Ex Parte Brückner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2017

13254201 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2017)

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.
13/254,201 09/01/2011 Jan Bruckner 2009P00139WOUS 7332
22116 7590 10/03/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
BARGERO, JOHN E
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3749
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2017 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):
IPDadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAN BRUCKNER, JOACHIM FRANKE, and
GERHARD SCHLUND
Appeal 2016-001269
Application 13/254,2011
Technology Center 3700
Before JILL D. HILL, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 10 and 12—24. No other claims are pending. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Siemens Aktiengesellschaft as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-001269
Application 13/254,201
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 10, reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
10. A continuous evaporator for a horizontally constructed
waste heat steam generator, comprising:
a first evaporator heating surface which incorporates a
plurality of first steam generation tubes, a first arrangement of
which is essentially vertical and through which a flow is from the
bottom to the top;
a second evaporator heating surface, which on a flow
substance side is connected downstream from the first evaporator
heating surface, which incorporates a plurality of second steam
generation tubes, a second arrangement of which is essentially
vertical and through which the flow is from the bottom to the top;
and
an aperture system that is connected downstream on the
flow substance side from the plurality of second steam
generation tubes, and
wherein the aperture system incorporates a plurality of
apertures arranged in the individual second steam generation
tubes.
THE REJECTION
Claims 10 and 12—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ziegler (US 5,775,266; issued July 7, 1998) and Wittchow
(US 6,189,491 Bl; issued Feb. 20, 2001).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Ziegler discloses each limitation of claim 10
except for the “wherein” clause. Specifically, the Examiner finds Ziegler
teaches, among other things, a continuous evaporate for a horizontally
constructed waste heat steam generator that includes a plurality of valves
2
Appeal 2016-001269
Application 13/254,201
“connected downstream on the flow substance side from a plurality of
second steam generation tubes,” but the Examiner states Ziegler “does not
disclose that the aperture system incorporates a plurality of apertures
arranged in the individual second steam generation tubes.” Final Act. 3.
The Examiner cites Wittchow for its disclosures of a steam generator having
a plurality of choke devices arranged in the individual second steam
generation tubes, and states that it would have been obvious to modify
Ziegler with individual valves for each tube to more accurately balance the
heat transfer between tubes. Final Act. 3^4.
Appellants argue an “aperture” is an opening, hole, or gap, and, “in
contrast to an ‘aperture system’ Ziegler provides ‘a valve system’ where the
valve opens or closes the fluid flow through the individual steam generation
tube.” Appeal Br. 4 (citing Ziegler col. 4 lines 20-22); see also Reply Br. 2
(arguing an aperture allows flow at all times whereas a valve of Ziegler as
modified by Wittchow may prevent flow). Further, Appellants argue
modifying Ziegler with Wittchow’s “choke devices” would provide “each
individual steam generation tube with a valve that allows for on/off
operation allowing flow or shutting off the flow and not an ability to vary
the rate of fluid flow through each individual tube the way a plurality of
apertures within each individual tube does.” In addition, Appellants contend
“[t]he goal of Ziegler’s steam generator is to keep the gas temperature
upstream of the catalyst as constant as possible at a preset value” (Appeal
Br. 5 (citing Ziegler col. 1,11. 55—57)), and Appellants argue modifying
Ziegler with Wittchow’s aperture system would render Ziegler
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Appeal Br. 5—6.
3
Appeal 2016-001269
Application 13/254,201
We disagree with Appellants. As noted by the Examiner, even taking
Appellants’ definition of an aperture as an opening, a valve is or has an
opening, albeit a variable opening. Further, contrary to Appellants’
arguments that combining Wittchow’s teachings regarding choke devices on
individual tubes with Ziegler would render Ziegler unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose, Wittchow suggests using “a valve, such as a choke
device” to “help[] to adapt the flow rate through the steam-generator tubes
13, 14 of the once-through heating areas 8, 10 to their different heating.”
Wittchow col. 7,11. 19—26. We agree with the Examiner that a person of
ordinary skill would understand using valves or choke devices on individual
tubes (instead of using one valve for a group of tubes) would allow greater
control in Ziegler’s device, as the valves would be performing the same
function Ziegler’s valves already perform. See Ziegler col. 4,11. 55—60. In
other words, as stated by Appellants, Ziegler regulates temperatures in
heating surfaces of the area of individual sections by being able to
selectively shut off the water circulation in individual sections so that some
heating surfaces become inactive (Appeal Br. 5—6), and the Examiner’s
proposed modification of Ziegler would allow more control in that function
(see Ans. 6). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner.
Appellants additionally address claim 12, which depends from claim
10 and recites “wherein an aperture opening of each aperture is chosen in
such a way that a prescribed frictional pressure loss for the flow substance
is established via the aperture system.” Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App’x)
(emphasis added). Appellants argue Wittchow’s choke devices are adapted
to set flow rates, but, according to Appellants, “reducing the flow to the
tubes is not the same resultant effect as increasing the frictional pressure loss
4
Appeal 2016-001269
Application 13/254,201
in the tubes and therefore the choke device of Wittchow would not be set the
same as Appellants’] aperture would be.” Appeal Br. 7 (citing Wittchow
col. 7,11. 19-26).
The Examiner responds that Wittchow’s disclosures of adapting choke
devices to affect the flow rate would in turn affect the frictional pressure
loss. See Ans. 7. In fact, both Wittchow and Appellants’ Specification
recognize the effects of friction pressure loss and flow rates. Compare, e.g.,
Wittchow col. 3,11. 15—48 (describing adaptation of the flow rates and
configuration of steam-generator tubes “for a ratio of friction pressure loss to
a geodetic pressure drop”), col. 4,11. 7—13 (“By a suitable specification of
the ratio of friction pressure loss to geodetic pressure drop due to the
configuration of the steam-generator tubes, in particular with regard to the
selected mass-flow density in the steam generator tubes, this effect can be
utilized for automatic adaptation of the flow rate of each steam-generator
tube to its heading.”), with Spec. H 10 (recognizing variables such as
proportions of water and steam and aperture diameter that affect “through-
flow through the[] tubes” and frictional pressure loss in proportion to
geodetic pressure drop), 27 (“The bore of the apertures 23 is chosen such
that the frictional pressure loss of the flow substance W in the steam
generation tubes 14 is appropriately high to ensure a uniform through-flow
within a row of tubes 11.”). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner.
Finally, Appellants additionally address claim 13, which depends
from claim 12, and further recites “wherein each aperture includes as the
aperture opening a bore with a diameter between 10 and 20 mm.” Appeal
Br. 9 (Claims App’x) (emphasis added). Appellants argue that Ziegler and
5
Appeal 2016-001269
Application 13/254,201
Wittchow describe valves that are either “open” or “closed” and do not teach
an aperture within a specified range of diameters. Appeal Br. 7.
The Examiner states, and we agree, that it would have been a matter
of engineering expedient to match the valve diameter to the size the tubes.
Nothing in Appellants’ Specification identifies the claimed range of
diameters as critical or providing unexpected results, and, as discussed
above, the Specification and Wittchow both recognize adapting tube
dimensions to affect the ratio of friction pressure loss to geodetic pressure
drop. See, e.g., Wittchow col. 3,11. 15 48 (“the steam-generator tubes of at
least one once-through heating area are advantageously configured or
dimensioned on average for a ratio of friction pressure loss to a geodetic
pressure drop at a full load of less than 0.4, preferably less than 0.2”); col. 4,
1. 7—5:5 (describing design of steam-generator tubes with regard to the ratio
of friction pressure loss to geodetic pressure drop); Spec. 10, 27.
Notably, claim 13 recites a range of aperture diameters without other
variables or other context (such as tube diameters), but as the prior art
nonetheless recognizes the relevant variables, we agree with the Examiner
that the range of aperture diameters recited in claim 13 would have been an
obvious matter of engineering expedient or design choice.
Accordingly, having considered the Examiner’s rejection of claims
10, 12, and 13 in light of Appellants’ arguments and the evidence of record,
we disagree with Appellants and agree with the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 10, 12, and 13, as well as the rejection of claims 14—24, which
Appellants do not address separately. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
6
Appeal 2016-001269
Application 13/254,201
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims
10 and 12-24.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7