13031918 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 2018)

Ex Parte FUCHS et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 16, 2018

13031918 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/031,918 02/22/2011 135838 7590 07/18/2018 Studio Torta (RINGFENCE) c/o BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC P.O. BOX 1404 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313 Herbert FUCHS 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. 0087748-000020 5906 EXAMINER SUNG, GERALD LUTHER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/18/2018 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): ADIPDOCl@BIPC.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HERBERT FUCHS, ANTON NEMET, and JURGEN HOFFMANN Appeal2017-007492 Application 13/031,918 1 Technology Center 3700 Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellants appeal from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9 and 12-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellants, although "General Electric Technology GMBH is the nominal assignee ... [,] Ansaldo Energia Switzerland AG is the real party in interest." Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2017-007492 Application 13/031,918 According to Appellants, the invention relates to "a method ... for operating a gas turbine when ambient conditions deviate from design conditions and in the case of underfrequency of the electricity grid to which it delivers the electric power." Spec. ,r 2. Claims 1 and 8 are the independent claims on appeal. We reproduce claim 1, below, as illustrative of the appealed claims. 1. A gas turbine for driving a generator to generate alternating current with an operating frequency, and for communication in a frequency-coupled manner with a grid having a given grid frequency, the gas turbine comprising: a compressor having variable compressor guide vanes, wherein the compressor and turbine are arranged on a single shaft, the shaft configured to be coupled to the generator; and a closed-loop controller connected to the variable compressor guide vanes for closing the variable compressor guide vanes during an underfrequency event of the grid, as a function of a gas turbine speed, with a speed so that a surge limit margin of a compressor is maintained during the underfrequency event of the grid. REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: I. claims 1, 8, 9, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Andrew et al. (US 6,226,974 Bl, iss. May 8, 2001) (hereinafter "Andrew") and Berry (US 2007/0271929 Al, pub. Nov. 29, 2007); II. claims 2-7 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Andrew, Berry, and Mannarino (US 6,735,955 B2, iss. May 18, 2004); and 2 Appeal2017-007492 Application 13/031,918 III. claims 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Andrew, Berry, and Rowe et al. (US 2003/0192316 Al, pub. Oct. 16, 2003). ANALYSIS Rejection I As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, a closed-loop controller connected to the variable compressor guide vanes for closing the variable compressor guide vanes during an underfrequency event of the grid, as a function of a gas turbine speed, with a speed so that a surge limit margin of a compressor is maintained during the underfrequency event of the grid. Appeal Br., Claims App. The Examiner rejects claim 1 based, in part, on findings that Berry's paragraph 10 teaches that "the solution to an under[]frequency event is to reduce the mass flow rate of air while increasing fuel flow rate" (Answer 3--4 ( citation omitted)), and "an ordinary skilled worker would know to close the inlet guide vanes to reduce the mass flow rate of air" (id. at 4). Thus, according to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to control Andrew by closing inlet guide vanes during an underfrequency event. Id. at 4--5. Even if we assume arguendo that the Examiner is correct regarding the teaching of Berry's paragraph 10, and that closing inlet guide vanes reduces mass flow rates, the Examiner does not support adequately that one would operate Andrew to close inlet-guide vanes during an underfrequency event, or to do so as a function of gas turbine speed, or to do so such that a surge limit margin of a compressor is maintained during the underfrequency event of the grid. 3 Appeal2017-007492 Application 13/031,918 It is well settled that "[r]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007). In this case, the Examiner does not explain sufficiently why the applied prior art contemplates closing variable compressor guide vanes during a grid underfrequency event, let alone closing the vanes as a function of a gas turbine speed, with a speed so that a surge limit margin of a compressor is maintained during the underfrequency event, as claimed. Thus, as a result, it appears that the Examiner's findings that one would close variable compressor guide vanes during a grid underfrequency event are speculation on the part of the Examiner and are based solely on impermissible hindsight-i.e., on this record, closing guide vanes during an underfrequency event only appears to be disclosed by Appellants. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 8-9. Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain claim 1 's rejection. We also do not sustain independent claim 8's rejection, as claim 8 includes a similar recitation as that discussed above for claim 1. Further, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 15 that depend from claim 8. Rejections II and III The Examiner does not demonstrate that any other reference remedies the above-noted deficiencies in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 8. Thus, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 2-7 and 12-14 that depend from the independent claims. 4 Appeal2017-007492 Application 13/031,918 DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-9 and 12-15. REVERSED 5