Ex Parte Hjerpe

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2017

13887575 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 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.
13/887,575 05/06/2013 Carl-Johan Hjerpe PA0017375U-E273.12-2KL 7589
27367 7590 08/02/2017
WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KOEHLER, P.A.
SUITE 1400
900 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
SHAHINIAN, LEVON J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2017 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):
docketing @ wck.com
tsorbel@wck.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CARL-JOHAN HJERPE1
(Applicant: ECOSERVICES, LLC)
Appeal 2015-005647
Application 13/887,575
Technology Center 1700
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, MARK NAGUMO, and JEFFREY R.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board by FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Opinion dissenting by NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as EcoServices, LLC
Appeal 2015-005647
Application 13/887,575
Appellant requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—18, and 20-23. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below:
1. A washing system for washing a gas turbine engine, said washing
system being arranged on a mobile vehicle and comprising:
a spray device including at least one nozzle attached to a nozzle
carrying body adapted to streamline inject liquid directly into an inlet
of said engine during a washing operation, and further including an
optical sensing device adapted to monitor a washing operation of an
engine;
a wash unit adapted to distribute said liquid to said spray device;
a positioning device adapted to move said spray device in three
dimensions, thereby enabling a positioning of said spray device in a washing
operation position in said three dimensions relative said engine inlet without
contact between the spray device and the engine during a washing process;
and
a control panel adapted to enable an operator to adjust the position of
said spray device in three dimensions relative said engine inlet by means of
said positioning device.
2
Appeal 2015-005647
Application 13/887,575
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Collier
Davis
Patenaude
Collins
Moulder
Dieter (as translated)
US 3,439,372
US 3,897,263
US 4,595,419
US 5,458,299
US 5,518,553
EP 0418736 A2
April 22, 1969
July 29, 1975
June 17, 1986
Oct. 17, 1995
May 21, 1996
Sept. 13, 1990
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 2, 4—8, 11, and 22 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dieter (as translated) in view of Collier
and Patenaude.
2. Claim 9 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dieter (as translated) in view of Collier and Patenaude,
and further in view of Moulder.
3. Claim 10 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dieter (as translated), Collier, and Patenaude, and further
in view of Davis.
4. Claims 12, 13, 20, and 23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dieter (as translated) in view
of Patenaude.
3
Appeal 2015-005647
Application 13/887,575
5. Claims 14—18 and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dieter (as translated) and Patenaude, as
applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Collins.
ANALYSIS
We reverse each rejection based upon certain positions taken by
Appellant in the record, discussed below.
Rejection 1
We refer to the Examiner’s findings made on pages 3—10 of the
Answer regarding the Examiner’s stated position in the record for Rejection
1.
As background regarding the instant application, on pages 3—9 of the
Appeal Brief, Appellant provides a summary of the instant application,
including a description of how the universal, no-contact manifold of the
instant application is put and held in position by the use of an arm, such as
by a robotic arm. Appellant explains that the robotic arm is operated from a
control panel by an operator adjacent to the engine. The robotic arm allows
the universal manifold to be positioned in the intake of the engine without
physical contact between the aircraft and the universal manifold. The use of
a robotic arm for positioning the manifold simplifies the set-up operations
and makes the set-up safer. Appellant explains that the wash operations can
be viewed by the operator by direct eye contact with the engine inlet, or by
help of a viewing device, such as an instant recording camera on the robotic
arm. The use of a camera enables the operator to position the manifold and
4
Appeal 2015-005647
Application 13/887,575
as well view details of the wash operation which he may not otherwise see.
Spec., 118. Figure 10 of Appellant’s Specification is set forth below:
Figure 10 shows the arrangement for engine washing that is both less
time consuming and less labor intensive, typically requiring one operator.
Figure 10 shows the universal, no-contact spray head and a waste water
collecting device with waste water treatment for reuse of the wash liquid
according to the present application.
Appellant states that independent claim 1 recites, in part, “a washing
system for washing a gas turbine engine”, the washing system including “a
spray device including at least one nozzle attached to a nozzle carrying body
adapted to streamline inject liquid directly into an inlet of said engine during
a washing operation, and further including an optical sensing device adapted
to monitor a washing operation of an engine”.
The Examiner’s rejection proposes to modify Dieter by including the
arrangement of Collier regarding a water jet arranged on a mobile vehicle
(Ans. 5—6), and by including an optical sensing device and distance
measuring device of Patenaude (Ans. 6—10). Appellant disputes that aprima
facie case has been made for the reasons stated in the record.
5
Appeal 2015-005647
Application 13/887,575
Appellant submits, inter alia, that Patenaude, in column 7, lines 23-43
(reproduced below), discloses a list of tools that can alternatively be
mounted to an arm for use in a nuclear power plant steam generator:
[wjhile there has been described what is considered to be the preferred
embodiment of the invention, it is to be understood that modifications
and variations thereof will occur to those skilled in the art, without
departing for the true spirit and scope of the present invention. For
example, a robot which is fitted with more than one arm may be used,
or several decontamination heads may be fitted to an arm.
Alternatively, the robotic arm 34, 36 may be fitted with other devices
to perform inspections or carry test probes, closed circuit television
cameras, transducers, or other devices to ascertain the conditions
within the steam generator header or tubes and pipes communicating
therewith. Furthermore, the robot could be modified to perform work
and repairs inside the header 22, for example, tube plugging or plug
removal. Water jet spray nozzles may also be fitted to the end of the
arm 36, which could be supplied by the aforementioned solvent
supply feed hose 66 and used to perform final rinse and washdown of
the surfaces which have been first cleaned by the ultrasonic cleaning
devices described herein.
Patenaude, col. 7,11. 23-43.
Appellant argues that although Patenaude does refer to the use of
water jet nozzles, the disclosure is made in the context of an entire paragraph
describing alternative devices. Appellant submits that nothing in Patenaude
suggests that a closed circuit television camera and a water jet nozzle are
used in conjunction with each together. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant submits
that therefore Patenaude fails to supply the limitations missing from the
other cited art.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s position. Patenaude teaches that the
robotic arm can be fitted with other devices, and these devices include
circuit television cameras “to ascertain the conditions within the steam
6
Appeal 2015-005647
Application 13/887,575
generator header or tubes and pipes communicating therewith”. Patenaude,
col. 7,11. 33-35.
Then, Patenaude teaches that “[f]urthermore, the robot can be
modified to perform work and repairs inside the header 22 . . . Patenaude
goes on to disclose that “[wjater jet spray nozzles may also be fitted to the
end of the arm 36, which could be supplied by the aforementioned solvent
supply feed hose 66 and used to perform final rinse and washdown of the
surfaces which have been first cleaned by the ultrasonic cleaning devices
described herein.” Patenaude. col. 7,11. 35—43.
We agree with Appellants that such disclosure does not suggest that
the closed circuit television camera and a water jet nozzle are used in
conjunction with each together, and furthermore does not teach a spray
device fitted with a camera.
We emphasize that claim 1 requires “a spray device including at least
one nozzle attached to a nozzle carrying body adapted to streamline inject
liquid directly into an inlet of said engine during a washing operation, and
further including an optical sensing device adapted to monitor a washing
operation of an engine”.2 Hence, claim 1 requires that the spray device
includes a camera. As such, the Examiner’s finding that Patenaude’s camera
is “adapted to monitor a washing operation” (Ans. 8,123) is not supported
2 Claim 12 is the only other independent claim, and claim 12 is directed to
a liquid wash system comprising a wash unit and one or more controls for
use in regulating the wash unit, wherein one of the controls comprises an
optical sensing device adapted for monitoring a washing operation. Hence,
similar to claim 1, the optical sensing device is “adapted for monitoring a
washing operation”. The Examiner addresses claims 1 and 12 together in
the Answer. Ans. 18—22.
7
Appeal 2015-005647
Application 13/887,575
by the relied-upon disclosure in Patenaude, and falls short of a spray device
that includes a camera. In this context, Figure 5 shows the aforementioned
claimed element and depicts spray head 33, including camera 55 that is used
in conjunction with nozzles 53, 54, 510, and 511 of manifold 36.
rig, 5
Figure 5 shows spray head details according the present application.
In view of the above, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s
interpretation of Patenaude is flawed such that a missing element, not found
in Dieter in view of Collier, is not cured by Patenaude. As such, the
Examiner’s rejection does not adequately address the aforementioned feature
of claim 1 (and claim 12).
Therefore, we reverse Rejection 1. The Examiner does not rely upon
the additional references applied in Rejections 2—5 to cure the stated
deficiencies of claim 1. We therefore reverse these rejections also.
DECISION
Each rejection is reversed.
8
Appeal 2015-005647
Application 13/887,575
ORDER
REVERSED
9
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CARL-JOHAN HJERPE
(Applicant: ECOSERVICES, LLC)
Appeal 2015-005647
Application 13/887,575
Technology Center 1700
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting.
I dissent, respectfully, from the reversal of the appealed rejections.
In my view, Appellants and the Majority have read the disclosure of
Patenaude far more narrowly than the person having ordinary skill in the art
would have. Dieter (| 2: high-pressure washing of buildings, bridges, ship
hulls, etc.), Collier (title: “Airplane washing device”), and Patenaude
(abstract: robot for cleaning header chamber and U-tubes of a nuclear reactor
cooling system) are directed towards washing large, valuable things that can
be damaged or that can cause damage if improperly cleaned. The designers
of such cleaning systems are reasonably charged with a high degree of
sophistication as well as a high degree of practical experience in such
matters.
Patenaude teaches that the disclosed cleaning robot may be modified
to do work inside header 22, shown in Figure 2 of Patenaude, reproduced on
the following page.
Appeal 2015-005647
Application 13/887,575
{Patenaude Figure 2 is shown below}
(Patenaude Figure 2 shows a robotic cleaning arm inside header 22 of a U-
type steam generator of a nuclear reader
The general suggestion that the cleaning arms can be fitted with
devices to perform inspections, including closed circuit television cameras,
would, in my view, have prompted the use of such aids in Patenaude as well
as in similar circumstances, such as those described in Dieter and Collier.
I am not persuaded that the ordinary level of skill is so low in these fields of
art that a more specific teaching would have been necessary.
On the present record, therefore, I would affirm the rejections of
record, and I dissent, with respect.
2