SCIPIO, Alston Ilford. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 28, 2020

14571322 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2020)

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.
14/571,322 12/16/2014 Alston Ilford SCIPIO 19441-0996 (277352) 1522
13077 7590 01/28/2020
Eversheds Sutherland GE
Suite 2300
999 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
MALATEK, KATHERYN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2020 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):
patentdocket@eversheds-sutherland.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALSTON ILFORD SCIPIO, PAUL ROBERT FERNANDEZ,
REBECCA EVELYN HEFNER, and SANJI EKANAYAKE
Appeal 2019-001636
Application 14/571,322
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, AND
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–13, 15–19, and 21. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as General Electric
Company. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001636
Application 14/571,322
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an online and offline compressor
anticorrosion treatment system that uses condensate or boiler feed water for
component passivation. Spec. ¶ 101.
Claims 1, 15, and 16 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A gas turbine engine, comprising:
a compressor;
a compressor wash system in communication with the
compressor, the compressor wash system configured for online
and offline washes;
a condensate or boiler feed water system in
communication with the compressor;
a dosing system in communication with the condensate or
boiler feed water system; and
a temperature and concentration management system
comprising one or more sensors configured to determine a
concentration of an anticorrosion agent in a flow of condensate
or boiler feed water in the condensate or boiler feed water system
in a feedback loop, wherein the temperature and concentration
management system is configured to automatically control the
concentration based on output from the one or more sensors.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Foster US 6,491,048 B1 Dec. 10, 2002
Hjerpe US 2007/0059159 A1 Mar. 15, 2007
Saha US 2013/0186435 A1 July 25, 2013
Scipio US 2013/0330172 A1 Dec. 12, 2013
White US 9,103,261 B1 Aug. 11, 2015

Appeal 2019-001636
Application 14/571,322
3
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 16, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hjerpe, Saha, and White.
II. Claims 2, 9–11, 13, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Hjerpe, Saha, White, and Scipio.
III. Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hjerpe, Saha, White, and Foster.
OPINION
Rejection I–Hjerpe, Saha, and White
The Examiner finds that Hjerpe discloses many of the elements
recited in claim 1, including a compressor, a compressor wash system, a
dose system, and a temperature and concentration management system.
Final Act. 3–4. However, the Examiner finds
Hjerpe is silent on a condensate or boiler feed water
system in communication with the compressor; the dosing
system in communication with the condensate or boiler feed
water system; and the temperature and concentration
management system comprising one or more sensors configured
to determine a concentration of an anticorrosion agent in a flow
of condensate or boiler feed water in the condensate or boiler
feed water system in a feedback loop, wherein the temperature
and concentration management system is configured to
automatically control the concentration based on output from the
one or more sensors.
Id. at 4. The Examiner turns to Saha as teaching a condensate or boiler feed
water system (HRSG 150 and heater 170) in communication with
compressor 120 and a flow of condensate or boiler feed water in the
condensate or boiler feed water system. Id. at 4–5 (citing Saha, Fig. 3). The
Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
Appeal 2019-001636
Application 14/571,322
4
skill in the art to provide condensate or boiler feed water to the compressor
and dosing system “in order to increase the overall system efficiency by
reducing the parasitic losses associated with operating water wash systems
as suggested by Saha.” Id. at 5 (citing Saha ¶ 5).
The Examiner finds White discloses the use of a sensor to determine
the concentration of an anticorrosion agent in order to operate a feedback
loop that controls the amount of the anticorrosion agent added—preventing
its waste. Id. at 5–6; Ans. 3.
Appellant argues that Examiner provides an inadequate rationale for
modifying the system of Hjerpe to include the use of water from a
condensate or boiler feed water system. Appeal Br. 7. Specifically,
Appellant contends Saha teaches that the operation of wash systems causes
an undesirable parasitic loss, not an improvement. Id.
In response, the Examiner takes the position that Saha intends to
reduce parasitic losses associated with existing wash systems, and, therefore,
the proposed modification to the system of Hjerpe, based on Saha’s
teachings, would result in an improvement. Ans. 2–3.
We agree with the Examiner on this point. Saha discloses that
compressor wash systems are useful, but also create a parasitic loss (a
decrease in power output). Saha ¶¶ 1–4. However, paragraph 5 of Saha
explains that “the parasitic losses associated with a compressor water wash
system may be reduced and/or eliminated so as to improve overall system
efficiency[, and] otherwise wasted heat may be used to provide useful
work.” Accordingly, contrary to Appellant’s argument, Saha teaches not
only that compressor wash systems result in a parasitic losses, Saha also
teaches a manner of using waste heat to reduce these losses.
Appeal 2019-001636
Application 14/571,322
5
Appellant next argues “White is entirely silent as to any determination
of temperature using a sensor, and therefore fails on its face to teach or
suggest the claimed temperature and concentration management system.”
Appeal Br. 8. This argument does not apprise us of Examiner error because
the Examiner finds that Hjerpe discloses a temperature and concentration
management system and relies on White only to teach the use of a feedback
loop to control the concentration in the water supplied to the wash system.
See Ans. 3. In particular, the Examiner finds that paragraphs 39 and 40 of
Hjerpe disclose managing the temperature of the water used in the wash
system. Paragraph 39 of Hjerpe states, “[h]eated water may be
advantageous to use, e.g. for compressor washing. For this purpose pump
skid 201 includes tanks and heaters for providing heated water.” Thus, the
Examiner’s finding regarding Hjerpe’s disclosure of a temperature
management system is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.2
Appellant contends “White does not teach or suggest the claimed
temperature and management system because it is specifically directed to a
fuel system and discusses, at length, its intended purpose of reducing waste
of ‘expensive fuel additives.’” Appeal Br. 8. This argument is unavailing
because the Examiner’s use of White’s teachings does not depend on any
association of the sensor and feedback loop taught by White with a
compressor wash system. Rather, as the Examiner explains, “one of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize the general teachings in White of
using a sensor to measure the amount of additive in a fluid and iteratively
use that measurement to determine how much additive should be added to

2 Appellant does not assert that Hjerpe fails to disclose a temperature and
concentration management system. See Appeal Br. 6–9.
Appeal 2019-001636
Application 14/571,322
6
the fluid as being applicable to a water wash system.” Ans. 4. Accordingly,
Appellant’s apparent contention that White relates to a system so different
from that of Hjerpe that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
found the implementation of White’s sensor and feedback loop to be an
obvious improvement to Hjerpe’s compressor wash system is unavailing.
Appellant next contends, “[a]lthough White describes a generic
concentration management system, it is applied to a fuel delivery system in
White, and one having skill in the art would therefore apply it to the
respective fuel delivery systems of Hjerpe and Saha if combined - not to the
compressor wash system as asserted by the Examiner.” Appeal Br. 9. This
argument does not apprise us of Examiner error because, as discussed above,
the Examiner’s rejection relies on White’s general teaching of using a sensor
and feedback loop to control the concentration of an additive in a fluid—the
rejection does not rely on a bodily incorporation of White’s system with the
system disclosed by Hjerpe. Ans. 5. The fact that a person of ordinary skill
in the art may have found other implementations of White’s teachings
obvious to implement in Hjerpe’s system (such as in Hjerpe’s fuel system)
does not undermine the basis for the Examiner’s rejection, specifically, that
the use of a feedback loop as taught by White would have been obvious in
order to control the concentration of additive in Hjerpe’s system. See Final
Act. 5–6; Answer 3.
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments in support of the
patentability of claim 1, but find them unavailing. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of claim 1. Appellant relies only on the arguments set forth for
claim 1 in support of claims 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 16, 17, and 21. See Appeal Br. 9.
Accordingly, these claims fall with claim 1.
Appeal 2019-001636
Application 14/571,322
7
Rejections II and III— Hjerpe, Saha, White, Scipio, and Foster
Appellant makes no separate arguments for the patentability of claims
2, 6, 9–11, 13, 15, 18, and 19 (Rejections II and III). See Appeal Br. 10.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the
same reasons discussed above regarding claim 1 (Rejection I).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 5, 7, 8,
12, 16, 17,
21
103 Hjerpe, Saha, White 1, 3, 5, 7,
8, 12, 16,
17, 21

2, 9–11, 13,
15, 19
103 Hjerpe, Saha, White,
Scipio
2, 9–11,
13, 15, 19

6, 18 103 Hjerpe, Saha, White,
Foster
6, 18
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5–13,
15–19, 21

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED