that the combination of Carroll and
Lauw teaches the control of the turbine as a function of
temperature. Further, the Examiner asserts that Geary teaches
Appeal No. 1998-1248
Application No. 08/460,086
11
that it is known to operate a combined cycle turbine system as
a function of ambient temperature. On page 6 of the answer,
the Examiner asserts that the combination of Carroll, Lauw and
Geary shows how to control the speed of a turbine shaft as a
function of ambient temperature and load.
As stated above, we do not find that the combination of
Carroll and Lauw teaches or suggests a turbine control system
which is responsive to a load demand signal and that the speed
of the generator is responsive to load and ambient
temperature. We find that Geary teaches an fluid catalatic
cracker process where the incoming air to a compressor is
mixed with warm air to heat the incoming air. See Column 2,
lines 53 through 57. The mixing of the air is controlled
based upon a measure of the ambient temperature. See Column
2, lines 54 through 63. The purpose of heating the input air
is to reduce the amount of power required to start the
compressor. See Column 2, lines 37 through 40. We fail to
find that Geary teaches controlling the turbine in accordance
with the demanded load or that the speed of the turbine is
responsive to load and ambient temperature. Rather, we find
that Geary teaches that the measure of ambient temperature is
Appeal No. 1998-1248
Application No. 08/460,086
12
used to determine how much to heat the incoming air.
Accordingly, we find that the combination of Carroll, Lauw and
Geary fails to teach or suggest all of the limitations of
claims 13 through 17 and 24 through 33.
For the foregoing reasons, we will not affirm the
examiner's rejections of claims 10 through 33 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
lp
Appeal No. 1998-1248
Application No. 08/460,086
13
DONALD E. STOUT
ANTONELLI TERRY STOUT AND KRAUS
1300 NORTH SEVENTEENTH STREET
SUITE 1800
ARLINGTON VA 22209
Leticia
Appeal No. 1998-1248
Application No. 08/460,086
APJ FLEMING
APJ LEVY
APJ GROSS
DECISION: REVERSED
Send Reference(s): Yes No
or Translation (s)
Panel Change: Yes No
Index Sheet-2901 Rejection(s):
Prepared: January 25, 2001
Draft Final
3 MEM. CONF. Y N
OB/HD GAU
PALM / ACTS 2 / BOOK
DISK (FOIA) / REPORT