Ex Parte ZOMBO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 13, 2018

13274766 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/274,766 10/17/2011
28524 7590 12/17/2018
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
PAULJ. ZOMBO
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.
2011P23076US 1052
EXAMINER
LOTFI, KYLE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2489
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2018 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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL J. ZOMBO, DENNIS H. LEMIEUX, and
CLIFFORD HATCHER
Appeal2018-001288
Application 13/274,766 1
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
Per Curiam.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 5, 9-12, 14, and 17-22, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). Claims 2--4, 6-8,
13, 15, and 16 have been cancelled.
We AFFIRM IN PART.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Siemens Energy, Inc.
(App. Br. 2).
Appeal2018-001288
Application 13/274,766
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to monitoring a high-
temperature region of interest in a turbine engine using a monitoring
instrument (Spec. 3:23-27, Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for monitoring a high-temperature region of
interest in a turbine engine, the method comprising:
providing an internally-cooled stationary vane;
locating a monitoring port in the stationary vane;
operatively connecting a monitoring instrument to the
monitoring port to provide a field of view of a region of interest,
wherein the monitoring instrument has a distal end contained
within the stationary vane, wherein the monitoring instrument is
repositionable within the stationary vane about a longitudinal
axis of the vane;
locating further monitoring ports in the stationary vane to
provide further fields of view of further regions of interest;
acquiring data from the region of interest by way of a data
acquisition device coupled to the monitoring instrument, wherein
the monitoring instrument comprises a viewing instrument and
the data acquisition device comprises an infrared red (IR)
imaging device, and further wherein the acquiring of data from
the region of interest comprises concurrently acquiring two-
dimensional imaging data of the region of interest by way of the
viewing instrument coupled to the infrared red (IR) imaging
device;
processing the two-dimensional imaging data from the
infrared red (IR) imaging device to generate at least a two-
dimensional image from the region of interest, the two-
dimensional image comprising a thermal image and a spatial
image of one or more turbine components having a respective
thermal barrier coating (TBC), the one or more turbine
components located in the high-temperature region of interest in
the turbine engine;
2
Appeal2018-001288
Application 13/274,766
without interrupting operation of the turbine engine,
repositioning the monitoring instrument in the stationary vane to
be operatively connected to the further monitoring ports, wherein
the repositioning of the monitoring instrument within the
stationary vane comprises rotating the monitoring instrument,
radially moving the monitoring instrument, or both rotating and
radially moving the monitoring instrument within the stationary
vane;and
changing operational conditions of the turbine engine
based on knowledge of changes in the TBC of the one or more
turbine components located in the high-temperature region of
interest in the turbine engine, said knowledge gathered from the
generated thermal image and the spatial image of the one or more
turbine components located in the high-temperature region of
interest of the turbine engine.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Dobler
Lane
Heyworth
Allen
Douglas
Zombo
us 6,109,783
US 2006/0180760 Al
US 2009/0278924 Al
US 2011/0164653 Al
GB 2358059 A
WO 01/46660 Al
REJECTIONS
Aug.29,2000
Aug. 17, 2006
Nov. 12, 2009
July 7, 2011
July 11, 2001
June 28, 2001
Claims 1, 5, 9, 11, and 14 are rejected for obviousness-type double
patenting based on claims 1, 16, 5, 18, 6 and 19 of U.S. Patent 9,015,002 B2,
Dobler, Allen, Lane, and Zombo (Final Act. 2-8).
3
Appeal2018-001288
Application 13/274,766
Claims 1, 9-11, 14, and 17-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dobler, Allen, Lane, and Zombo (id. at
9-21).
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dobler, Allen, Lane, Zombo, and Douglas (id. at 22-23).
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dobler, Allen, Lane, Zombo, and Heyworth (id. at 23).
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
the issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made are waived (see MPEP
§ 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) and 4I.39(a)(l)).
ANALYSIS
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
Claims 1, 5, 9, 11, and 14 are rejected on the ground of obviousness-
type double patenting over claims 1, 16, 5, 18, 6 and 19 of U.S. Patent
9,015,002 B2, Dobler, Allen, Lane, and Zombo (Final Act. 2-8). Appellants
do not challenge the merits of the double patenting rejection (see App. Br.
1 O); accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1,
5, 9, 11, and 14.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants contend their invention as recited in claims 1, 9-11, 14,
and 17-22, is patentable over Dobler, Allen, Lane, and Zombo (App. Br. 7-
10). The issue presented by the arguments is whether the Examiner
improperly combined Dobler and Allen. Specifically, Appellants argue "the
rationale proposed by the Examiner" for combining Dobler and Allen "is
4
Appeal2018-001288
Application 13/274,766
clearly inconsistent with the objectives of Dobler in achieving a small
measuring spot and a narrower viewing channel for his pyrometer" (id. at 8).
Appellants further argue the combination of Allen's "two-dimensional
imaging of a large area" and Dobler's "pyrometer with [a] small
measurement spot .... would make Dobler unsatisfactory for its intended
purposes of providing a pyrometer with a small measuring spot and a
constricted viewing field to reduce the measuring errors" (id. at 8-9).
We are persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner relies on (Final
Act. 9-10) Dobler's "pyrometer 20 ... for temperature measurement in a
gas turbine" (Dobler, Abstract, 7:20-30). That pyrometer measures
temperature using a thermal "measuring probe 21" (id. at Abstract, 7 :20-30).
The Examiner further relies on (Final Act. 11-12) Allen's "thermal
monitoring device 24 [which] is an infrared camera 24 configured to capture
multiple images corresponding to a thermal response" for turbine
components (Allen ,r,r 30-31 ). The Examiner "modif[ies] the thermal
monitoring probe disclosed in Dobler" with Allen "for the purpose of
providing a system and method for assessing the thermal performance of a
turbine over its entire surface, or a large portion thereof' (Final Act. 12
(citing Allen ,r 6)).
That motivation, however, conflicts with Dobler' s teachings. The
corollary to the Examiner's motivation for the combination, "providing a
system and method for assessing the thermal performance of a turbine over
its entire surface, or a large portion thereof' (id.), is that the combination
results in a system that assesses the thermal performance of a turbine over its
entire surface or a large portion of the surface. Dobler, however, explicitly
cautions against such a large or entire-surface measurement. Specifically,
5
Appeal2018-001288
Application 13/274,766
Dobler describes that when a "measuring spot ... covers too large a zone of
the moving blades ... measuring errors occur" (Dobler 2:27-33). Dobler
then highlights the "advantages in terms of measuring accuracy" when the
"measuring spot and the distance to the measurement object are very small
or even minimal" (Dobler 8: 12-31; see id. at 4:5-8). That is, Dobler
describes the disadvantages of entire-surface measurements, yet the
Examiner's combination is motivated by, and results in, a system that
performs entire-surface measurements.
Although a "given course of action often has simultaneous advantages
and disadvantages" and such trade-offs "do[] not necessarily obviate
motivation to combine" (Allied Erecting v. Genesis Attachments, 825 F.3d
1373, 1381, (Fed. Cir. 2016)), the Examiner has not explained what the
advantages of entire-surface measurements are and why those advantages
would lead the skilled artisan to combine Dobler and Allen in spite of the
disadvantages of entire-surface measurements that Dobler discusses (see
Ans. 3; see also Adv. Act. 2; see also Final Act. 12). The Examiner's
discussion of substituting small-spot measurements with entire-surface
measurements (Ans. 3--4) does not explain, for example, what advantages
and disadvantages the skilled artisan would have weighed and why the
skilled artisan would have traded the accuracy advantages of small-spot
measurement for entire-surface measurements. Although it may certainly be
the case that other motivations to combine Dobler and Allen exist - in
particular motivations that do not result in entire-surface measurements -
the Examiner has not articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning
that identifies those motivations in the record before us.
6
Appeal2018-001288
Application 13/274,766
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to determine the
Examiner improperly combined Dobler and Allen in rejecting independent
claims 1 and 14. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments
advanced by Appellants, we do not reach the merits of Appellants' other
arguments (see App. Br. 9-10; see also Reply Br. 1-2). Dependent claims
5, 9-12, and 17-22 stand with their independent claims. Therefore, we
cannot sustain the rejections of claims 1, 5, 9-12, 14, and 17-22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 5, 9, 11, and 14 for
obviousness-type double patenting based on claims 1, 16, 5, 18, 6 and 19 of
U.S. Patent 9,015,002 B2, Dobler, Allen, Lane, and Zombo is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 9-11, 14, and 17-22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dobler, Allen, Lane, and Zombo
is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dobler, Allen, Lane, Zombo, and Douglas is
reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dobler, Allen, Lane, Zombo, and Heyworth is
reversed.
TIME TO RESPOND
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.
§ 4I.50(f).
7
Appeal2018-001288
Application 13/274,766
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8