Ex Parte Vian et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 24, 201612185978 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/185,978 08/05/2008 63759 7590 05/26/2016 DUKEW, YEE YEE & AS SOCIA TES, P.C. P.O. BOX 802333 DALLAS, TX 75380 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR John Lyle Vian 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. 08-0402-US-NP 1329 EXAMINER LIN, JASON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2121 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/26/2016 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): ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com mgamez@yeeiplaw.com patentadmin@boeing.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) lJ}HTED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADE~v1ARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN LYLE VIAN, STEPHEN LONG-EN CHIU, ALEXANDER ALEXANDROVICH BOGDANOV, and JOSEPH SHERMAN BREIT Appeal2014-003065 Application 12/185,978 Technology Center 2100 Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1, 4--15, and 17-23, all remaining claims of the application. 1 We have jurisdiction over the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 In this Decision, we refer to the original Specification ("Spec.," filed Aug. 5, 2008); the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Dec. 20, 2012); Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Mar. 20, 2013); the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Aug. 23, 2013); and Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Oct. 22, 2013). Appeal2014-003065 Application 12/185,978 THE INVENTION Appellants' invention is generally directed to "reducing a total life cycle cost for a system containing a set of mechanical, electrical, and other components that provide power generation, conversion, distribution, and usage" Spec. i-f 1. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. An apparatus comprising: a power source for supplying power; a set of primary loads capable of being operated using the power; a set of life extension loads capable of being operated using the power and capable of extending a life of the set of primary loads; a model of the set of primary loads and the set of life extension loads, wherein the model provides information about the performance, the energy use, and the life for the set of primary loads and the set of life extension loads; a controller for controlling an operation of the set of primary loads and for controlling an operation of the set of life extension loads based on performance, energy use, and life to reduce a total cost for the set of primary loads and the set of life extension loads; and a life extension estimator in cooperation with the model configured to identify a remaining life for a primary load, wherein the controller controls the performance and the energy use by the set of primary loads and the set of life extension loads to meet a policy that includes tools to balance the performance, the energy use, and the life in order to reduce total cost at a minimum performance level. THE REJECTIONS Claims 1, 4--15, 17, 18, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Delaloye (US 2006/0054406 Al; published 2 Appeal2014-003065 Application 12/185,978 ~v1ar. 16, 2006), Discenzo (US 200710050115 Al; published ~v1ar. 1, 2007), Bonissone (US 2008/0140361 Al; published June 12, 2008), Mehas (US 2005/0110561 Al; published May 26, 2005), and Nilsson (Julia Nilsson, Maintenance management of wind power systems, Cost effect analysis of condition monitoring systems, Royal Institute of Technology KTH, School of Electrical Engineering 2006). Final Act. 3-16. Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Delaloye, Discenzo, Bonissone, Mehas, Nilsson, and Ranganathan (US 2005/0240538 Al; published Oct. 27, 2005). Final Act. 16-20. Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Delaloye, Discenzo, Bonissone, Nilsson, and Ranganathan. Final Act. 20-21. ISSUES 1. Has the Examiner erred by finding the proposed combination teaches or suggests "a controller for controlling an operation of the set of primary loads and for controlling an operation of the set of life extension loads based on performance, energy use, and life to reduce a total cost for the set of primary loads and the set of life extension loads," as recited in claim 1? 2. Has the Examiner erred by finding the proposed combination teaches or suggests total costs include costs associated with life extension loads as required by dependent claim 21? 3. Has the Examiner erred by finding the proposed combination teaches or suggests "wherein the model provides information about 3 Appeal2014-003065 Application 12/185,978 performance, energy use, and life for the set of primary loads and the set of life extension loads," as recited in claim 19? ANALYSIS Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this Opinion. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. App. Br. 6-19; Reply Br. 2-13. We are not persuaded by Appellants' contentions. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and reasons set forth in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-21) and the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-8). We highlight specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. ISSUE 1 Appellants argue "[t]he Office Action acknowledges none of Delaloye, Discenzo, Bonissone, or Mehas disclose 'controlling an operation of the set of life extension loads based on performance, energy use, and life to reduce a total cost for the set of primary loads and the set of life extension loads."' App. Br. 9. Appellants further contend none of Delaloye, Discenzo, Bonissone, or Mehas disclose life extension loads. Id. Appellants further contend "Delaloye is silent as to 'controlling an operation of the set of life extension loads."' Id. In like manner, Appellants acknowledge Nilsson relates to management of maintenance of wind power systems including a cooling system but argue Nilsson fails to disclose the recited 4 Appeal2014-003065 Application 12/185,978 controller function (id.) and further argue Nilsson is silent regarding life extension loads (id. at 10). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments at least because the arguments are not responsive to the Examiner's rejection. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Delaloye discloses primary loads (turbine engine) and discloses life extension loads (cooling and lubrication systems that extend the life of the turbine engines). Final Act. 4 (citing Delaloye i-fi-f l-2). Thus, the Examiner does not rely on Discenzo, Bonissone, Mehas, or Nilsson for disclosing both primary and life extension loads. Further, the Examiner finds Delaloye discloses a controller that controls operation of the primary and life extension loads (id. (citing Delaloye i-fi-f 11, 19, 30)), but fails to disclose "controlling the loads based on performance, energy use, and life to reduce a total cost" (id.). The Examiner finds Discenzo discloses controlling loads (i.e., the loads of Delaloye in the proposed combination) according to a model that addresses performance, energy use, and life of the loads. Id. at 5. The Examiner then finds Nilsson disclosure of "the maintenance should be operated so that the equipment has high availability ... this should be done at a total cost that is as low as possible," in combination with the control of the loads of Delaloye, controlled according to the model of Discenzo, teaches or suggests controlling the load "to reduce a total cost" as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 6-7 (citing Nilsson§ 2.3). Thus, the Examiner finds the combination of Delaloye, Discenzo, and Nilsson teaches or suggests the controller function of claim 1. Thus, Appellants' arguments fail to address the combined teachings of Delaloye, Discenzo, and Nilsson and, instead, challenge each reference as failing to teach features for which the Examiner relied on other references in 5 Appeal2014-003065 Application 12/185,978 the proposed combination. Still further, Appellants' arguments improperly attack the references individually rather than addressing the combined teachings. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants' arguments in the Reply Brief regarding claim 1 are similarly unpersuasive. Reply Br. 2-8. In view of the above discussion, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 1 as well as claims 4--15, 17, and 18, argued together with claim 1 (App. Br. 8). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4--15, 17, and 18. ISSUE 2 Claim 21 depends from claim 1 and further recites "wherein the total cost comprises maintenance costs, operational costs, and replacement costs for the set of primary loads and the set of life extension loads." Appellants argue "Nilsson takes into account maintenance costs and replacement costs, however, Nilsson is silent as to costs of 'life extension loads,' as claimed." App. Br. 12. Appellants further contend, even if Nilsson's cooling system is considered a life extension load, "Nilsson is silent as to 'maintenance costs, operational costs, and replacement costs,' for the cooling system." Id. We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. As above regarding claim 1, Appellants' arguments misunderstand or mischaracterize the Examiner's rejection. In rejecting claim 1, from which claim 21 depends, the Examiner relies on Delaloye, not Nilsson, for disclosing primary and life extension loads. Nilsson is relied upon in the Examiner's rejection for disclosing determining a reduced total cost for a load (such as the loads of Delaloye 6 Appeal2014-003065 Application 12/185,978 controlled in accordance vvith a model as disclosed in Discenzo ). In rejecting claim 21, the Examiner further finds Discenzo discloses that the total cost of a load (such as the loads of Delaloye) comprises operational costs (Final Act. 14 (citing Discenzo i-f 85)) and finds Nilsson discloses total costs comprising maintenance costs and replacement costs (Final Act. 15 (citing Nilsson§§ 4.4, 4.5)). Thus, as above with respect to claim 1, Appellants' arguments fail to address the Examiner's rejection and, instead, improperly attack the references individually rather than as combined by the Examiner. Appellants' arguments in the Reply Brief regarding claim 21 are similarly unpersuasive. Reply Br. 8-10. In view of the above discussion, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 21 and claim 22 argued together with claim 21 (App. Br. 12). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 21 and 22. ISSUE 3 Independent claim 19 is a method claim reciting steps similar to functionality recited in apparatus claim 1. The Examiner rejects claim 19 combining Delaloye, Discenzo, Bonissone, Mehas, and Nilsson in essentially the same manner as in the rejection of claim 1, in further combination with Ranganathan' s teaching of monitoring energy use. See Final Act. 16-19. Appellants argue, However, Discenzo is silent as to "wherein the model provides information about performance, energy use, and life for the set of primary loads and the set of life extension loads." Simply put, Discenzo is silent as to "a set of life extension loads." Accordingly, Discenzo cannot a model [sic] providing 7 Appeal2014-003065 Application 12/185,978 information about "performance, energy use, and life," for the "set of life extension loads." App. Br. 15. We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument for essentially the same reasons as discussed supra, regarding claim 1. Appellants' argument misunderstands or mischaracterizes the Examiner's rejection. In rejecting claim 19, the Examiner relies on Delaloye (not Discenzo or Nilsson) for disclosing the set of loads comprising primary and life extension loads as claimed.2 Final Act. 16-17 (citing Delaloye i-fi-f l, 2, 11, 19, 30, 31 (turbine engine, cooling system, and lubrication system)). The Examiner relies on Discenzo (not Delaloye or Nilsson) for disclosing controlling a load (such as Delaloye' s loads) using a model relating to performance, energy use and life for the set of loads. Final Act. 1 7. Thus, as above with respect to claim 1, Appellants' argument fails to address the Examiner's rejection and, instead, improperly attacks the references individually rather than as combined by the Examiner. Appellants' arguments in the Reply Brief regarding claim 19 are similarly unpersuasive. Reply Br. 10-13. In view of the above discussion, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 19 and claim 20 argued together with claim 19 (App. Br. 15). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 19 and 20. 2 We note Appellants amended claim 19 after filing the Notice of Appeal and, after successfully petitioning, the amendment was entered. Thus, the Final Office Action addresses this recitation of claim 19 as it stood prior to the later entered amendment. The amendment is immaterial to the Examiner's rejection and to our decision. 8 Appeal2014-003065 Application 12/185,978 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4-- 15, and 17-23 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation