Ex Parte Tsutsumi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 201712865484 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/865,484 09/21/2010 Takanori Tsutsumi 100995 3272 38834 7590 03/01/2017 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP 1250 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, NW SUITE 700 WASHINGTON, DC 20036 EXAMINER LAU, JASON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3743 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2017 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): patentmail @ whda.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TAKANORI TSUTSUMI, SHIGEHIDE KOMADA, MASAHIKO TANIGUCHI, SHINJI MATSUMOTO, KOUTARO FUJIMURA, YASUHIRO SUEOKA, and ISAO MORI YAM A Appeal 2015-001380 Application 12/865,484 Technology Center 3700 Before EDWARD A. BROWN, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Takanori Tsutsumi et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, LTD. is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2015-001380 Application 12/865,484 INVENTION The invention “relates to a control device of a coal pulverizer which feeds a pulverized fuel, which is obtained by pulverizing a solid fuel to fine powder, to a boiler along with carrying air.” Spec. 1. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim, and claims 2—10 depend from claim 1. Claim 1 reads: 1. A control device of a coal pulverizer which pulverizes coal by the coal pulverizer and estimates coal output by which the pulverized coal is output to a boiler, the control device comprising: a main operation circuit configured to calculate a command signal associated with a coal feed rate on the basis of detection data from a boiler or a power generator connected to the boiler; and an additional control unit configured to calculate a deviation between a standard coal output pattern preset in the coal pulverizer and a current coal output pattern of the coal pulverizing operation, and to generate a correction signal based on the deviation, the correction signal being used to correct the command signal, wherein the additional control unit is configured to send the correction signal to the main operation circuit during the coal pulverizing operation, wherein the correction signal is added to the command signal so as to correct the command signal, and wherein the additional control unit comprises a coal output estimation unit configured to estimate the coal output of pulverized coal by using at least any of detection data from the coal pulverizer, detection data from the boiler, and detection data from the power generator. Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.). 2 Appeal 2015-001380 Application 12/865,484 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6—8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Williams, Jr. (US 6,467,707 Bl, issued Oct. 22, 2002 (hereinafter “Williams”)) and Rennie, Jr. (US 2007/0100502 Al, published May 3, 2007 (hereinafter “Rennie”)). Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Williams, Rennie, and Garrett, Jr. (US 3,467,036, issued Sept. 16, 1969 (hereinafter “Garrett”)). Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Williams, Rennie, “B & W Roll Wheel® Pulverizers” (2002) (hereinafter “Babcock and Wilcox”), Svensson (US 4,382,558, issued May 10, 1983), and Takakura (US 5,406,817, issued Apr. 18, 1995). Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Williams, Rennie, and Sato (US 4,528,918, issued July 16, 1985). ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6—8 over Williams and Rennie Claim 1 recites “an additional control unit configured to calculate a deviation between a standard coal output pattern preset in the coal pulverizer and a current coal output pattern of the coal pulverizing operation” and “the additional control unit comprises a coal output estimation unit configured to estimate the coal output of pulverized coal.” Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App., emphasis added). During examination of a patent application, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The 3 Appeal 2015-001380 Application 12/865,484 Specification describes that “[i]n the coal output estimation unit. . . the correction signal is calculated in the additional control unit on the basis of a coal output estimate on the selected side.” Spec. 111. The Specification also describes: The function generator 22 of the additional control unit 20 is a function which gives a targeted mill coal output pattern 23. The difference between this pattern and a mill coal output estimation signal is input to the control unit 24. The control unit 24 is, for example, a proportional controller, etc. An output signal of the additional control unit 20 is added to a conventional control signal, and serves as a coal feed rate command 13. Id. 124 (emphasis added). Based on these passages in the Specification, in claim 1, we construe the “current coal output pattern” to be the “coal output of pulverized coal” estimated by the coal output estimation unit. This construction is consistent with Appellants’ position. See, e.g., Reply Br. 3 (“Appellants submit that the control unit of Rennie does not estimate current coal output, but predicts future coal output.”). The Specification describes that the current mill coal output is estimated from measurements taken by mill coal output estimation unit 30 using expression (1). Spec. 121. The estimated mill coal output (current coal output pattern) of the roller mill (coal pulverizer) is compared to the standard coal output pattern preset to calculate a deviation between these values, which is used to generate a correction signal to correct the command signal associated with the coal feed rate supplied to the coal pulverizer. Appellants contest the Examiner’s finding that Rennie discloses a control unit that estimates current coal output. Appeal Br. 3; Final Act. 3 (citing Rennie 8). In contrast, Appellants contend, Rennie discloses predicting future coal output. Appeal Br. 3; see Rennie 26. 4 Appeal 2015-001380 Application 12/865,484 The Examiner determines that Rennie teaches estimating both current coal output and future coal output. Ans. 8. According to the Examiner, Rennie’s control unit uses past operating conditions and present monitored conditions to develop and update a predicted coal output trajectory (estimated coal output pattern) to the boiler for the entire operation of the steam production cycle. Id. (citing Rennie 8 and providing a graph indicating estimated coal output versus time for steam production operation). Id. The Examiner determines that, for example, at the current time, the control unit can determine the estimated coal output based on the predicted coal output trajectory. Id. at 9. Rennie describes: An example method involves obtaining a plurality of input values associated with producing steam and using a model predictive controller to determine a first value associated with predicting an amount of first fuel and a second value associated with predicting an amount of second fuel to produce an amount of steam. Fuel feed rates of the first and second fuels are then controlled based on the first and second values. Rennie | 8. Rennie discloses steam production system 100 including steam boiler 102 having furnace 106 that bums fossil fuel (first fuel), such as coal, received from fossil fuel supply reservoir 108, and an alternative fuel (second fuel) received from alternative fuel supply reservoir 110; and control system 112. Id. 125, Fig. 1. Control system 112 acquires and monitors operating conditions to determine configuration settings that should be used to maintain the steam production output within a predetermined, required, or desired operating range, while maintaining other operating characteristics within such ranges. Id. 126, Fig. 1. Rennie further explains operation of control system 112: 5 Appeal 2015-001380 Application 12/865,484 the control system 112 uses measurements of current and/or previous operating conditions to perform analyses to predict how the steam production system 100 may operate in the near or distant future and, based on those analyses, generates configuration settings that are forward-looking to prevent the steam production system 112 from operating outside the predetermined, required or desired operating range(s). Id. (emphasis added). Appellants contend that Rennie does not describe “past” operating conditions. Reply Br. 2. We are not persuaded, however, that “previous” operating conditions mentioned by Rennie are different from “past” operating conditions. Appellants also contend that predicting a future coal output is different from estimating a current coal output. Id. Appellants contend that Rennie discloses predicting future coal output and controlling an actual coal output to bring it close to the predicted future coal output. Id. at 3. Appellants also contend there is no need in Rennie to estimate the current coal output because it can be measured directly. Id. These contentions are persuasive. Rennie describes that fuel feed rates are measured data and an “operating condition.” Rennie 121. Rennie does not appear to estimate the current output pattern of fossil fuel to furnace 106. Rather, Rennie teaches predicting (estimating) future operation of system 100 based on measurements of current (i.e., present-time) and/or previous operating conditions (e.g., fuel feed rates), and then using the predictions to generate forward-looking configuration settings. Rennie 1126, 33. Rennie discloses that the current operating conditions are measured, not estimated. 6 Appeal 2015-001380 Application 12/865,484 Appellants also contest the Examiner’s finding that Rennie states the coal output estimate is a current fuel feed rate. Reply Br. 3; Ans. 9 (citing Rennie 86, Fig. 6). We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established such disclosure at these cited locations in Rennie. Appellants further contend that the Examiner also erred in finding that Rennie teaches “a control circuit (202, Fig. 2) configured to calculate a deviation . . . between a standard coal output pattern preset. . . and a current coal output pattern.” Appeal Br. 4; see Final Act. 3. Rather, Appellants assert Rennie’s control circuit 202 “predicts future coal output only and does not include a coal output estimation unit which estimates current coal output.” Appeal Br. 4. The Examiner answers that Rennie does teach estimating a current coal output. Ans. 9. For reasons discussed above, the Examiner’s finding that Rennie teaches estimating a current coal output is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Appellants contend that the Examiner also erred in finding that Rennie teaches “a control circuit (202, Fig. 2) configured ... to generate a correction signal based on the deviation (fossil fuel adjustment output value 204 adjusts fuel feed rate; see paragraph [0036]).” Appeal Br. 4; Final Act. 3. Appellants contend that Rennie does not disclose a control circuit configured to calculate a deviation between a standard coal output pattern preset and an “estimated” current coal output pattern, as “a predicted coal output trajectory line is a future coal output trajectory line, not a current coal output pattern.” Reply Br. 5—6. These contentions are persuasive for the reasons discussed above. 7 Appeal 2015-001380 Application 12/865,484 Appellants contend that the Examiner also erred in finding Rennie teaches that “the control unit (paragraph [0019]) comprises a coal output estimation unit configured to estimate the coal output (para. 8) by using the detection data from the boiler (steam pressure sensor 132; see paragraph [0026], ‘monitor various operating . . Appeal Br. 5; Final Act. 3. Appellants contend that Rennie does not disclose that control circuit 202, which the Examiner finds corresponds to the claimed “additional control unit,” comprises a “coal output estimation unit,” as claimed. Appeal Br. 5. The Examiner answers that control circuit 112 in Rennie comprises a coal output estimation unit. Ans. 10. However, even assuming Rennie’s control circuit 112 comprises a coal output estimation unit, the pertinent issue is whether Rennie teaches the estimated coal output is for current coal output. The Examiner’s finding that Rennie discloses estimating a current coal output pattern is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims 2-4 and 6—8, as unpatentable over Williams and Rennie. Claim 3 over Williams, Rennie, and Garrett The Examiner’s application of Garrett to reject dependent claim 3 does not cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1. Final Act. 6—7. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over Williams, Rennie, and Garrett. Claim 5 over Williams, Rennie, Babcock and Wilcox, Svensson, and Takakura The Examiner’s application of Babcock and Wilcox, Svensson, and Takakura to reject dependent claim 5 does not cure the deficiencies of the 8 Appeal 2015-001380 Application 12/865,484 rejection of claim 1. Final Act. 7—8. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 5 as unpatentable over Williams, Rennie, and Garrett. Claims 9 and 10 over Williams, Rennie, and Sato The Examiner’s application of Sato to reject dependent claims 9 and 10 does not cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1. Final Act. 8—9. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 10 as unpatentable over Williams, Rennie, and Sato. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—10. REVERSED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation