Ex Parte OLIA

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 12, 2018

12869069 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2018)

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.
12/869,069 08/26/2010 Hamid OLIA 307751-9 US 7149
226 7590
General Electric Company
Global Patent Operation
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
EXAMINER
HERZFELD, NATHANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3749
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/17/2018 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):
gpo.mail@ge.com
Janey.Bruno@ge.com
Lori. Rooney @ ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HAMID OLIA
Appeal 2016-003623
Application 12/869,069
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART and enter NEW GROUNDS OF
REJECTION pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
1 The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Alstom Technology,
Ltd.” (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2016-003623
Application 12/869,069
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant’s invention relates to “a method for controlling a waste
heat recovery steam generator of a once-through evaporator type” that is “in
use in a combined cycle power plant.” (Spec. ^ 5.)
Illustrative Claim
1. A method for controlling a steam generator of a once-
through steam generator type (2), which is integrated in a
combined cycle power plant with a steam turbine (DT) and a
gas turbine (GT), wherein the steam generator (2) comprises:
a high pressure (HP) economizer (5),
a HP evaporator (4), and
at least one superheater (3),
wherein opening of a valve (12) for regulating flow
volume in a feedwater supply line (14) into the high-pressure
evaporator (4) is controlled in dependence upon a temperature
set-point value for steam for the steam turbine (DT) and also
upon a measured steam temperature at the outlet of the at least
one superheater (3) and by means of a plurality of control steps
(PID1-4) in series,
wherein the measured steam temperature at the outlet of
the superheater (3), a degree of superheating in consideration of
a prevailing saturation temperature at the outlet of the high
pressure evaporator (4) and a degree of subcooling of the
feedwater in consideration of a prevailing saturation
temperature at the inlet into the high-pressure evaporator (4) are
integrated in the control steps (PIDm).
References
Bruckner
Zwetz
Knauss
Sekiai
Kephart
US 3,260,246
US 6,460,490 B1
US 7,028,480 B2
US 2008/0029261 A1
EP 2 065 641 A2
July 12, 1966
Oct. 8, 2002
Apr. 18, 2006
Feb. 7, 2008
June 3, 2009
2
Appeal 2016-003623
Application 12/869,069
Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
I. Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zwetz
and Bruckner;2
II. Claims 2-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Zwetz, Bruckner, Kephart, and Knauss;
III. Claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Zwetz, Bruckner, and Kephart; and
IV. Claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Zwetz, Bruckner, and Sekiai.
New Rejections
We enter the following new grounds of rejection:
V. Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zwetz,
Bruckner, Knauss, and Kephart;
VI. Claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Zwetz, Bruckner, Knauss, and Kephart; and
VII. Claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Zwetz, Bruckner, Knauss, Kephart, and Sekiai.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal, with the rest of the
claims on appeal (i.e., claims 2-10) depending therefrom. (See Appeal Br.,
Claims App.) Independent claim 1 recites a “method of controlling a steam
2 The Appellant considers US 2010/0288210 Al, published November 18,
2010, to be the “equivalent English language document” of Bruckner (Appeal
Br. 5 n.l.); and the Examiner does the same (see Final Action 5). As such,
our citations to “Bruckner” correspond to US 2010/0288210 Al.
3
Appeal 2016-003623
Application 12/869,069
generator,” that includes the “opening of a valve” in a “feedwater supply
line” into an evaporator to “regulat[e] flow.” (Id.) Independent claim 1
requires certain parameters to be “integrated in the control steps” that control
the opening of the valve; and the issues on appeal pertain primarily to these
control parameters.
Examiner’s Rejection I
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Zwetz and Bruckner. (Final Action 3.) As indicated
above, the method recited in independent claim 1 involves a steam generator,
an evaporator, a flow-regulating valve, and valve-controlling control steps.
The Examiner finds that Zwetz teaches a method of controlling a steam
generator in which a valve regulates, via control steps, flow through an
evaporator. (See Final Action 4-5.) The Appellant does not persuasively
challenge these findings by the Examiner. (See Appeal Br. 5-9; see also
Reply Br. 1-5.)
As also indicated above, independent claim 1 requires certain
parameters to be “integrated in the control steps.” (Appeal Br., Claims
App.) These control parameters include “a degree of subcooling of the
feedwater in consideration of a prevailing saturation temperature” at the inlet
into the evaporator, and “a degree of superheating in consideration of a
prevailing saturation temperature” at the outlet of the evaporator. (Id. ) The
Examiner’s rejection is premised upon Bruckner teaching that these control
parameters can be used to regulate flow through an evaporator (see Final
Action 3-4); and the Appellant argues that Bruckner does not do so (see
Appeal Br. 5-9).
4
Appeal 2016-003623
Application 12/869,069
As discussed below, we are persuaded by the Appellant’s arguments
that Bruckner does not teach using “a degree of subcooling of the feedwater
in consideration of a prevailing saturation temperature” at the inlet into the
evaporator as a control parameter to regulate flow through an evaporator
(see Appeal Br. 6); but we are unpersuaded by the Appellant’s arguments
that Bruckner does not teach using “a degree of superheating in
consideration of a prevailing saturation temperature” at the outlet of the
evaporator as a control parameter to regulate flow through an evaporator
(see id. at 7-9; see also Reply Br. 1^1).
Addressing first the control parameter involving “a degree of
subcooling” of the feedwater at the evaporator’s inlet, the Appellant
acknowledges that one of ordinary skill would understand that feedwater
enters an evaporator in a subcooled state. (See Reply Br. 4-5.) Also,
Bruckner teaches taking pressure and temperature measurements of
feedwater at an evaporator’s inlet. (See Bruckner 29, 33.) And the
Appellant implicates that these pressure and temperature measurements
could be used to calculate the degree of subcooling of feedwater at the inlet
into the evaporator. (See Appeal Br. 8.)3
Thus, Bruckner teaches taking pressure and temperature
measurements at the evaporator’s inlet; and these pressure and temperature
measurements could be used to calculate the degree of subcooling of
feedwater entering an evaporator. However, we agree with the Appellant
3 For example, the pressure measurement could be used to identify the
prevailing saturation temperature of the subcooled feedwater at the
evaporator’s inlet, and a comparison of the temperature measurement to the
identified saturation temperature would correspond to the degrees of
subcooling.
5
Appeal 2016-003623
Application 12/869,069
that Bruckner does not teach specifically calculating a degree of subcooling
for integration into flow-controlling steps. (See Reply Br. 5.)
As correctly noted by the Examiner (see Final Action 4), Bruckner
teaches using the pressure measurement taken at the inlet of the evaporator
to identify a saturation temperature for integration into flow-control steps.
(See Bruckner 29.) However, we agree with the Appellant that Bruckner’s
teaching regarding the identification and use of the saturation temperature of
the feedwater is not the same as teaching that the “degree of subcooling” of
the feedwater could or should be integrated into flow-control steps as
required by independent claim 1. (See Appeal Br. 6-7; see also Reply
Br. 1-2.)4
Bruckner also teaches that the pressure and temperature measurements
taken at the inlet of the evaporator can be used to calculate “the actual
enthalpy at the evaporator input” for integration into flow-control steps.
(Bruckner ^ 33.) But the Appellant contends that “the mere determination of
temperature and pressure,” and/or “the calculation of enthalpy” would not
lead one of ordinary skill in the art to consider a “degree of subcooling” as a
flow-control parameter. (Appeal Br. 8-9.) And the Examiner does not
address adequately why this contention by the Appellant is incorrect. (See
Answer 13-15.)
4 According to the Examiner, a saturation temperature equates to a “degree
of subcooling” of zero and thus Bruckner teaches integrating a “degree of
subcooling” into flow-controlling steps. (See Answer 14.) However, by the
Examiner’s logic, the “degree of subcooling” would always be zero,
regardless of the measured pressure of the feedwater, and thus contribute no
import as a control parameter. In other words, “the result of a control step
with a constant input (none or zero) would be a constant output.” (Appeal
Br. 6.)
6
Appeal 2016-003623
Application 12/869,069
The Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 is based upon the
determination that it would have been obvious to “modify Zwetz with the
teachings of Bruckner” in order “to properly regulate the steam and
feedwater flow through the evaporator.” (Final Action 4.) In other words,
in the Examiner’s proposed combination of the prior art, Zwetz’s valve-
control steps include “taking into consideration” flow-control parameters
taught by Bruckner. {Id.) However, as discussed above, the Examiner does
not sufficiently establish that Bruckner teaches the integration of “a degree
of subcooling” of feedwater at an evaporator’s inlet into the steps used to
control flow through an evaporator. Thus, the Examiner’s proposed
combination of the prior art teachings would not yield the method recited in
independent claim l.5
We next address the control parameter involving “a degree of
superheating” at the evaporator’s outlet. For the same reasons discussed
above, insofar as Bruckner identifies a saturation temperature corresponding
to a pressure at the evaporator’s outlet, this alone does not equate to using “a
degree of superheating” as a flow-control parameter. {See Final Action 2-4;
see also Appeal Br. 7-9.) Likewise, a teaching in the applied prior art that
pressure and temperature measurements can be taken upstream of the
evaporator for enthalpy-calculation purposes {see Zwetz, col. 3,11. 39-54)
does not, in and of itself, equate to a teaching that “a degree of the
superheating” can be used as a flow-control parameter.
5 The Appellant does not question the Examiner’s determination that it would
have been obvious to incorporate flow-control parameters taught by Bruckner
into Zwetz’s flow-control steps. Rather, the Appellant’s arguments in
response to this rejection focus only upon whether Bruckner and Zwetz teach
the flow-control parameters recited in independent claim 1.
7
Appeal 2016-003623
Application 12/869,069
Nonetheless, we agree with the Examiner that Bruckner “specifically
teaches taking a degree of superheating at the outlet of the evaporator and
integrating it into the control steps,” when it “teaches a target temperature is
integrated into the control steps.” (Answer 15.)
Bruckner describes “a target temperature above the saturation
temperature of the flow medium by a predetermined temperature difference
of for example, 35° C [that] can especially be predetermined for the flow
medium at the output of the evaporator.” (Bruckner ^ 18; see also id. TJ 33.)6
The Appellant does not address adequately why Bruckner’s disclosure of a
target temperature does not constitute a teaching that “a degree of
superheating” can be used as a flow-control parameter. Although the
Appellant asserts that Bruckner’s disclosure of “a target value of enthalpy”
is unrelated to “a degree of superheating” (Reply Br. 3—4, emphasis added),
the Appellant does not make the same assertion with respect to Bruckner’s
disclosure of a target temperature.7
As discussed above, in the Examiner’s combination of the prior art,
Zwetz’s valve-control steps include taking into consideration flow-control
parameters taught by Bruckner. In other words, Zwetz’s modified valve-
control steps would take into consideration “a degree of superheating in
6 We disagree, therefore, with the Appellant’s assertion that Bruckner
teaches that steam leaving the evaporator “cannot be superheated.” (Appeal
Br. 8.)
7 The Appellant argues, for the first time in the Reply Brief, that Bruckner
“does not disclose a ‘temperature set-point value for steam for the steam
turbine’ nor ‘a measured steam temperature at the outlet of the at least one
superheater’” as recited in independent claim 1. (Reply Br. 3.) This
argument is not aligned with the Examiner’s rejection because the Examiner
relies upon Zwetz to teach these limitations. {See Final Action 4.)
8
Appeal 2016-003623
Application 12/869,069
consideration of a prevailing saturation temperature” at the outlet of the
evaporator as required by independent claim 1.
Accordingly, the Examiner adequately establishes that Zwetz and
Bruckner teach a method of controlling a steam generator in which “a degree
of superheating in consideration of a prevailing saturation temperature” at
the outlet of the evaporator is integrated into flow-control steps. However,
as discussed above, the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 is
deficient in that it does not establish sufficiently that Zwetz and Bruckner
teach “a degree of subcooling” of the feedwater at an evaporator’s inlet can
be integrated into the steps used to control flow through an evaporator.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zwetz and Bruckner.
Examiner’s Rejection II
The Examiner rejects dependent claims 2-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Zwetz, Bruckner, Kephart, and Knauss. (Final
Action 5.) The Appellant argues that none of the additional references
applied by the Examiner to reject dependent claims 2-6 (i.e., Kephart,
Knauss) remedy “the deficiencies of Zwetz and Bruckner.” (Appeal Br. 9,
italics omitted.) As discussed above, the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 is deficient in that it does not sufficiently establish that
Zwetz and Bruckner teach “a degree of subcooling” of feedwater at an
evaporator’s inlet can be integrated into the steps used to control flow
through an evaporator.
We are not persuaded by this argument because the Examiner made
additional findings regarding Knauss that remedy the above-identified
deficiency. (Final Action 7). In particular, Knauss discloses “a control
9
Appeal 2016-003623
Application 12/869,069
signal” for increasing or decreasing “the flow through [a] valve” based upon
whether “the degree of subcooling of steam-drum water mixture being fed to
[an] evaporator heat exchange means” is less than or greater than a
predetermined value. (Knauss, col. 6,11. 49-56; see Final Action 7.) We
agree with the Examiner’s findings regarding Knauss as well as the reason
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to modify Zwetz
and Bruckner with the teachings of Knauss and adopt them as our own.
(Final Action 7-8.)
The Appellant additionally argues that “the additional features recited
in each respective claim is distinguishable over the art of record.” (Appeal
Br. 9.) We are not persuaded by this argument because the Appellant does
not specify the features responsible for such distinguishment.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zwetz, Bruckner, Kephart, and
Knauss.
Examiner’s Rejection III
The Examiner rejects dependent claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Zwetz, Bruckner, and Kephart. (Final
Action 11.) The Appellant argues that the additional reference applied by
the Examiner to reject dependent claims 7 and 8 (i.e., Kephart) does not
remedy “the deficiencies of Zwetz and Bruckner.” (Appeal Br. 9, italics
omitted.)
We are persuaded by this argument because, as discussed above, the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 is deficient in that it does not
establish sufficiently that Zwetz and Bruckner teach “a degree of
subcooling” of feedwater at an evaporator’s inlet can be integrated into the
10
Appeal 2016-003623
Application 12/869,069
steps used to control flow through an evaporator. As also discussed above,
Knauss remedies this deficiency. However, the Examiner does not rely upon
Knauss in this rejection; and it is not immediately apparent to us that
Kephart teaches the use of “a degree of subcooling” as a control parameter
to remedy this deficiency.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zwetz,
Bruckner, and Kephart.
Examiner’s Rejection IV
The Examiner rejects dependent claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Zwetz, Bruckner, and Sekiai. (Final
Action 13.) The Appellant argues that the additional reference applied by
the Examiner to reject dependent claims 9 and 10 (i.e., Sekiai) does not
remedy “the deficiencies of Zwetz and Bruckner.” (Appeal Br. 9, italics
omitted.)
We are persuaded by this argument because, as discussed above, the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 is deficient in that it does not
sufficiently establish that Zwetz and Bruckner teach “a degree of subcooling”
of feedwater at an evaporator’s inlet can be integrated into the steps used to
control flow through an evaporator. As also discussed above, Knauss
remedies this deficiency. But the Examiner does not rely upon Knauss in this
rejection; and it is not immediately apparent to us that Sekiai teaches the use
of “a degree of subcooling” as a control parameter to remedy this deficiency.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zwetz,
Bruckner, and Sekiai.
11
Appeal 2016-003623
Application 12/869,069
New Rejection V
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we reject
independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zwetz,
Bruckner, Knauss, and Kephart. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and
determinations regarding Zwetz (see, e.g., Final Action 4), Bruckner (see,
e.g., id. at 4-5), Knauss (see, e.g., id. at 7-8), Kephart (see, e.g., id. at 8-9,
11-12), and combinations thereof, especially as they relate to the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 2 (see id. at 6-9).
As discussed above, the record supports the Examiner’s determination
that Zwetz and Bruckner teach a method of controlling a steam generator in
which “a degree of superheating in consideration of a prevailing saturation
temperature” at the outlet of the evaporator is integrated into flow-control
steps as required by independent claim 1.
As also discussed above, Knauss discloses “a control signal for
increasing the flow through [a] valve when the degree of subcooling of
steam-drum water mixture being fed to [an] evaporator heat exchange means
is less than said predetermined value and for reducing the flow through said
valve when said subcooling is greater than said predetermined value.”
(Knauss, col. 6,11. 49-56.) Insofar as Zwetz and Bruckner fail to teach that
pressure and temperature measurements taken at an evaporator’s inlet could
be used to calculate a degree of subcooling for use as a flow control
parameter, Knauss teaches that this could be done for the sake of “stable
evaporator operation.” (Id. at col. 2,1. 49.)
New Rejection VI
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we reject
dependent claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
12
Appeal 2016-003623
Application 12/869,069
Zwetz, Bruckner, Knauss, and Kephart. We incorporate the paragraphs
provided in our new rejection of independent claim 1 (Rejection V); and we
also note for emphasis that we adopt the Examiner’s findings and
determinations with respect to Kephart’s teachings regarding the storage of
set point signals and measured temperatures. (See Final Action 11-12.)
New Rejection VII
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we reject
dependent claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Zwetz, Bruckner, Knauss, Kephart, and Sekiai. We incorporate our
discussion, findings, and conclusion from our new ground of rejection of
independent claim 1 (Rejection V); and also adopt the Examiner’s findings
and determinations with respect to Sekiai and its combinations with the other
applied prior art references. (See Final Action 13-14.)
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 7-10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
We enter NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION, pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b), rejecting claims 1 and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
NON-FINALITY OF DECISION
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant
to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
13
Appeal 2016-003623
Application 12/869,069
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected,
or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the Examiner, in which
event the prosecution will be remanded to the Examiner.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same record.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
14