Ex Parte Stovall et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 1, 2017

13460001 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 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.
13/460,001 04/30/2012 Steven David Stovall 253456-1 3486
80944 7590 09/06/2017
Hoffman Warniok T T .P
EXAMINER
540 Broadway
4th Floor
MA, KUN KAI
Albany, NY 12207 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/06/2017 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):
ptocommunications@hoffmanwarnick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN DAVID STOVALL,
GEORGE MARTIN GILCHRIST III, and JOHN VICTOR HAINS
Appeal 2016-003190
Application 13/460,001
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.
KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Steven David Stovall et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 5, 7—11,
and 14—20, which are the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appeal 2016-003190
Application 13/460,001
Appellants’ invention relates to systems for controlling the cooling of
turbine components. Spec. para. 1.
Claims 1,11, and 18 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A system comprising:
a gas turbine system including a gas turbine and at least
one gas turbine component;
a set of conduits configured to provide a cooling fluid to
the at least one gas turbine component, the cooling fluid cooling
the at least one gas turbine component;
a set of fan systems for cooling the set of conduits, the set
of conduits fluidly connected with the at least one gas turbine
component wherein each fan system includes:
a fan;
a fan motor operably connected with the fan; and
a variable frequency drive for modifying an
operating speed of the fan motor;
a temperature sensor operably connected to the at least one
gas turbine component, the temperature sensor for obtaining a
temperature indicator of the at least one gas turbine component;
and
a control system operably connected to the set of fan
systems and the temperature sensor, the control system for
modifying a speed of at least one fan system in the set of fan
systems across a range of speeds by providing instructions to the
variable frequency drive to:
increase the operating speed of the fan motor in
response to determining the temperature indicator exceeds
an upper limit of the predetermined range; and
decrease the operating speed of the fan motor in
response to determining the temperature indicator is below
a lower limit of the predetermined range.
2
Appeal 2016-003190
Application 13/460,001
THE REJECTION ON APPEAL
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 4, 5, 7—11, and 14—20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Woolley (US 3,605,406,
issued Sept. 20, 1971) in view of Francino (US 2011/0066298 Al, published
Mar. 17, 2011), Buckley, Jr. (US 4,455,820, issued June 26, 1984), and
Chang (US 2007/0224030 Al, published Sept. 27, 2007).
ANALYSIS
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Woolley discloses a
system comprising a gas turbine 54, at least one gas turbine component 18,
20, a set of conduits 66 that are associated with condensers 64, 78 and are
configured to provide cooling fluid from a hot well 38 to the gas turbine
components, and a set of fans 62, 76 configured to cool the cooling fluid
through condensers 64, 78. See Final Act. 3—4. The Examiner relies on
Francino as teaching a system comprising a set of fan systems for cooling a
set of conduits that are connected to a steam turbine component, in which
each fan system comprises a variable frequency drive for modifying an
operating speed of a fan motor. Id. at 4—5.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
the system of Woolley by incorporating the condensing fan system and its
control functions in Francino “in order to improve condensing efficiency for
both exhaust gas of the gas turbine and the steam of the steam turbine.” Id.
at 5. The Examiner posits that since the condensers of the set of fan systems
of Francino are connected in parallel and each condenser is individually
3
Appeal 2016-003190
Application 13/460,001
controlled, incorporating them in the system of Woolley via conduit 66
“would increase the condensate generation rate and would not reduce the
temperature of the condensate.” Ans. 4; see also Final Act. 3, 5—9. The
Examiner further posits that, because the condensate would be generated
more effectively and efficiently, the outputs of Woolley’s modified power
plant would be optimized. Id. at 5.
Appellants point out that Woolley’s power plant does not require fan
systems to condense and reclaim the steam and water exiting from turbine
72.1 Appeal Br. 9. Appellants contend that, because adding the fan systems
to conduit 66 as proposed would not, according to the Examiner, decrease
the temperature of the condensate, i.e., no further cooling would be provided
by the fan systems, “then [the additional fan systems] would not be
necessary.” Id. Appellants argue that thus, the proposed combination of
Woolley and Francino would necessarily reduce the overall efficiency of the
power plant. Id. at 8—9. Appellants’ arguments are persuasive.
“[Rejections 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.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Additionally, we note that a given combination of prior art reference may
simultaneously have advantages and disadvantages, and that the benefits,
both lost and gained, are to be weighed against each other. See Medichem,
1 We assume that Appellants mean other than turbine-driven fans 62 and 76,
which cool condensers 64 and 78, respectively, because the fluid exiting
those condensers is fed into conduit 66. See Woolley, Fig. 1.
4
Appeal 2016-003190
Application 13/460,001
S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Winner Int7
Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
The Examiner’s proposed modification would disadvantageously
require energy to mn the additional fan system. The purported advantage of
the modification proposed by the Examiner is that an “increase [in] the
condensate generation rate” would in some way provide an undefined and
poorly explained optimization of the process. Ans. 4. It appears that the
Examiner may be relying on Francino’s disclosure of improved operation in
that particular system as the basis for asserting that the Woolley process
could be optimized in the same way. The Examiner has not, however, taken
into account the differences in the two processes, or explained whatever
similarities exist between the two, such that the improved efficiencies in one
would be reasonably expected to be obtained in the other.
Accordingly, it is unclear from the record how the Examiner’s
proposed modification would improve condensing efficiency for either the
exhaust gas turbine or the steam of the steam turbine. As such, the
Examiner’s proffered reason to modify the power plant of Woolley in view
of the teachings of Francino is lacking in rational underpinnings.
The Examiner does not rely on Buckley or Chang in any manner that
remedies the above-noted deficiency in the rejection of claim 1. Thus, the
rejection of claim 1, and claims 4—10 depending therefrom, is not sustained.
Independent claims 11 and 18 include limitations similar to those discussed
above with respect to claim 1 and the Examiner applies the same inadequate
reasoning. Thus, the rejection of those claims, and claims 14—17 depending
from claim 11, and claims 19 and 20 depending from claim 18, is also not
sustained.
5
Appeal 2016-003190
Application 13/460,001
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7—11, and 14—20 is reversed.
REVERSED
6