Ex Parte Wehe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 3, 2018

12975742 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/975,742 12/22/2010
6147 7590 05/07/2018
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GPO/GLOBAL RESEARCH
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shawn Wehe
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.
233756-1 (30650-0018) 6088
EXAMINER
LAU,JASON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/07/2018 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 SHAWN WEHE, JOEL HA YNES,
KEITH MCMANUS, GREGORY KNOTT, and
DOUGLASL.WASHBURN
Appeal2017-006994
Application 12/975,742
Technology Center 3700
Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-10 and 12-23 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Myhre (US 2006/0000219 Al, pub. Jan. 5, 2006) and Krull (US
2010/0220182 Al, pub. Sept. 2, 2010). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2017-006994
Application 12/975,742
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an optical combustor probe system and
method. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An optical probe system for use with a combustion flame
within a combustion chamber, comprising:
a plurality of optical probes positioned downstream of a
plurality of injection ports and fixedly attached about a cyclone
and within the combustion chamber;
wherein the plurality of optical probes are positioned such
that the plurality of optical probes collects light generated within
said combustion chamber by the combustion flame flowing
across a field of view of each of the plurality of optical probes,
wherein said field of view is within said combustion chamber;
and
one or more components external to the combustion
chamber to produce and analyze signals indicative of the light
generated by the combustion flame flowing across the field of
view of each of the plurality of optical probes, to spatially
discriminate a location of the combustion flame in a region of
interest within the combustion chamber, to measure temporal
fluctuations of the combustion flame in the region of interest, and
thereby to determine a combustion event in the region of interest.
OPINION
Appellants argue that neither Myhre nor Krull, teach or suggest "one
or more components external to the combustion chamber ... to spatially
discriminate a location of the combustion flame in a region of interest within
the combustion chamber" of claim 1, or the similar limitations in
independent claims 10 and 15. Appeal Br. 8-9. The Examiner finds that
both Myhre and Krull teach this feature. Final Act. 4--5; Adv. Act. 2--4. For
example, the Examiner finds that "Krull identifies spatial discrimination of
2
Appeal2017-006994
Application 12/975,742
the combustion flame in a region of interest within the combustion chamber
since the cameras produce 'a composite (e.g. 3 dimensional) image of the
combustion interior ... [ which can detect] the shape and/ or size of the each
flame [that] may vary with time'." Adv. Act. 3. Krull further teaches that
"[ c ]ontroller 42 is configured to analyze these images [ from the combustor]
and detect flame abnormities and/ or structural defects within each combustor
16." Krull ,r 29. In this way the controller can detect conditions such as
flame temperature, flame presence, etc. Id. at ,r 21; see also Final Act. 5.
Concerning Krull, Appellants argue that
any composite or 3 dimensional image of the combustion interior
[as in Krull], which can detect the shape and/or size of[] each
flame that may vary with time, has nothing to do with, and
therefore cannot be equated with any "discrimination", meaning
"differentiation" and technically they are two completely
different aspects of any spatial action.
Appeal Br. 16.
Appellants further explain this argument stating that the "a picture
image or video of Krull, that is able to capture the location and
characteristics of the flame is still related to mere "distribution" and
descriptive aspects of the flame, signifying "spread" or "quantitative"
aspects of the flame, and cannot be equated with any "discrimination",
meaning "differentiation", "which, scientifically is a qualitative aspect."
Reply Br. 4--5 (emphasis added).
Appellants attempt to differentiate the claims while quoting from their
Specification's description of spatially discriminating. See Spec. ,r 122
("The use of a number of the optical combustor probes 110 thus provides the
ability to discriminate spatially the location of combustion events from
different locations. In other words, the location and characteristics of the
3
Appeal2017-006994
Application 12/975,742
combustion flame 90 within the combustion chamber 40 may be accurately
determined.") ( emphasis added).
Though it is possible for "discrimination" to be related to "a
qualitative aspect" of a flame as argued by Appellants, the claims are
directed to "spatially discriminat[ing] a location of the combustion flame."
Appellants' Specification does not provide much detail on how this is done,
but it does highlight that "discriminat[ ion]" is related to the "location of the
combustion flame within the combustion chamber." Spec. ,r 106; see also
id. at ,r 122 and Ans. 3.
Thus, we are not informed of error in the Examiner's rejection.
The Examiner finds that both Myhre and Krull teach or suggest "one
or more components external to the combustion chamber ... to spatially
discriminate a location of the combustion flame in a region of interest within
the combustion chamber" of claim 1, or the similar limitations in
independent claims 10 and 15 (Final Act. 4--5; Adv. Act. 2--4), and
Appellants do not identify error in the Examiner's findings concerning Krull.
Although this is sufficient to sustain the rejection we review Appellants'
arguments concerning the same claim limitations as taught by Myhre for the
sake of completeness of the administrative record.
The Examiner made an alternate finding that the optical sensors 30
used to produce Myhre's map of the flame zone are components that can
produce and analyze signals "to spatially discriminate a location of the
combustion flame in a region of interest within the combustion chamber."
Final Act. 4 ( citing Mhyre para. 4 7). In arguing against this finding (Reply.
Br. 2--4), Appellants fail to adhere to the express language of claim 1.
Appellants argue as though a method step of actually performing a
4
Appeal2017-006994
Application 12/975,742
discrimination is required. Reply. Br. 3. This ignores the fact that the claim
is directed to an apparatus and broadly requires components "to" perform the
recited discrimination, and not the actual performance of any spatial
discrimination. As discussed above, the Specification associates this
functionality with "optical combustor probes 11 O." Neither the surrounding
language of claim 1, nor the Specification, as discussed above, inform us as
to any specific structural distinction this functional recitation imposes on the
recited "one or more components" of claim 1, particularly as compared to
Myhre's optical sensors 30. The distinction, if any, relates only to a
recitation of intended use: "to spatially discriminate" ( emphasis added).
Although a map itself may not actually perform spatial discrimination, the
ordinary meaning of the term "map" would be understood by one skilled in
the art to produce a tool that allows for ascertaining the flame location. Ans.
2-3. This would allow the determination that the flame is in one particular
location as compared to another, i.e., "spatially discriminat[ing]." Id. Thus,
we are also not apprised of any error in the Examiner regarding the sensors
30 of Myhre as "components ... to spatially discriminate .... "
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10 and 12-23 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5