Ex Parte Volkel

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 15, 2009

10764295 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 15, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte THOMAS VOLKEL
____________

Appeal 2009-002443
Application 10/764,295
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: December 15, 2009
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MAHSHID D. SAADAT,
and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1, 4-8, 10, 13, 15, and 18. Claims 2, 3, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, and
19 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2009-002443
Application 10/764,295

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to a method for spectral evaluation of an
object which may be carried out independently of the operating state of the
object (Spec. 2:16-19). According to Appellant, the evaluation is carried out
by configuring an envelope alarm curve for a defined operating state and
modifying the recorded frequency spectrum of the object to be tested (Spec.
3:27-32). Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows:
1. A method for evaluation of a rotating object, the method
comprising:

providing a first operating parameter that is an actual rotational
speed value;

automatically recording a frequency spectrum of the object to
be tested by measuring means, wherein the frequency spectrum has
first amplitude values which depend on first frequency values;

automatically using the first frequency values of the frequency
spectrum for normalization in relation to the actual rotational speed
value;

automatically forming an alarm curve with second amplitude
values which depend on second frequency values;

automatically using the second frequency values of the alarm
curve for normalization in relation to the actual rotational speed value;

automatically changing the second amplitude values of the
alarm curve according to a second operating parameter, wherein the
operating states of the object to be tested are characterized by the
second operating parameter which is proportional to a load of the
object to be tested, and wherein the operating states of the object to be
tested are further characterized by a third operating parameter which
is proportional to a temperature of the object to be tested;

Appeal 2009-002443
Application 10/764,295

3
automatically comparing the first amplitude values of the
normalized frequency spectrum with the second amplitude values of
the alarm curve which is changed according to the second operating
parameter, and the third operating parameter; and

using a result of the comparison to evaluate the object to be
tested.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hoth EP 0 908 805 A1 Apr. 14, 1999
Piety US 5,922,963 Jul. 13, 1999
Lofall WO 99/60351 Nov. 25, 1999

Claims 1, 4-8, 10, 13, 15, and 18 stand rejected as obvious under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lofall and Piety in view of Hoth.
We make reference to the Briefs (Appeal Brief filed Aug. 23, 2007
and Reply Brief filed Feb. 27, 2008) and the Answer (mailed Dec. 31, 2007)
for the respective positions of Appellant and the Examiner. Only those
arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which Appellant did not make in the Briefs have not been
considered and are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant does not dispute the
teachings of Lofall and Piety with respect to the claimed features related to
adjustments of alarm curves. Appellant’s arguments merely focus on
whether combining Lofall and Piety with Hoth would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art resulting in the claimed invention (App. Br. 5-
Appeal 2009-002443
Application 10/764,295

4
8). Therefore, the issue specifically turns on whether one of ordinary skill in
the art would have combined the disclosures of Hoth with Lofall and Piety
and, if so, whether the combination of the applied references teaches the
claimed subject matter.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact (FF) are relevant to the issue involved
in the appeal.
1. Hoth determines whether operating equipment are performing
within their so-called norms by obtaining data during an initial learning
mode, which are compared with the data from the monitor mode to estimate
the potential for failure. (Col. 3, ll. 14-35.)
2. Hoth obtains dependent norms in the form of average values for
each vibration frequency band with respect to temperature and load. (Col. 3,
ll. 22-25.)
3. Hoth further provides for sensors for determining the machine
temperature as well as the machine load. (Col. 5, ll. 17-24.)
4. Hoth considers temperature in addition to load in calculating
certain parametric relationships. (Col. 9, ll. 27-33.)

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
591 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Appeal 2009-002443
Application 10/764,295

5
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior
art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.’
KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
The KSR Court further recognized that “[w]hen there is a design need
or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of
identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason
to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” Id. at 421.

ANALYSIS
Appellant’s contentions focus on the way Hoth uses temperature data
and state (App. Br. 5) that Hoth uses such data as a multiplier for adjusting a
calculated probability of failure numbers, whereas the claims require
considering the temperature data for adjusting an alarm curve. Appellant
restates the details of the process disclosed in Hoth and concludes that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Hoth
with Lofall and Piety because Hoth uses temperature data in a manner
different from the method described in Lofall and Piety (App. Br. 7-8).
We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that Hoth is relied on merely
to teach that temperature is an additional parameter in evaluating
characteristics of operating equipment (Ans. 7, 17). As stated by the
Examiner (id.), Hoth describes temperature as an operational parameter
relied on in evaluating and monitoring equipment (FF 1-4). While Hoth
evaluates the performance characteristics of operating equipment by
comparing the monitored data with those of the learning mode (FF 1),
Appeal 2009-002443
Application 10/764,295

6
temperature is nonetheless described as one of the parameters that provide
the necessary data for evaluating the operation of the equipment.
Therefore, contrary to Appellant’s argument (Reply Br. 2) that Hoth,
which relates to adjustment of a probability, cannot be properly combined
with Lofall and Piety, which relate to adjustment of alarm curves, the
proposed combination does not require incorporating the entire system of
Hoth in Lofall and Piety. In fact, the teaching value of Hoth relied on by the
Examiner is in using temperature as one of the operating parameters for
evaluating the object or equipment, not in the specific evaluating approach
implemented by Hoth. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
considered using temperature as one of the operating parameters in
evaluating the object. Modifying Lofall and Piety with Hoth would have
been obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that using temperature would have provided an additional operating
parameter in adjusting the alarm curves. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
Therefore, Appellant has not presented any convincing arguments or
evidence that the Examiner erred in combining the references.

CONCLUSION
For all of the above discussed reasons, we find no error in the
Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
combined the disclosures of Hoth with Lofall and Piety and the combination
of the applied references teaches the claimed subject matter. With respect to
independent claim 18, Appellant relies upon similar arguments as advanced
with respect to independent claim 1(App. Br. 8). Therefore, we sustain the
Appeal 2009-002443
Application 10/764,295

7
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 18 as well as
dependent claims 4-8, 10, 13, and 15, which are not argued separately.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 4-8, 10, 13, 15, and
18 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

gvw

SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPT.
170 WOOD AVENUE SOUTH
ISELIN, NJ 08830