ALSTOM Technology Ltd

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 3, 2020

14868588 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 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. 14/868,588 09/29/2015 Francisco BLANGETTI 307061-4 US 1072 7788 7590 03/03/2020 General Electric Company Attn: Jim Pemrick 1 Research Circle K1-3A64 Niskayuna, NY 12309 EXAMINER TREMARCHE, CONNOR J. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3746 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/03/2020 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): charlotte.wilson@ge.com gepower.mail@ge.com shannon.cannizzaro@ge.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FRANCISCO BLANGETTI and LUCAS BOROBIA Appeal 2019-004463 Application 14/868,588 Technology Center 3700 BEFORE CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JAMES P. CALVE, and GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, 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 1–8. See Final Act. 1. 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 Technology GmbH. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-004463 Application 14/868,588 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to condensation systems. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A condenser with a condensing steam flow path, comprising; a plurality of cooling tubes, extending transversely to the steam flow path, for containing and directing a cooling water flow; and an extraction system comprising: a first extraction line, with a first inlet; a second extraction line, with a second inlet located in a region of the condenser that, in operation is configured to be at a lower pressure than the first inlet; an adjustable ejector with: a nozzle, having an opening, connected to the first extraction line and adapted to enable fluid extracted through the first extraction line to be used as a motive fluid for the adjustable ejector; and a suction inlet connected to the second extraction line so as to enable evacuation of the second extraction line by the adjustable ejector, wherein the adjustable ejector having a flow means to vary a flow of the motive fluid. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Reference Name Document ID Pub. Date Malone US 3,441,045 Apr. 29, 1969 Timmerman US 4,168,030 Sept. 18, 1979 Pelletier US 4,524,607 June 25, 1985 Blangetti DE 19949761 B4 Apr. 2, 2009 Appeal 2019-004463 Application 14/868,588 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1–5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pelletier and Malone evidenced by Blangetti. Final Act. 2. Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pelletier, Malone, and Timmerman. Final Act. 6. OPINION Claims 1–5, and 7 Claims 1–5 and 7 are argued as a group (Appeal Br. 7–12) for which claim 1 is representative under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is predicated on incorporating Malone’s ejector into Pelletier’s condenser. Final Act. 3–4. The striking similarity between Appellant’s ejector design and that of Malone is readily apparent from comparing Appellant’s Figure 2 with Figures 1 and 2 of Malone, and does not appear to be an issue of dispute. See Appeal Br. 9–12. Appellant initially takes issue with the amount of subject matter for which the Examiner relies on Malone, namely all the structural details of the ejector. Appeal Br. 10. Pelletier illustrates the ejector 23 used in that system only schematically, as a simple rectangle (Fig. 2) and refers to only “a conventional . . . stream jet air ejector.” Ans. 3 (citing Pelletier col. 6, ll. 38– 41). Pelletier’s schematic illustration and brief mention of the ejector essentially amount to an invitation to the skilled artisan to fill in the details for such a structure based on their knowledge of the art. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to know the relevant prior art.”). Appellant does not present any evidence or technical reasoning to support Appeal 2019-004463 Application 14/868,588 4 Appellant’s assertion (Appeal Br. 11) that Malone’s ejector, the application for which was filed roughly fifteen years before that of Pelletier, would not have been regarded by one skilled in the art as something falling within the scope of “a conventional . . . stream jet air ejector.” To arrive at a working apparatus one must necessarily provide more details than those illustrated by a simple rectangle in a schematic. Indeed, “[a] patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art” such as, in this case, a conventional stream jet air ejector as illustrated in Malone. Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Coherent, Inc., 827 F.2d 1524, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Appellant also takes issue with the level of clarity and detail in the Examiner’s action. Appeal Br. 10. However, we are unable to discern, and Appellant does not identify with particularity, any subject matter unaccounted for in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. The Examiner clearly identified by reference numeral the portions of the prior art relied on in the Examiner’s rejection. Final Act. 3–4. Thus, the Examiner’s rejection is set forth in a sufficiently articulate and informative manner as to meet the notice requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 132. See, e.g., In re Jung, 637 F. 3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Appellant also argues the Examiner did not articulate a sufficient rationale for combining reference teachings because the Examiner did not explain “why” (Appeal Br. 11) one skilled in the art would want to provide more precise ejector control in order to meet flow requirements (see Final Act. 3, 7 (citing Malone col. 2, ll. 8–17)). Because the satisfaction of design requirements such as precise control over an injector is an inherently desirable engineering goal, we do not think any further explanation is necessary from the Examiner as to “why” one might consider using an Appeal 2019-004463 Application 14/868,588 5 ejector having an adjustable2 orifice, enabling one to more readily satisfy that objective. See, e.g., Dystar Textilfarben GmBH & Co, v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (An implicit motivation to combine exists when the improvement is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient.) Claims 6 and 8 Claim 6 is representative of this group under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner cited Timmerman as evidencing the obviousness of using a multi-pass condenser enabling recirculation and improved efficiency. Final Act. 6 (citing Timmerman col. 2, ll. 5–44 and col. 5, ll. 40–47). Appellant’s sole argument concerning this rejection is that “Pelletier describes a closed loop system. Therefore, there is no motivation to ‘recycle and recirculate’ as alleged. It is already accomplished in Pelletier.” Appeal Br. 13. However, the number of passes in a heat exchanger is independent of the closed or open nature of the fluidic loops. Timmerman touts the efficiency gained by essentially being able to select between single and multiple pass modes depending on the application. Timmerman col. 5, ll. 40–47 (cited at Final Act. 6). Claim 6 does not require the ability to select each type of mode. It is sufficient to establish the obviousness of the subject matter of claim 6 based on Timmerman evincing 2 See also Ans. 8 (“mak[ing] something adjustable is a well-known supporting rationale for a combination” (citing MPEP § 2144.04)) Appeal 2019-004463 Application 14/868,588 6 that one skilled in the art would know to select a single or multi-pass configuration based on the particular application. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED. DECISION SUMMARY Claims 35 U.S.C. § Basis/References Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 7 103 Pelletier, Malone, Blangetti 1–5, 7 6, 8 103 Pelletier, Malone, Timmerman 6, 8 Overall Outcome 1–8 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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