ATLAS COPCO COMPTEC, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 10, 2022

2020006603 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2022)

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. 15/091,908 04/06/2016 TODD STEVEN ABBOT GIBBS ATLASCM.51257-NY 4157 5409 7590 01/10/2022 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS 22 CENTURY HILL DRIVE SUITE 302 LATHAM, NY 12110 EXAMINER KASTURE, DNYANESH G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3746 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/10/2022 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): AZ5409@IPLAWUSA.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte TODD STEVEN ABBOT GIBBS ____________________ Appeal 2020-006603 Application 15/091,908 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges. HILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Todd Steven Abbot Gibbs (“Appellant”)1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Non-Final decision of November 29, 2019, rejecting claims 1-3, 7-8 and 22-24.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant identifies Atlas Copco Comptec LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claims 5, 6, and 9-21 were withdrawn from consideration. Non-Final Act. 1. Claim 4 was cancelled. Appeal Br. N (Claims App.). Appeal 2020-006603 Application 15/091,908 2 BACKGROUND Independent claims 1 and 12 are pending. Independent claim 12 has been withdrawn. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter, with certain limitations italicized: 1. A. gas compression system comprising: a booster compressor; a booster compressor bypass; a conduit connected to the booster compressor and the booster compressor bypass, wherein a stream of gas is selectively directed through the booster compressor based on a measurement of an environmental condition present in the gas compression system; wherein the conduit includes at least one sensor that measures the environmental condition that is selected from the group consisting of a volume of the gas, a temperature of the gas, and a temperature of the gas compression system. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Griswold US 2,069,161 Jan. 26, 1937 Shaw US 4,787,211 Nov. 29, 1988 Fezjuli US 8,821,132 B2 Sept. 2, 2014 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1-3, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Shaw. Non-Final Act. 2-4. II. Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shaw and Griswold. Non-Final Act. 4-6. Appeal 2020-006603 Application 15/091,908 3 III. Claims 1 and 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Griswold and Fejzuli. Non-Final Act. 6-9. ANALYSIS Rejection I: Shaw - Claims 1-3, 7, and 8 The Examiner finds that Shaw discloses the gas compression system of claim 1 including, inter alia, a booster compressor 10 and a bypass 14 therefor, and a stream of gas being selectively directed via conduit 48 through the booster compressor 10 “based on a measurement of an environmental condition present in the gas compression system,” the environmental condition being “temperature sensed by sensor 66.” Non- Final Act. 2-3 (citing Shaw 5:39-44, 3:38-39, and 4:58-60). The Examiner also finds that Shaw contemplates “selectively directing a stream of gas” to bypass booster compressor 10 when not needed, such need being determined based on a temperature sensed by sensor 66. Id. at 3. The Examiner notes that the claimed “selectively directed” gas does not require the entire gas stream to be directed either through the booster compressor or through its bypass. Id. Appellant argues claims 1-3, 7, and 8 as a group. See Appeal Br. 6-8. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claims 2, 3, 7, and 8 stand or fall with claim 1. Appellant argues that Shaw does not disclose selectively directing gas through its booster compressor 10 based on a measurement of an environmental condition. Appeal Br. 6. According to Appellant, “there is no selectivity in Shaw at all.” Id. at 7. Rather, Appellant argues, Shaw discloses “a default operating mode where gas refrigerant . . . enters an inlet Appeal 2020-006603 Application 15/091,908 4 of a booster compressor 10 and is discharged to one or two second stage compressors 18, 20.” Id. Appellant contends that the speed of Shaw’s booster compressor 10 is regulated by controller 56 based on the evaporator 46 or “first stage suction pressure measured by transducer 66.” Id. Appellant acknowledges that Shaw discloses shutting its booster compressor 10 down when system load is low enough, during which time the gas flows through associated bypass 14 to compressors 18, 20. Id. Despite this disclosure, Appellant argues, Shaw does not disclose that shutting booster compressor 10 down based on a measured environmental condition, and thus Shaw does not disclosed the claimed selective gas directing based on an environmental condition measurement. Id. According to Appellant, although Shaw discloses that its transducer 66 senses temperature, Shaw’s booster compressor 10 is stated to be “modulated by controller 56 in response to . . . suction pressure (or temperature) as sensed by transducer 66,” which “means that the data from the transducer 66 is not used to selectively direct gas through a booster compressor, but rather to control the speed of the booster compressor 10.” Id. at 7-8. Appellant argues that data measured by Shaw’s transducer 66 “is wholly unrelated to” operation of its compressors 10, 18, 20 in the disclosed “alternative” compressor control arrangement that contemplates shutting down booster compressor 10. Id. at 8; Shaw 5:39-45 (“[A]t very low system loads the entire first stage [10] is shut down [and] bypass conduit 14 . . . will permit refrigerant flow directly from the evaporator to the second stage [18, 20].”). The Examiner responds that Shaw’s booster compressor 10 being shut down at low temperatures, and the resulting use of its associated bypass 14, is selective direction of gas. See Ans. 11-13 (“The controller (56) . . . Appeal 2020-006603 Application 15/091,908 5 ‘selectively’ bypasses the booster compressor by intentionally shutting it down at very low evaporator temperature.”). Appellant replies that “[t]he claimed selectivity refers to a decision whether or not to direct the stream of gas through the booster compressor,” such that “the alleged ‘selectivity’ in Shaw refers to a speed of the compressor and not whether to direct a stream of gas through a compressor.” Reply Br. 2. According to Appellant, “[w]hile the speed of the Shaw’s compressor is intentionally controlled up or down, Shaw does not intentionally decide to direct a stream of gas through the bypass compressor.” Id. The Examiner has the better argument for the following reasons. Shaw contemplates that the type of compressor dictates whether gas will flow through the compressor when shut down, such that Shaw contemplates the booster compressor 10 requiring a bypass and selective gas direction through the bypass when the booster compressor 10 is shut down. See Shaw 5:2-6 (“With certain types of second stage compressors . . . it may be possible to eliminate bypass conduit [if] the pressure drop across the inactive second stage compressors is not too excessive.”), 5:39-47 (The booster compressor “bypass arrangement may not even be necessary with certain types of compressors.”). We agree with the Examiner’s contention that the claimed selective directed of gas does not require the entire gas stream to be directed either through the booster compressor or through its bypass. In addition, we disagree with Appellants contention that the temperature data from Shaw’s transducer 66 is not used to selectively direct gas through booster compressor 10. Further, speed of the booster compressor and use of a Appeal 2020-006603 Application 15/091,908 6 bypass valve for that compressor appear to us to create selective direction of gas. If that is not the case, Appellant has not explained why or how selective direction differs from shutting down the compressor and providing an associate bypass. Thus, at least when Shaw’s booster compressor 10 is shut down and is of the type requiring use of a bypass when shut down, selective direction of Shaw’s gas stream occurs. Appellant appears to contend that selectively turning a compressor off and on is not the same as selectively directing gas flow to the compressor because, when Shaw’s compressor is shut down, “gas can still flow through the compressor.” Appeal Br. 8, 9 (quoting Shaw 5:2-6 (“With certain types of second stage compressors, e.g. reciprocating piston compressors with cylinder valves, it may be possible to eliminate bypass conduit 28, providing the pressure drop across the inactive second stage compressor is not excessive.”)). As explained above, the claimed “selectively directed” gas does not require the entire gas stream to be directed either through the booster compressor or through its bypass and, because Shaw contemplates compressors that at least partly restrict flow therethrough when shut down and thus require a bypass, at least some of Shaw’s gas stream is selectively directed through its bypass. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of error. For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 2, 3, 7, and 8 fall with claim 1. We sustain Rejection I. Rejection II: Shaw and Griswold - Claims 22 and 23 The Examiner acknowledges that Shaw does not explicitly disclose a valve upstream of its booster compressor inlet. The Examiner finds, however, that Griswold discloses a gas compression system with a booster compressor 12 and “a throttle valve (38) disposed upstream of an inlet to the Appeal 2020-006603 Application 15/091,908 7 compressor” 12. Non-Final Act. 5. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to incorporate a throttle valve upstream of Shaw’s check valve 16 to prevent “flow through the compressor when it is shut down.” Id. at 6. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proposed combination of Shaw and Griswold is improper. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant argues that, because Shaw’s gas flow can already “follow[] the path of least resistance” when its booster compressor is shut down, a skilled artisan “would not look to add complexity to the Shaw system by incorporating a throttle valve upstream of the booster compressor to prevent flow” therethrough, because flow is already restricted through the booster compressor. Id. The Examiner responds that a throttle valve “provides the capability of isolating the compressor when it is shut down for maintenance, which can prevent “leaking refrigerant from the air conditioning circuit to the environment.” Ans. 16. The Examiner also contends that a throttle valve would help “prevent[] cavitation or surging” and prevent “any potential small residual flow through the compressor . . . when it is shut down.” Id. Appellant replies that a throttle valve is not needed because “flow is restricted through the booster compressor “simply by shutting down the booster compressor.” This argument is not persuasive. As explained above in our analysis of Rejection I, Shaw contemplates that the type of compressor dictates whether gas will flow through the compressor when the compressor is shut down (Shaw 5:2-6 (“With certain types of second stage compressors . . . it may be possible to eliminate bypass conduit [if] the pressure drop across the inactive second stage compressors is not too excessive.”), 5:39-47 (The Appeal 2020-006603 Application 15/091,908 8 booster compressor “bypass arrangement may not even be necessary with certain types of compressors.”)), such that Shaw discloses booster compressors that restrict flow and those that do not restrict flow. Because Shaw contemplates a booster compressor that allows flow through when shut down, we do not agree with Appellant’s argument that a throttle valve would not be beneficial in Shaw for compressor maintenance. We sustain Rejection II. Rejection III: Griswold and Fejzuli - Claims 1 and 22-24 The Examiner finds that Griswold discloses a gas compression system including booster compressor 12 and its bypass 62, “wherein a stream of gas is selectively directed through the booster compressor [12] via a throttle valve (38) . . . allow[ing] either the bypass [62] or the compressor [12] to be . . . isolated.” Non-Final Act 6-7 (citing Griswold 2:19). According to the Examiner, Griswold implies that the booster compressor 12 will be bypassed if the pressure in the pipe is already 600 pounds at the location of booster compressor 12. Id. at 7. To this end, we note that Griswold discloses that its invention “relates . . . particularly to a method and means for economically effecting periodic boosting of pressure of gas carried by pipelines” by “maintaining the pressure throughout the same more uniform and nearer to the most efficient pressure.” Griswold 1:3-14. Griswold’s efficiency is achieved by, inter alia, “provid[ing] motor-compressor units susceptible of remote control.” Id. at 1:34-35, 3:60-4:2. In describing the structure of its gas line, Griswold states that its gas line “is provided with the usual throttle valves and check valves 611 and bypass connections to permit the units to be cut out.” Id. at 3:17-19. This discussion of bypassing and cutting out compressors is immediately followed by a quick discussion of compressor Appeal 2020-006603 Application 15/091,908 9 examination/repair/removal, although bypassing is not explicitly linked to compressor maintenance. See id. at 3:20-24. The Examiner contends that, if Griswold does not disclose selectively directing gas flow based on an environmental condition, Fejzuli provides such a disclosure. Id. According to the Examiner, Fejzuli discloses a system with gas conduit 3, booster compressor 9 or 10, booster bypass 20 or 21, and respective valves for selectively connecting a bypass to the gas conduit “based on measurement of either pressure, temperature or delivery volume (three options for environmental conditions) of the gas compression system.” Id. at 7 (citing Fejzuli 4:38-43 (Disclosing that the compressors in system 2 can be arranged in “various ways depending on the required or desired natural gas characteristics at the inlet 3 and at the outlet 7, in particular temperature, pressure and necessary delivery volume of natural gas.”)). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to selectively direct the stream of gas through one or more booster compressor of Griswold if the line pressure is less than 600 pounds and to bypass the one or more booster compressor of Griswold if the line pressure is equal to or more than 600 pounds” to accurately control gas delivery pressure. Id. at 8. Appellant argues that Griswold and Fejzuli do not disclose selectively directing gas through a booster compressor based on a measured environmental condition. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Griswold implies that its booster compressor 12 will be bypassed if the pressure in the pipe is already 600 pounds at the location of booster compressor 12. Id. (referring to Non-Final Act. 7); Reply Br. 3 (citing Griswold 1:16-19) (“Griswold briefly states that the bypass connection 62 exists so that the compressors can be ‘cut out’ but offers no Appeal 2020-006603 Application 15/091,908 10 insight into the purpose of cutting out the compressors or when/why the gas would flow through the bypass connection 62 and not enter the compressor.”). Appellant further argues that Fejzuli “is equally deficient” because its “default operating mode requires the LNG stream to first flow through the first compressor 9, 11 and then to the second compressor 10, 12,” providing “no selectivity . . . especially not based on a measurement of an environmental condition.” Appeal Br. 10-11. According to Appellant, even if Fejzuli’s valve 23 is “closed or open, the stream still flows through compressor 9, 11.” Id. at 11. We agree with the Examiner that Fejzuli discloses selective direction. Fejzuli is concerned with properly pressurizing “boil-off” in LNG transport tankers, so that the boil-off can be used for tanker engine fuel. See Fejzuli 1:45-50. The supply line includes multiple compressors in series or parallel to pressurize the boil-off as disclosed in the embodiments of Fejzuli’s Figures 1 and 2 (showing four compression stages 9, 11; 10, 12; 13, 15; and 14, 15). See id. at 3:34-4:67. Bypasses 20, 21, 22 are provided for Fejzuli’s compressor stages, and each bypass includes a respective valve 23, 24, 25. See id. at 4:1-7. In describing the embodiment of its Figure 1, Fejzuli discloses controlling its bypass valves 23, 24, 25 to regulate “the pressure and/or the delivery volume of natural gas at or flowing through the outlet 7.” Id. at 4:1-7. In describing the embodiment of its Figure 2, Fejzuli discusses pressure sensors 42a-42d at various points along its system between its stages, along with regulating devices 40a-40c associated with respective bypass valves 23, 24, 25. Id. at 4:45-55. Fejzuli discloses that its regulating devices 40a-40c “influence the position of” its respective bypass line valves 23, 24, 25 “based on the difference between the current and target” pressure Appeal 2020-006603 Application 15/091,908 11 values at outlet 7. Id. at 4:49-55. The other bypass valves 24, 25 are similarly regulated. Id. at 4:56-63. Fejzuli then discloses that, in the embodiment of its Figure 3, a temperature sensor can additionally be employed and its data used to control various bypasses. See id. at 5:1-19. Taking the entirety of Fejzuli’s disclosure into consideration, we agree with the Examiner that Fejzuli indeed selectively directs its gas among its various bypass lines and compressors as a part of its “regulating” to attain a target pressure at outlet 7 of its engine supply line. Thus, we discern no error in the Examiner’s employment of Fejzuli’s reasoning, in addition to Griswold’s disclosure of economically effecting periodic boosting of pressure of gas, remote control of compressors, maintenance of compressors, and compressor bypasses, to arrive at employing selective direction in Griswold. For this reason, we sustain the Rejection III. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-3, 7, 8 102 Shaw 1-3, 7, 8 22, 23 103 Shaw, Griswold 22, 23 1, 22-24 103 Griswold, Fejzuli 1, 22-24 Overall Outcome 1-3, 7, 8, 22-24 Appeal 2020-006603 Application 15/091,908 12 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