Ex Parte Brückner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2016

12524872 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/524,872 12/02/2009
22116 7590 03/24/2016
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jan Briickner
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.
2006Pl6081WOUS 3174
EXAMINER
MANTYLA, MICHAEL B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/24/2016 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, RUDOLF HESS, and
ERICH SCHMID
Appeal2013-011021
Application 12/524,872
Technology Center 3700
Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, LEE L. STEPINA, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jan Bruckner et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 10-23. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2013-011021
Application 12/524,872
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention is directed to a gas and steam turbine plant
system and method of operation. Spec. i-f 2. Claim 10 is illustrative of the
claims on appeal and is reproduced below.
10. A method for operating a gas and steam turbine plant,
compnsmg:
routing a flue gas exiting a gas turbine through a waste
heat steam generator;
conducting a flow medium used to drive a steam turbine
in a flow medium circuit; and
monitoring a height of a column of liquid formed by the
flow medium in a plurality of downpipes connected to a steam
collection drum,
wherein the flow medium circuit comprises a plurality of
pressure stages,
wherein at least one of the pressure stages features an
evaporator circuit including the steam collection drum with the
plurality of downpipes connected to the steam collection drum
and with a plurality of riser pipes connected downstream from
the plurality of downpipes and connected to the steam
collection drum, and
wherein the plurality of riser pipes are heated by the flue
gas in the waste heat steam generator.
Appeal Br. 13.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Martz '966 us 3,953,966 May 4, 1976
Martz '675 us 3,965,675 June 29, 1976
Arii us 4,854, 121 Aug. 8, 1989
Schmid US 6,237,321 Bl May 29, 2001
Liebig US 7,074,259 B2 July 11, 2006
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(I) Claims 10, 15-17, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Schmid, Arii, and Larinoff.
2
Appeal2013-011021
Application 12/524,872
(11) Claims 11, 12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Schmid, Arii, Larinoff, and Martz '675.
(III) Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Schmid, Arii, Larinoff, Martz '675, and Liebig.
(IV) Claims 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Schmid, Arii, Larinoff, Martz '675, and Martz '966.
ANALYSIS
Rejection(!)
The Examiner finds that Schmid discloses many of the features of the
method recited in claim 1, but the Examiner relies on Arii to teach
"monitoring a height of a column of liquid ... formed by the flow of
medium in a steam drum ... upstream of a set of downpipes." Final Act. 3.
The Examiner relies on Larinoff to teach monitoring a water level within
pipes and that the threshold level of the water is predetermined. Final
Act. 4. The Examiner reasons,
[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art, at the time the invention was made to modify Schmid in view
of Arii further with Larinoff s teaching of measuring the water
level in the pipes in order to ensure that each pipe is operational
and that the water level does not drop below the minimum level.
Final Act. 4.
Appellants contend the Examiner's rejection relies on impermissible
hindsight, stating "Larina.ff does not deal with a downpipe or even, broadly
speaking, an evaporator circuit. Larinoff's generic teaching of maintaining
liquid datum in a pipe ... could have been incorporated into any pipe of the
device of Schmid in view of Arii." Appeal Br. 8. Appellants further
contend, "[t]here is no apparent reason why one might only chose to apply
3
Appeal2013-011021
Application 12/524,872
Larinojf's teachings to the downpipes of the collection drum of Schmid."
Appeal Br. 8.
In response, the Examiner states, "Arii's motivation is to maintain the
durability of the system components, and there is NO significance in
measuring the water level within a steam drum, as opposed to another
location within the system." Ans. 4. The Examiner further determines that
"[m]easuring the water level within the downpipes, rather than above the
downpipes (i.e., a [steam] drum), advantageously ensures that each
downpipe is operational (Larinoff col. 9, 11. 10)." Ans. 4--5.
Appellants assert that Arii derives a particular benefit from measuring
the fluid level in drums 81 and 82 and does not suggest measuring the fluid
level below them. Reply Br. 3. Appellants further assert, "Larinoff does not
teach a downpipe of an evaporator and hence does not lead one skilled in
the art any closer to the claimed invention than Schmid+ Arii." Reply Br. 4
(emphasis added).
We agree with Appellants on this point. Although Larinoff teaches
maintaining "a predetermined static water level datum line 92" in hydraulic
balance device 90 (see Larinoff, col. 9, 11. 8-10), the purpose and operation
of hydraulic balance device 90 in Larinoff is unrelated to the purpose and
operation of the drums and downpipes extending from the drums disclosed
in Schmid and Arii. The specific location where "monitoring" is conducted,
"in a plurality of downpipes connected to a steam collection drum" (Appeal
Br. 13) does not exist in Larinoff. Accordingly, absent the use of
impermissible hindsight, the Examiner's reasoning to combine Larinoff with
Schmid and Arii, "to ensure that each pipe is operational and that the water
level does not drop below the minimum level" (Final Act. 4 ), would not
4
Appeal2013-011021
Application 12/524,872
have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide fluid monitoring in
the specific location required by claim 10. Consequently, we do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 10, 15-17, 22, and 23 as unpatentable
over Schmid, Arii, and Larinoff.
Re} ections (11)-(IV)
The Examiner's use of Martz '675, Liebig, and Martz '966 does not
remedy the deficiency in the rejection of independent claims 10 and 17 over
Schmid, Arii, and Larinoff. Accordingly, we do not sustain Rejections (II}-
(IV).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 10-23.
REVERSED
5