Ex Parte Singh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 18, 2017

13173139 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 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.
13/173,139 06/30/2011 Kapil Kumar Singh 249032-1 8625
6147 7590 10/20/2017
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GPO/GLOBAL RESEARCH
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
EXAMINER
QUIGLEY, KYLE ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/20/2017 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):
haeckl@ge.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
Lori.e.rooney @ ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAPIL KUMAR SINGH, FEI HAN, DEEPALINITIN BHATE,
SHIVAKUMAR SRINIVASAN, PREETHAM BALASUBRAMANYAM,
QINGGUO ZHANG, KRISHNA KUMAR VENKATESAN, and
CHRISTIAN LEE VANDERVORT
Appeal 2017-003072
Application 13/173,139
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 21-28.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants claim a gas turbine comprising, inter alia, at least three
pressure sensors disposed in varying axial and transverse directions on a
liner of a combustor of the gas turbine. App. Br. 5. Claim 21 illustrates the
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as General Electric Company.
Appeal Brief filed August 8, 2016 (“App Br”), 3.
Appeal 2017-003072
Application 13/173,139
subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below:
21. A gas turbine comprising:
(a) pressure sensors disposed in varying axial and
transverse directions on a liner of a combustor of the gas
turbine, wherein the pressure sensors comprise at least three
pressure sensors;
(b) a monitoring system comprising at least one CPU,
microcomputer, microcontroller, or DSP programmed for:
(i) receiving real-time time domain data from the
pressure sensors;
(ii) converting the time domain data to frequency
domain data;
(iii) using historical field data for evaluating
trends in amplitudes, widths, and frequencies of spectral
features in a spectra of the frequency domain data for
differentiating spectral features attributable to variations
in operating conditions of the gas turbine from spectral
features attributable to variations in hardware of the
combustor;
(iv) making a determination regarding the
combustor health based on the differentiated spectral
features; and
(v) generating recommendations for maintenance
of the gas turbine based on the determination regarding
the combustor health.
App. Br. 15 (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner sets forth the rejection of claims 21-28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over He et al. (US 2010/0076698 Al, published
March 25, 2010, hereinafter “He”), in view of Gysling et al. (US
2004/0226386 Al, published November 18, 2004, hereinafter “Gysling”),
and Damiano et al., (US 5,623,579, issues April 22, 1997, hereinafter
“Damiano”) in the Final Office Action entered April 21, 2016 (“Final Act.”),
2
Appeal 2017-003072
Application 13/173,139
and maintains the rejections in the Answer entered November 4, 2016
(“Ans.”).
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellants’ contentions, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 21-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the reasons set forth in the Final
Action, the Answer, and below.
Claims 21-27
Appellants argue claims 21-27 as a group on the basis of claim 21, to
which we limit our discussion. App. Br. 8-13; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
He discloses a system that detects combustion anomalies within the
combustor of a gas turbine engine by utilizing one or more sensors to sense
thermoacoustic oscillations representative of combustion conditions within
the combustor. He 5, 27, 32. He discloses using numerous types of
sensors to sense thermoacoustic oscillations, including pressure sensors that
sense the amplitudes of thermoacoustic oscillations, and ionic sensors that
measure dynamic ionic activity. He]fl|34, 38. He discloses placing each
sensor in, on, or otherwise proximate to the combustor, depending on the
nature of the particular sensor and how it converts sensed thermoacoustic
oscillations into sensor information. He ^ 32.
The Examiner finds that He does not expressly disclose disposing
pressure sensors in varying axial and transverse directions on the liner of the
combuster. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Gysling discloses
disposing pressure sensors axially and circumferentially along a pipe, which
according to the Examiner, “corresponds to disposing pressure sensors in
varying axial and transverse directions” as recited in claim 21. Final Act. 3
3
Appeal 2017-003072
Application 13/173,139
(citing Gysling 32, Figs. 7, 12, 20. The Examiner determines that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to position pressure sensors on
a combustor liner, such as disclosed in He, in the known configuration
disclosed in Gysling, to allow better detection of thermoacoustic oscillations.
Final Act. 3; Ans. 6-7.
Appellants argue that He discloses disposing a single ionic sensor—
rather than a pressure sensor—on a combustion liner to measure dynamic
ionic activity within the combustor. App. Br. 10. Appellants contend that
Gysling discloses piezoelectric sensors or piezoelectric film sensors
circumferentially spaced around the outer surface of a large diameter pipe to
measure various parameters of a process fluid flowing within the pipe, such
as its volumetric flow, density, and air/mass ratio. App. Br. 10, 12.
Appellants argue that Gysling “teaches away from placing additional
pressure sensors on the liner of a combustor, as asserted by the Examiner.”
App. Br. 13. Appellants argue that Gysling does not disclose pressure
sensors that would be suitable for detecting thermoacoustic oscillations on a
liner of a combustor of a gas turbine, but instead teaches that pressure
sensors should be positioned on the outside of a pipe so that a specific
amount of space exists between the sensors. App. Br. 10, 13. Appellants
further assert that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a
“rational motivation” to combine the relied-upon disclosures of He and
Gysling so as to add pressure sensors on He’s combustion liner as proposed
by the Examiner, and would not have had a reasonable expectation of
success for such a combination. App. Br. 11.
Appellants’ arguments regarding He focus on a particular embodiment
disclosed in He (disposition of an ionic sensor in a combustion liner as
4
Appeal 2017-003072
Application 13/173,139
shown in Figure 2), and do not take into consideration He’s disclosure of
using one or more sensors placed in, on, or otherwise proximate to a
combustor, depending on the nature of the particular sensor, to sense
thermoacoustic oscillations. He. ^ 32. He further discloses using multiple
sensors to sense thermoacoustic oscillations in order “to more accurately
detect combustion anomalies of interest” because “thermoacoustic
oscillations are not localized phenomena.” He 32, 79. Gysling discloses
that the piezoelectric sensors and piezoelectric film sensors described in the
reference are pressure sensors, and discloses locating the pressure sensors in
an axial and circumferential configuration. Gysling 32, 52, 54, Fig. 20.
The Examiner’s rejection is not based on a literal incorporation of the
sensors disclosed in Gysling into He’s system for detecting combustion
anomalies. Rather, the proposed combination is based on He’s suggestion of
disposing multiple pressure sensors on the liner of a combustor (discussed
above), and Gysling’s suggestion of disposing the pressure sensors in a
known axial and circumferential configuration. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of a
primary reference . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). In
view of the teachings of He and Gysling, one of ordinary skill would have
reasonably expected that arranging pressure sensors on or about a liner of a
combustor—such as three as recited in claim 21— would have been suitable
for detecting thermoacoustic oscillations, so as to accurately detect
combustion anomalies of interest. The plain language of claim 21
(disposing three pressure sensors in varying axial and transverse directions
5
Appeal 2017-003072
Application 13/173,139
on a combustor liner) does not require any particular spacing between the
recited pressure sensors, and by explicitly reciting “varying,” also
encompasses numerous and varied axial and transverse arrangements of the
sensors.
Appellants’ arguments based on Gysling focus only on Gysling’s
disclosures relating to the length (or spacing) between pressure sensors, and
do not take into consideration Gysling’s broader disclosure relied upon by
the Examiner of arranging pressure sensors in an axial and circumferential
configuration (such as shown in Figure 20 of Gysling). In addition,
paragraph 59 of Gysling cited by Appellants actually supports the
Examiner’s position because this paragraph indicates that the type of
measurement being made determines the spacing of the pressure sensors.
Therefore, contrary to Appellants’ arguments, Gysling’s disclosure of
particular lengths between sensors would not have discouraged one of
ordinary skill in the art from arranging pressure sensors in He’s liner in an
axial and circumferential configuration in view of Gysling’s explicit
disclosure that such a configuration is a suitable arrangement for pressure
sensors, and disclosure that the spacing between pressure sensors depends on
the type of measurement being made.
Appellants do not direct us to any persuasive reasoning or evidence
demonstrating that this broadly recited arrangement of pressure sensors in
claim 21 serves a unique or critical function or purpose. App. Br. 8-13. Nor
do Appellants direct us to any showing—such as factual data—
demonstrating that the recited arrangement achieves results that would have
been unexpected by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants’
invention relative to the closest prior art. App. Br. 8-13; see also In re
6
Appeal 2017-003072
Application 13/173,139
Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Explaining that Appellants
can evince the criticality of a feature of the claimed invention, “generally by
showing that the claimed [novel feature] achieves unexpected results relative
to the prior art” feature.) Accordingly, due to a lack of evidence to the
contrary, developing a suitable arrangement for the suggested pressure
sensors in He’s liner that would allow the sensors to effectively sense the
amplitudes of thermoacoustic oscillations, such as the known axial and
circumferential configuration for pressure sensors disclosed in Gysling,
would have involved nothing more than ordinary skill and creativity at the
time of Appellants’ invention. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007).
Accordingly, the weight of the evidence relied-upon in this appeal
supports the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art
reasonably would have expected that disposing multiple pressure sensors
(such as three as recited in claim 21) in He’s combustor liner in an axial and
circumferential configuration as suggested by the combined disclosures of
He and Gysling would allow the amplitudes of thermoacoustic oscillations
to be successfully detected in He’s combustor. In reKubin, 561 F.3d 1351,
1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[OJbviousness does not require absolute
predictability of success ... all that is required is a reasonable expectation of
success.”), (citingIn re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04 (Fed. Cir. 1988))
(emphasis omitted). Appellants’ arguments are therefore unpersuasive of
reversible error.
Because the preponderance of the evidence relied upon in this appeal
supports the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness, and we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 21-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
7
Appeal 2017-003072
Application 13/173,139
Claim 28
Claim 28 depends from claim 21 and recites that the pressure sensors
comprise a first sensor, a second sensor having a first separation length LI
and a first separation angle a with respect to the first sensor, and a third
sensor having a second separation length L2 and a second separation
angle (3 with respect to the second sensor, wherein LI is different from L2
and a is different from (3.
In addressing claim 28, Appellants repeat arguments discussed above
that they provide for claim 21, and add that Figure 3 and paragraph 30 of
their Specification demonstrate that the sensors recited in claim 28 “are not
arbitrarily located on the combustion liner, but are placed at specific
locations for a specific purpose.” App. Br. 13.
However, contrary to Appellants’ arguments, although paragraph 30
of Appellants’ Specification states that the sensors illustrated in Figure 3 are
“strategically located in axial and transverse directions on a combustor liner
60,” this paragraph does not describe any particular purpose for, or effect of,
this sensor configuration. Therefore, as with claim 21 discussed above,
Appellants do not direct us to any persuasive reasoning or evidence
demonstrating that the arrangement of pressure sensors recited in claim 28
serves a unique or critical function or purpose. App. Br. 13-14.
In addition, Appellants’ arguments focus only on Gysling’s
disclosures regarding the length (or spacing) between the pressure sensors
described in the reference, and do not take into consideration Gysling’s
broader disclosures relied-upon by the Examiner in the rejection presented
on appeal of arranging pressure sensors in an axial and circumferential
configuration. As discussed above, He’s disclosures would have suggested
8
Appeal 2017-003072
Application 13/173,139
including multiple pressure sensors in a combustor liner to improve the
accuracy of detecting combustion anomalies. As also discussed above, one
of ordinary skill in the art would have developed a suitable arrangement for
the pressure sensors in He’s liner through no more than ordinary skill and
creativity that would have allowed the sensors to effectively sense the
amplitudes of thermoacoustic oscillations, such as the axial and
circumferential configuration for pressure sensors disclosed in Gysling.
It follows that Appellants’ arguments regarding the lack of motivation
to combine and reasonable expectation of success based on the disclosures
of He and Gysling are unpersuasive of reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and we accordingly sustain
the rejection.
DECISION
In view of the reasons set forth above and in the Final Action and the
Answer, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 21-28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
9