Ex Parte Cheng et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 6, 2012

10969752 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 6, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4
AND INTERFERENCES 5
___________ 6
7
Ex parte XU CHENG 8
and FREDERICK C. HUFF 9
___________ 10
11
Appeal 2010-010405 12
Application 10/969,752 13
Technology Center 3600 14
___________ 15
16
17
Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and 18
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. 19
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 20
DECISION ON APPEAL 21
22
Appeal 2010-010405
Application 10/969,752
2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 1
Xu Cheng and Frederick C. Huff (Appellants) seek review under 2
35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of a final rejection of claims 1-28, the only claims 3
pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal 4
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). An oral hearing was held on January 5
12, 2012. 6
The Appellants invented computer software used in electric power 7
generation and distribution systems (Specification ¶ 0001). 8
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 9
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some 10
paragraphing added]. 11
1. A method of optimizing operation of a power generation 12
system having a plurality of power generation devices, the 13
method comprising: 14
[1] obtaining an objective function 15
of the power generation system, 16
wherein the objective function provides 17
cost of operating the power generation system 18
as a function of a plurality of variables, 19
the plurality of variables including 20
a load set-point 21
and 22
a pollution control set-point 23

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed September 17, 2009) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May18,
2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed March 18, 2010).
Appeal 2010-010405
Application 10/969,752
3

of at least one of the plurality of 1
power generation devices; 2
[2] obtaining a plurality of operating constraints 3
of the power generation system; 4
[3] obtaining an optimal solution 5
for the objective function 6
within the plurality of operating constraints 7
of the power generation system; 8
and 9
[4] determining 10
load set-points 11
and 12
pollution control set-points 13
for the power generation devices 14
based on the optimal solution for the objective 15
function. 16
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 17
Cahn US 4,110,987 Sep. 5, 1978
Ishimaru US 5,432,710 Jul. 11, 1995
Cohen US 5,621,654 Apr. 15, 1997
Claims 1-5, 7-20, and 23-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 18
unpatentable over Ishimaru and Cohen. 19
Claims 6, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 20
unpatentable over Ishimaru, Cohen, and Cahn. 21
Appeal 2010-010405
Application 10/969,752
4

ISSUES 1
The issue of obviousness turns primarily on whether the claims require 2
that the objective function result be expressed as a cost, or whether it is 3
sufficient the objective function provides such a cost in some manner. 4
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 5
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 6
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 7
Facts Related to the Prior Art 8
Ishimaru 9
01. Ishimaru is directed to an energy supply system which makes 10
effective use of energy and takes preservation of the environment 11
into account from a consumers’ standpoint as well as a national 12
point of view. The energy supply system has a power receiving 13
means for receiving electric power from a power plant, an in-14
system power generating means for generating power and heat by 15
using at least some fuel received at a fuel receiving means, a 16
power supplying means for supplying, in system interconnection, 17
the power received at the power receiving means and the power 18
generated by the in-system power generating means to a power 19
consuming installation, and a heat supplying means for supplying 20
the heat generated by the in-system power generating means to a 21
heat consuming installation. The energy supply system uses an 22
algorithm for computing an amount of operation of the in-system 23
power generating means to minimize an equation “y” when 24
meeting an energy demand of an energy consumer, and a control 25
Appeal 2010-010405
Application 10/969,752
5

means for controlling the in-system power generating means to 1
satisfy the amount of operation computed by the amount of 2
operation computing device; 3
y=aXL + bXM + cXN or any combination of these terms 4
where “a”, “b” and “c” are weighting coefficients a>=0, b>=0 5
and c>=0, which do not become zero at the same time, the 6
coefficients “a”, “b” and “c” being determinable by an assessor 7
according to a selected mode of assessment, but a XL, b XM and 8
c XN being impossible to assess without being placed in the 9
order as in the embodiment since “L”, “M” and “N” are different 10
in order and unit, 11
“L” is an energy cost borne by the energy consumer when the 12
energy demand is met, “M” is a calculated total quantity of 13
primary energy consumed to meet the energy demand, and “N” 14
is a calculated total quantity of environmental pollutants released 15
when the energy demand is met. Ishimaru 2:5-44; 11:13-17. 16
Thus, each of “L”, “M”, and “N” is a cost of creating energy 17
expressed in terms of money, energy, and pollutants. 18
02. With the energy supply system according to the present invention, 19
the control means controls the in-system power generating device 20
to operate in an optimal condition with respect to the cost borne 21
by the energy consumer, consumption of primary energy, and 22
release of environmental pollutants. The in-system power 23
generating means is operable in an optimal condition with respect 24
to the cost borne by the energy consumer, consumption of primary 25
Appeal 2010-010405
Application 10/969,752
6

energy, and release of environmental pollutants, to supply heat 1
and power to the energy consumer. Ishimaru 2:45-65 (emphasis 2
added). 3
03. The operating conditions, i.e. cost minimum, primary energy 4
minimum, and environmental pollutant minimum, or any 5
combination thereof, may be determined prior to operation of the 6
system and may be changed during operation. Ishimaru 10:37-41. 7
ANALYSIS 8
We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that Ishimaru does 9
not teach an objective function providing a cost of operation or that Ishimaru 10
does not teach determining pollution control setpoints at all, let alone based 11
on the optimal solution to an objective function (App. Br. 10-11) or that the 12
objective function y in Ishimaru does not include at least two variables, the 13
values of which are determined based on the optimal solution of the 14
objective function y (Reply Br. 2). 15
The Examiner applied Ishimaru for the subject matter of the claims 16
except for plural sources, for which the Examiner applied Cohen. 17
Appellants’ argument regarding the objective function is not commensurate 18
with the scope of the claim. Appellants are essentially arguing that because 19
Ishimaru’s objective function result y is not expressed as a cost, Ishimaru’s 20
objective function cannot be one that, as in claim 1, “provides cost of 21
operating the power generation system as a function of a plurality of 22
variables.” 23
The claim does not specify or narrow the manner in which the cost is 24
provided, nor does it recite that it is the function result that so provides the 25
Appeal 2010-010405
Application 10/969,752
7

cost. One of ordinary skill in the operation research arts knows that solving 1
for optimization of an objective function also solves for the values of the 2
function variables that result in such optimization. The whole point of an 3
objective function is to provide an analytic model relating constraints to goal 4
and altering the values of the constraints to find the optimal result. When 5
the optimal result is found, the values of the variables then provide the 6
constraint setting that result in that optimal value. 7
Ishimaru’s objective function uses three different forms of cost. The 8
reason the result y is dimensionless is because coefficients must be used in 9
the equation to put each such cost on a comparable level with the others. 10
But when a solution is found, each of the costs is provided by the values of 11
those constraints. 12
As to determining pollution control setpoints, Ishimaru describes 13
changing operating conditions, such as cost minimum, primary energy 14
minimum, and environmental pollutant minimum, or any combination 15
thereof. An environmental pollutant minimum is a point at which pollution 16
control machinery is set. 17
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 18
The rejection of claims 1-5, 7-20, and 23-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 19
unpatentable over Ishimaru and Cohen is proper. 20
The rejection of claims 6, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 21
unpatentable over Ishimaru, Cohen, and Cahn is proper. 22
DECISION 23
The rejection of claims 1-28 is affirmed. 24
Appeal 2010-010405
Application 10/969,752
8

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this 1
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 2
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007). 3
4
AFFIRMED 5
6
7
mls 8