Obida Mohamed. Zeitoun et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 6, 2019

14619014 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2019)

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.
14/619,014 02/10/2015 OBIDA MOHAMED ZEITOUN 32315.77 4775
37833 7590 08/06/2019
Richard C. Litman
112 S. West Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
AMAR, MARC J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/06/2019 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):
mbashah@nathlaw.com
uspto@4patent.com
uspto@nathlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte OBIDA MOHAMED ZEITOUN, HANY ABDELRAHMAN
ALANSARY, and ABDULLAH OTHMAN NUHAIT1
____________

Appeal 2017-008670
Application 14/619,014
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision (dated July 13, 2016, hereinafter “Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1, 3,
8–11, and 18–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 King Saud University (Appellant) is the applicant as provided in
37 C.F.R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-008670
Application 14/619,014

2

INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to power generation with a gas turbine
power plant utilizing a two-stage cooled air input. Spec. ¶ 1.
Claims 1, 8, and 18 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A gas turbine power generator with two-stage inlet air
cooling, comprising:
a heat exchange cooler for receiving ambient air and
outputting cooled air at a first temperature lower than a
temperature of the ambient air;
the heat exchange cooler consisting of a heat exchanger,
a cooling tower, a circuit loop, and a cooling medium, the
cooling medium disposed in the circuit loop for looping
between the heat exchanger and the cooling tower;
wherein the heat exchanger cools the ambient air
by the cooling medium in the circuit loop flowing
through the heatexchanger,
wherein the cooling tower cools the cooling
medium in the circuit loop within the heat exchange
cooler used to cool the ambient air to the first
temperature within the heat exchanger, and
the cooling medium in the circuit loop within the
heat exchange cooler circulates through the cooling
tower to be re-cooled in the cooling tower and returned
to the heat exchanger;
an evaporative cooler in fluid communication with
the heat exchange cooler for receiving the cooled air at
the first temperature from the heat exchanger and for
evaporative cooling and outputting the evaporative
cooled air at a second temperature lower than the first
temperature;
a compressor in fluid communication with the
evaporative cooler for receiving the cooled air at the
second temperature;
Appeal 2017-008670
Application 14/619,014

3

a combustion chamber in fluid communication
with the compressor for combusting pressurized air
output from the compressor with a fuel;
a gas turbine in fluid communication with the
combustion chamber for receiving heated combustion
products therefrom, the heated combustion products
driving the gas turbine; and
an electrical generator in communication with the
gas turbine for generating electrical power.
Appeal Br. (Claims App.) (emphasis added).

REJECTIONS2
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. The Examiner rejected claims 8–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as
indefinite.
II. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 8–11, and 18–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Motakef
(US 2014/0093351 A1, pub. Apr. 3, 2014), Dodds (US
4,443,389, iss. Apr. 17, 1984), and Applicant Admitted Prior
Art (Figure 3 and its associated description in the Specification,
hereinafter “AAPA”).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I – Indefiniteness
The Examiner determined that claims 8–11 are indefinite because it is
unclear whether the second recited “heat exchange cooler” in claim 8 is the

2 In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 18–
20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Ans. 2. Therefore, this rejection is no longer
before us on appeal.
Appeal 2017-008670
Application 14/619,014

4

same as the first recited “heat exchange cooler” or whether it is referring to a
separate heat exchange cooler. Final Act. 6. Appellant does not dispute that
the Examiner’s rejection is appropriate. Appeal Br. 8. Therefore, we sustain
the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claims 8–11.
Rejection II – Obviousness
Appellant argues for patentability of claims 1, 3, 8–11, and 18–20
together as a group. See Appeal Br. 9–12. We select claim 1 as
representative, and claims 3, 8–11, and 18–20 stand or fall with claim 1. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
The Examiner’s obviousness determination relies primarily on
Motakef to disclose the elements claim 1 recites, but finds its process does
not disclose using “a cooling tower” in association with the disclosed heat
exchange cooler to cool the cooling medium from the heat exchange cooler.
Final Act. 8–9. The Examiner finds AAPA and Dodds to show that skilled
artisans, at the time of the invention, recognized the utility of placing a
cooling tower in fluid communication with the cooling medium from a heat
exchange cooler and circulate the cooling medium through the cooling tower
to cool the cooling medium from the heat exchange cooler. Id. at 9. The
Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify the
disclosed system of Motakef to utilize a cooling tower to cool the cooling
medium from the heat exchange cooler. Id. at 11–12.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s factual findings regarding
Motakef’s disclosure of the elements claim 1 recites separate and apart from
those associated with the “cooling tower” limitation. See Appeal Br. 9–12.
Appellant, nevertheless, contends that the Examiner failed to establish a
reason that is sufficient to demonstrate that a skilled artisan would have
Appeal 2017-008670
Application 14/619,014

5

known to modify Motakef with the cooling tower AAPA and Dodds disclose
in the manner claimed. Id.
Identifying the statement in paragraph 18 of Motakef that an “inlet
cooling/heating coil 140 is supplied with chilled working fluid from a chilled
water source 410 to facilitate reducing the temperature of intake air 105,”
Appellant argues that, to a skilled artisan, it is clear Motakef requires a
separate auxiliary refrigeration unit. Id. at 10 (emphases omitted).
Appellant argues that because claim 1 recites a “two-stage inlet cooling
system consisting of:” the refrigeration system of Motakef “would not be
recognized by the skilled artisan as a viable obvious modification.” Id.
Regarding AAPA and Dodds, Appellant notes that these references disclose
systems that are concerned with causing the coils “to expand and contract so
as to ‘self-clean’ any sediment or build-up settling on the coils” and
“require[] an auxiliary device to move a medium through the coils.” Id. at
11. Appellant concludes, “there is no teaching, guidance, or motivation . . .
found in the applied prior art of record that would have led a person of
ordinary skill to arrive at the instant claims.” Id.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. There is no dispute that
Motakef discloses a first heat exchanger configured to control the
temperature of air flowing into the turbine assembly by cooling the air using
an inlet cooling coil 140 that is supplied with chilled working fluid from a
“chilled water source 410.” Motakef ¶ 18. While Motakef does not identify
“chilled water source 410” to be specifically a “cooling tower,” the evidence
supports the Examiner’s finding that, at the time of the invention, several
systems were known to a skilled artisan that were available to provide a
chilled water source, including a cooling tower system, refrigerant system,
Appeal 2017-008670
Application 14/619,014

6

and service water system. See Ans. 6. As support, the Examiner refers to
the representation in Czamara (US 8,941,256 B1, iss. Jan. 27, 2015) that
known “[e]xamples of chilled water heat removal systems include a service
water subsystem, air-conditions refrigerant sub-system, or a cooling tower
sub-system.” Czamara 5:24–27; Ans. 6. In addition, the evidence supports
the Examiner’s finding that skilled artisans knew at the time of the invention
that a cooling tower was an available option to cool the cooling medium
from a heat exchange. Ans. 7 (citing Dodds 3:9, 3:27); see also Dodds 3:1–
45. The Examiner has shown persuasively with the evidence that, when
seeking a chilled water source 410 as required by Motakef to be provided to
Motakef's heat exchanger 140, it would have been reasonable, at the time of
the invention, for a skilled artisan to use cooling water from a cooling tower.
Ans. 8–9.
Appellant’s argument that Motakef requires an auxiliary refrigeration
system lacks any evidentiary support, or supportive technical reasoning.
Appellant’s representation that Motakef’s “chilled water source 410”
requires an auxiliary refrigeration unit is merely attorney argument with
little, if any, persuasive value. Appellant, moreover, does not provide any
persuasive evidence or technical reasoning to undermine the Examiner’s
evidence showing that a skilled artisan knew at the time of the invention that
a cooling tower was an option for cooling the cooling medium circulating
through a heat exchange cooler. Furthermore, there is no persuasive
evidence in this record that suggests using the cooling tower with the heat
exchange cooler of Motakef would function differently than how a skilled
artisan would have expected (i.e., the cooling tower removes heat from the
cooling medium circulating through the heat exchange cooler).
Appeal 2017-008670
Application 14/619,014

7

In this case, the Examiner has shown persuasively that claim 1 is
unpatentable because it is simply an arrangement of old elements with each
performing the same function it had been known to perform. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s determination that claims 1, 3, 8–11, and 18–20
would have been obvious at the time of the invention in view of Motakef,
AAPA, and Dodds.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claims 8–11.
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3, 8–11,
and 18–20.
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED