Ex Parte Yin et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 28, 2019

13794123 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/794, 123 03/11/2013
146293 7590 03/04/2019
Kacvinsky Daisak Bluni PLLC - CFH
101 Carnegie Center
Suite 106
Princeton, NJ 08540
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dan Yin
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.
1800CI0149 1003
EXAMINER
LETTMAN, BRYAN MATTHEW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/04/2019 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):
jchamberlain@kdbfirm.com
docketing@kdbfirm.com
jholland@kdbfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAN YIN and KENNETH W. PATTON 1
Appeal 2018-003798
Application 13/794, 123
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claims 1-10 as unpatentable over
Schneider (US 7,028,659 B2, issued Apr. 18, 2006) and Anderson (US
2012/0195770 Al, published Aug. 2, 2012). Claims 11-20 have been
withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 IMO INDUSTRIES, INC. ("Appellant"), is the applicant as provided under
3 7 C.F .R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 1
("Appeal Br."), filed July 27, 2017.
Appeal2018-003798
Application 13/794, 123
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to "the field of monitoring systems
for machinery, and more particularly to a system and method for continuous,
automatic pump condition monitoring and control." Spec. ,r 1, Fig. 7.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative of the
claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A method for monitoring and controlling a pump,
compnsmg:
defining at least one processing target;
deriving a first actuator control signal Y c from the at least
one processing target;
deriving at least one actual operating parameter;
comparing the at least one actual operating parameter to at
least one predefined system and pump limit to determine a
second actuator control signal Y' c;
comparing the at least one actual operating parameter to at
least one predefined fluid limit to determine a third actuator
control signal Y"c;
comparing the at least one actual operating parameter to at
least one predefined normal processing limit to determine a
fourth actuator control signal Y"'c;
comparing the at least one actual operating parameter to at
least one predefined abnormal processing limit to determine a
fifth actuator control signal Y""c;
determining which of the second actuator control signal
Y'c, third actuator control signal Y"c, fourth actuator control
signal Y"'c, and fifth actuator control Y""c signals is a most
conservative actuator control signal; and
driving the pump in accordance with the most
conservative actuator control signal.
2
Appeal2018-003798
Application 13/794, 123
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 is directed to a method for monitoring and
controlling a pump including the steps of comparing at least one actual
operating parameter to at least one predefined parameter to determine
separate actuator control signals. Appeal Br., Claims App. 1. The Examiner
finds that Schneider discloses the comparing steps of claim 1. See Final Act.
2--4. 2 In particular, the Examiner finds "the measuring points for delivery
pressure, delivery rate, temperature, suction pressure and speed are
compared to required data for each point ... from which 'deviations' are
determined .... The pump is then controlled based on the 'deviations'
determined by the comparisons." Ans. 13 3 (citing Schneider 2:40--44, 50-
60). According to the Examiner, "[i]t is the five separate deviations which
operate as ( and are relied on for teaching) the claimed five separate control
signals." Id.; see also Reply Br. 2. 4,5
Appellant contends "nowhere does Schneider disclose, or even
suggest, determining five, separate control signals" in connection with the
comparing steps of claim 1. Reply Br. 2; see also Appeal Br. 5---6.
According to Appellant, "Schneider merely describes deviations from the
compared actual values and the setpoint values. Nowhere does Schneider
describe that separate, individual, signals are determined from the compared
values. Instead, Schneider merely appears to indicate that the deviations are
relied upon merely to generate a single, final, adjusting signal." Reply Br. 2.
2 Final Office Action ("Final Act."), dated Apr. 17, 2017.
3 Examiner's Answer ("Ans."), dated Dec. 21, 2017.
4 Reply Brief ("Reply Br."), filed Feb. 20, 2018.
5 The Examiner relies on the teachings of Anderson for disclosing the
determining and driving steps of claim 1. See Final Act. 4.
3
Appeal2018-003798
Application 13/794, 123
Schneider discloses:
The actual value signals determined at the measuring points 5 are
compared in the controller with the required data stored there. In
the controller 6, an adjusting signal is generated from the
deviations between the actual values and the sctpoint values and
is transmitted via a signal transmitter 7 to a final control element
8. An increase or reduction of the displacement space of the
positive displacement pump 1 is effected by the final control
element 8 on the basis of the adjusting signal until the actual
value signals at the measuring points 5 correspond to the setpoint
value signals in the controller 6.
Schneider, 2:50-60 (emphasis added), Fig. 1.
Although we agree with the Examiner that Schneider discloses
comparing the actual value signal ( actual operating parameter) to the
required data (predefined parameter) for each of the measuring points, we
agree with Appellant that "Schneider [ does not] describe that each
comparison results in an individual signal." Appeal Br. 6; see also Final
Act. 10; Ans. 13. Based on the above disclosure from Schneider, we agree
with Appellant that "Schneider does not describe that the deviations are
separate, individual signals; the deviations instead are merely intermediate
values used to obtain the final, single, adjusting signal." Reply Br. 3. In
other words, "Schneider merely describes that the deviations are used for
generating a single adjusting signal for adjusting a positive displacement
pump." Id. (emphasis added).
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1-10 as unpatentable over Schneider and Anderson.
4
Appeal2018-003798
Application 13/794, 123
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-10 as
unpatentable over Schneider and Anderson.
REVERSED
5