Ex Parte Wall et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 23, 2016

13658986 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/658,986 10/24/2012 Gunther Wall 251635-1 3841
6147 7590 12/28/2016
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GLOBAL RESEARCH
ONE RESEARCH CIRCLE
BLDG. K1-3A59
NISKAYUNA, NY 12309
EXAMINER
AMICK, JACOB M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2016 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):
haeckl@ge.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
Lori.e.rooney @ ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GUNTHER WALL, ANTHONY MARK THOMPSON,
WEI WEI, and GABOR AST1
Appeal 2015-003607
Application 13/658,986
Technology Center 3700
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ROBERT L. KINDER, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—17. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is General Electric
Company. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-003607
Application 13/658,986
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ “invention relates generally to the field of power
generation and more particularly to a power generation system utilizing
waste heat from a reformer system.” Spec. ]f 1. The Application states that
“[a] reformer system converts a portion of liquid or gaseous fuels to a
synthesis gas (or syngas), usually by a catalytic fuel conversion processes.”
Id. at 13. The reformer system involves a high temperature processes to
generate the syngas, and before use in an internal combustion engine, the
syngas can be cooled, which leads to waste heat that is released into the
ambient atmosphere. Id. at ]f]f 4—5. An objective of the invention is to
integrate the reformer system with a waste heat recovery system, including
Rankine cycle flow path of working fluid, for increasing the overall
efficiency of the power generation system. Id. at || 6—7.
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 9, and 11 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter and reads:
1. A power generation system comprising:
a reformer system for producing syngas for an internal
combustion engine, the reformer system comprising a reforming
unit comprising a catalyst for thermochemical conversion of a
first portion of a hydrocarbon fuel to the syngas; and
a waste heat recovery system comprising at least one organic
Rankine cycle flow path of working fluid, at least one waste heat
recovery exchanger for extracting waste heat located in a flow
path of the reformer system, and at least one evaporator for using
the extracted waste heat for heating the working fluid.
App. Br. 14 (Claims App’x).
2
Appeal 2015-003607
Application 13/658,986
Examiner’s Rejection
I. The Examiner rejected claims 1—3, 6, 9, 11—14, and 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Fisher (US 6,510,695 Bl, issued
Jan. 28, 2003). Final Act. 3 (mailed April 24, 2014).
II. The Examiner rejected claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 15 and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fisher. Id. at 6.
ANAFYSIS
I. Anticipation Based on Fisher
Claims F 9, and 11
Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part: “a waste heat recovery system
comprising at least one organic Rankine cycle flow path of working fluid, at
least one waste heat recovery exchanger for extracting waste heat located in
a flow path of a reformer system, and at least one evaporator for using the
extracted waste heat for heating the working fluid.” App. Br. 14 (Claims
App’x). Claims 14 and 19 each recite similar limitations. See App. Br. 10,
15.
The Examiner relies on Fisher as disclosing these limitations.
Referring to Figure 1 of Fisher, the Examiner identifies power bottoming
cycle 80 of Fisher as the claimed “at least one organic Rankine cycle flow
path of working fluid.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that the claimed at
least one waste heat recovery exchanger for extracting waste heat located in
a flow path of the reformer system, is disclosed by Fisher’s boiler 62. Id.
The Examiner finds:
The path comprising fuel line 66 (leaving the reformer 64),
passing though syngas storage 59, entering the combustor 25 and
turbine 26, and then exhausting via line 81 is generally “a flow
3
Appeal 2015-003607
Application 13/658,986
path of the reformer system” as it carries fuel products from the
reformer to and through turbine unit 20.
Ans. 6. The Examiner’s findings are based on a theory that “[w]hile some
waste heat is removed from the syngas line 66 via element 67 some residual
heat energy will still be present in the syngas and will carry through the
system.” Id. at 7. As explained by the Examiner, “heat in the syngas from
the solar reformer 64 will add heat energy to combustion process in the
turbine generator combustor 25 and thus add heat energy to the exhaust
leaving turbine 26.” Id. Based upon this theory, the Examiner concludes
that “[h]eat energy in the combustion exhaust leaving the system (via the
exhaust path 81 from the turbine generator) is recovered in the bottoming
turbine unit 80 via vaporizer 82 (a Rankine cycle system evaporator utilizing
heat from exhaust line 81).” Id. The Examiner does not cite to any portion
of Fisher to support the finding that heat energy from the solar reformer 64
will carry through to add heat energy to the exhaust leaving turbine 26.
Appellants challenge whether Fisher discloses “at least one evaporator
for using the extracted waste heat in a Rankine cycle system, wherein the
waste heat is extracted by a heat exchanger from a flow path of the reformer
system.” App. Br. 10. Appellants describe thoroughly the structure and
flow path of Fisher. Id. at 10, 12. Appellants contend that Fisher does not
describe utilization of the extracted heat from the reformer apparatus 60 in
either the bottoming turbine unit 80 or the gas turbine unit 20 used for
generating power. Id. at 10—11. Appellants note that Fisher describes its
systems “as gas turbine unit 20, fuel producer apparatus 40, reformer
appeartus [sic] 60, and bottoming turbine unit 80 (column 2, lines 35-37).”
Id. at 12. After describing the initial flow path of fuel in reformer 60 into
4
Appeal 2015-003607
Application 13/658,986
boiler 62, Appellants contend that the syngas precursor then passes through
heat exchanger 67 in boiler 62 before being supplied to condenser 65 where
syngas is created and pumped via pump 69 to storage tank 59 for use by gas
turbine combustor 25. Id. According to Appellants, “[t]he combustion
product from combustor 25 is provided for driving a turbine 26,” and
“[tjurbine 26 produces hot exhaust gasses 81 which are supplied to heat
exchanger 29 of gas turbine unit 20 and vaporizer 82 of bottoming turbine
unit 80.” Id.
The thrust of Appellants’ contentions are that “[b]oth heat exchanger
29 and vaporizer 82 [of Fisher] are located outside of reforming apparatus
60.” Id. Appellants argue that “Fisher describes four separate units where
one unit uses products of one or more other units,” and “[h]eat is extracted
from the flow parts of several systems but not the reformer system.” Id. at
13. According to Appellants, there is no teaching or reason to intermesh the
units. Id. Appellants further argue that although the syngas that is stored in
syngas storage 59 is eventually delivered to combustor 25, “combustor 25,
as well as elements coupled thereto or further therefrom are not part of the
‘flow path of the reformer system.’” Reply Br. 3. Appellants contend that
“[ijnstead, the flow path of the reformer system is comprised of the path
between various elements in the reformer system itself.” Id.
Based on the record before us, the Examiner has not persuasively
established that Fisher discloses the combined claim requirements of “at
least one organic Rankine cycle flow path of working fluid” and “at least
one waste heat recovery exchanger for extracting waste heat located in a
flow path of a reformer system, and at least one evaporator for using the
extracted waste heat for heating the working fluid.” App. Br. 14. We find
5
Appeal 2015-003607
Application 13/658,986
persuasive, based on the record before us, Appellants’ contention that:
To allege that the syngas that enters combustor 25 via line 58
(that exits the syngas storage) under normal circumstances or the
natural gas that may enter combustor 25 via line 61 during
backup operation may have residual energy that is exchanged in
an evaporator situated two units away (first through turbine unit
20 and then in bottoming turbine unit 80 . . .) is straining any
reasonable interpretation of “flow path of the reformer system.”
Reply Br. 3. The Examiner’s finding that “some residual heat energy will
still be present in the syngas and will carry through the system” (Ans. 7),
while perhaps possible in theory, is not supported by the evidence of record.
Specifically, the Examiner has not persuasively established that Fisher
discloses a waste heat recovery exchanger in a flow path of the reformer
system such that energy captured from the reformer apparatus could be
recovered in the bottoming turbine unit 80 via vaporizer 82. Such energy
transfer would occur, for example, after the syngas is stored in syngas
storage 59, delivered to combustor 25 and then through turbine 26, and
thereafter to vaporizer 82 from exhaust line 81. Fisher does not disclose
such an energy transfer and the Examiner does not provide persuasive
rationale as to why such a transfer must occur. Accordingly, the Examiner’s
finding that the reformer 60 of Fisher would “add heat energy to the exhaust
leaving turbine 26” into exhaust line 81 (Ans. 7) is not persuasive based on
the record before us.
For the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, as well as independent claims 9 and 11.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 12—14, and 16
Because these dependent claims depend either directly or indirectly
from one of the independent claims discussed above, we likewise do not
6
Appeal 2015-003607
Application 13/658,986
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 6, 12—14, and 16. See App.
Br. 13.
II. Obviousness over Fisher
As to claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 15, and 17, the Examiner relies on Fisher
again, but notes that Fisher does not disclose multiple waste heat exchangers
or a second Rankine cycle system. Ans. 5. The Examiner finds such
duplications would have been obvious. Id. at 6. Because the Examiner’s
findings do not cure the deficiency of Fisher noted above, we likewise do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 15, and 17.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—17.
REVERSED
7