Ex Parte Apps et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

12451290 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 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.
12/451,290 11/05/2009 David Apps 143458 3927
759025944
OLIFF PLC
P.O. BOX 320850
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-4850
09/05/2017 EXAMINER
ALSOMIRI, MAJDI A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2017 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):
OfficeAction25944@oliff.com
j armstrong @ oliff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID APPS and TIMOTHY M. SMITH
Appeal 2015-005922
Application 12/451,290
Technology Center 3600
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, ARTHUR M. PESLAK, and
ANTHONY KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
David Apps and Timothy M. Smith (Appellants) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a): (1) claims 1—3, 6—8, 10, and 11 as unpatentable over Bernier (US
4,215,412, iss. July 29, 1980), and Clifton1; and (2) claims 4 and 9 as
unpatentable over Bernier, Clifton, and Utamura (US 6,202,400 Bl, iss.
Mar. 20, 2001). Claim 5 has been canceled. An oral hearing in accordance
with 37 C.F.R. § 41.47 was held on August 9, 2017. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 David Clifton, Condition Monitoring of Gas-Turbine Engines, Department
of Engineering Science, University of Oxford (Jan. 2006).
Appeal 2015-005922
Application 12/451,290
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “relates to health monitoring of gas
turbine engines.” Spec. 1:3—4, Fig. 2.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative of the
claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A method of monitoring the health of a gas turbine
engine of at least a pair of associated engines, the method
comprising the steps of
obtaining in-flight steady state readings from
predetermined sensors on the engines, comprising any one
or more of a temperature, a pressure, and a spool speed,
calculating a percentage difference of the steady
state readings from a unique engine linear synthesis model
for each engine,
comparing the difference between the percentage
differences for each engine and where this difference
exceeds a predetermined value issuing a warning as to an
engine health problem, and
where the percentage differences of the steady state
readings are calculated on a moving average basis
normalized to zero.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Bernier and Clifton
Claims 1—3, 6—8, 10, and 11
Independent claim 1 is directed to a method of monitoring the health
of a gas turbine engine of at least a pair of associated engines including the
step of “comparing the difference between the percentage differences for
each engine [of the pair of associated engines] and where this difference
exceeds a predetermined value issuing a warning as to an engine health
problem.” Appeal Br. A—1, Appendix A, Claims App. (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that Bernier discloses the above-cited step. See Final
Act. 2 (citing Bernier 19:1—10); see also Ans. 3—4 (citing Bernier Abstract,
2
Appeal 2015-005922
Application 12/451,290
1:1—19, 13:44—58, 15:59-68, 24:37—51, claims 11, 14). In particular, the
Examiner finds that Bernier’s system “is operable in a calibration mode
wherein digital filtering is utilized to automatically determine coefficient
values which reflect normal differences in performance between the
monitored engine and others of the same type.” Ans. 3^4; see also Final
Act. 6—7.2
Appellants contend that Bernier “merely discloses an engine
monitoring system that compares predicted current values of a set of engine
performance parameters of an engine of the same type to a single engine’s
actual values of these performance parameters.” Appeal Br. 4; see also
Reply Br. 2.
Appellants further contend that “Bernier fails to disclose comparing
deviations of more than a single engine.” Appeal Br. 7. Specifically,
Appellants contend that the passages of Bernier cited by the Examiner
“disclose nothing more than comparing predicted values to an actual value
obtained from a single engine to provide a deviation that may indicate a
fault,” that “Bernier discloses, at most, additional engines of a similar type
that are used to help define the nature of the performance parameters to be
measured and the initial values for coefficients,” and that “[o]nly the actual
value from a single engine is compared with predicted values of engines of
the same type being monitored in Bernier.” Reply Br. 3^4; see also Appeal
Br. 7-8.
2 The Examiner relies on Clifton for disclosing “where the percentage
differences of the steady state readings are calculated on a moving average
basis normalized to zero.” Final Act. 3.
3
Appeal 2015-005922
Application 12/451,290
Bernier discloses that “th[e] invention relates to a system for
monitoring a gas turbine engine wherein various engine performance
parameters are sensed and compared with predicted values of the same
parameters to supply deviation or error signals indicative of the condition of
the engine.” Bernier 1:8—12 (emphasis added). Here, we agree with
Appellants that “Bernier relates to a system for monitoring a (single) gas
turbine engine and comparing the engine performance parameters with
predicted values of the same parameters.” Reply Br. 2. Bernier further
discloses:
In the manner previously described, each set of
independent performance parameters that is associated with a
particular dependent performance parameter is selected by
statistical analysis of engine system operating data (linear
regression) that relates to the type of engine being monitored so
that the independent performance parameters generically
characterize the type of engine to be monitored with the
simulation coefficients characterizing the particular engine
being monitored relative to others of the same type.
Bernier 35:45—54 (emphasis added); see also id. 15:59-64.
Based on Bernier’s disclosure, we also agree with Appellants that
“Bernier discloses a coefficient estimator . . . that is used to determine
coefficient values which distinguish the particular type of engine being
monitored” and that “[determining coefficient values to distinguish the type
of engine being monitored is not the same as calculating a percentage
difference of steady state readings from a unique engine linear synthesis
model for each engine of a pair of associated engines.” See Appeal Br. 6;
see also Reply Br. 4 (“Bernier merely discloses that actual values [from] a
single engine [are] compared with predicted values of engines similar to the
engine being monitored.”). Consequently, we agree with Appellants that
4
Appeal 2015-005922
Application 12/451,290
“Bernier fails to disclose comparing the difference between percentage
differences of the steady state readings from a unique engine linear synthesis
model for each engine of a pair of associated engines,” as required by claim
1. Appeal Br. 7.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—
3, 6—8, 10, and 11 as unpatentable over Bernier and Clifton.
Obviousness over Bernier, Clifton, and Utamura
Claims 4 and 9
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 9 as unpatentable over
Bernier, Clifton, and Utamura is based on the same unsupported findings
discussed above with respect to independent claim 1. See Final Act. 4—5.
The Examiner does not rely on Utamura to remedy the deficiencies of
Bernier. Accordingly, for reasons similar to those discussed above for claim
1, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 9 as
unpatentable over Bernier, Clifton, and Utamura.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—3, 6—8,
10, and 11 as unpatentable over Bernier and Clifton.
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 4 and 9
as unpatentable over Bernier, Clifton, and Utamura.
REVERSED
5