Ex Parte Chillar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 27, 2016

12258695 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/258,695 10/27/2008 Rahul J. Chillar 52082 7590 07/29/2016 General Electric Company GE Global Patent Operation 3135 Easton Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06828 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. 232679-1 9526 EXAMINER BARR, MICHAELE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1711 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/29/2016 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): gpo.mail@ge.com marie.gerrie@ge.com lori.E.rooney@ge.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAHUL J. CHILLAR, STEPHEN D. HINER, and AARON M. SMITH1 Appeal2015-001665 Application 12/258,695 Technology Center 1700 Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's maintained rejections under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103of1-10, 24, and 25 over claims Kohler2 in view of Hjerpe,3 Bellows,4 and non-patent literature Particle Counter, 5 and also of claim 23 in further view of Bornstein. 6 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6. We affirm. 1 Appellants identify General Electric Company as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Kohler et al., US 2008/0087300 Al, published April 17, 2008. 3 Hjerpe et al., US 2006/0081521 Al, published April 20, 2006. 4 Bellows, 5,073,499, issued December 17, 1991. 5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle _Counter from September 13, 2006. 6 Bornstein et al., US 3,581,491, issued June 1, 1971. Appeal2015-001665 Application 12/258,695 BACKGROUND Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a method for monitoring effluent exiting a compressor after an offline water-wash cycle to determine the level of fouling or level of corrosive deposits on the compressor. Spec. Abstract. Independent claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method of detecting at least one contaminant on a component of a compressor, the method comprising: providing an offline water-wash system comprising a drainage system; wherein the offline water-wash system performs the steps of: injecting a cleaning fluid into a compressor of a turbomachine; and utilizing the drainage system to receive an effluent created by the offline water-wash system; wherein the effluent comprises the cleaning fluid; utilizing a device to analyze the effluent, wherein the device generates data on a present analysis of the effluent including a conductivity level of the effluent and a pH value of the effluent; and providing a control system, wherein the control system performs: receiving the data on the present analysis of the effluent; determining whether a present level of at least one contaminant is within a predetermined range; determining whether a present level of at least one corrosive is within another predetermined range; determining one of a size and a number of particles in the effluent; comparing the present analysis of the effluent to similar data from at least one other turbomachine; and 2 Appeal2015-001665 Application 12/258,695 Appeal Br. 10. creating a baseline related that the present analysis of the compressor and similar compressors. Claim 23-depending from claim I-further requires "determining whether at least one of a sulfide, a sulfate and a chloride is present in the effluent." Claim 23. DISCUSSION7 Appellants argue the patentability of the claims as a group on the basis of independent claim 1, with further, separate argument as to claim 23. Appeal Br. 5-9. All claims other than claim 23 stand or fall, therefore, with independent claim 1. See 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv). Upon consideration of the evidence and opposing contentions of the Appellants and the Examiner, we are unpersuaded of reversible error in the Examiner's decision rejecting the claims as unpatentable for obviousness over the cited prior art. We add the following for emphasis. To prevail in an appeal to this Board, Appellant must adequately explain or identify reversible error in the Examiner's rejection. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012); see also In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365- 66 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the Examiner had failed to make a prima facie case, it has long been the Board's practice to require an Appellant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejection). 7 We refer to the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 25, 2014, the Appeal Brief filed June 11, 2014, and the Examiner's Answer mailed October 20, 2014. 3 Appeal2015-001665 Application 12/258,695 Appellants argue the cited prior art does not teach or suggest each and every limitation of the claims.8 Appellants contend that the cited prior art fails to teach to detect corrosives, a pH value of the effluent, or to determine the size and number of particles in the effluent. Appeal Br. 5. Regarding corrosives and pH, Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in relying on Bellows' disclosure that a pH sensor can be used to detect undesirable materials in a working fluid in a turbine and that it would be recognized as an appropriate, alternative test method in accord with paragraph 43 of Hjerpe. Appeal Br. 5-6. Appellants emphasize that sampling a working fluid in a steam turbine differs from monitoring waste water from a wash cycle for corrosives. Appeal Br. 6. Appellants further contend that none of the cited prior art "teaches to detect a corrosive in wash water." Appeal Br. 7. Appellants' arguments fail to squarely address the Examiner's reasoning, but focus instead on what they contend is missing from the cited prior art, and also fail to properly account for what is reasonably conveyed by the cited prior art. The rationale for combining or modifying the prior art "may be found in any number of sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the nature of the problem itself." Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As to what the prior art discloses, "it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences 8 Appellants further contest the conduct of examination (Appeal Br. 4-5, 8), however, any available relief is by way of petition as the conduct of examination is not an appealable matter (3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 1.181 ). 4 Appeal2015-001665 Application 12/258,695 which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968). On this record, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's determination that a pH sensor would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention as an appropriate, alternative test method to monitor wash fluid, as explained by the Examiner. Ans. 5-6. We find Appellants' further contention that none of the prior art teaches detecting a corrosive in wash water (Appeal Br. 7) inapt where the Specification describes the removal of "dirt and other corrosives" (Spec. ,-i,-i 23, 35) and the rejection is grounded on disclosures relating to cleaning gas turbine engines (Hjierpe ,-i,-i 2, 42). As set forth by the Examiner, the relied-on combination is grounded on monitoring wash water to determine when the level of, inter alia, contaminants has reached an acceptable level and Hjerpe explicitly teaches "typical contaminants" to include "salt coming from nearby sea" and "airport ground material such as dust" (Hjerpe ,-i 3). Appellants contend that the Examiner failed to set forth the reasoning or rationale for adding a particulate counter to the relied-on combination that is necessary to establish a prima facie case. Appeal Br. 6-7. Appellants emphasize it is not enough that all aspects were individually known, but that an objective reason to combine them is necessary and that "the Examiner has not provided any reasoning or rationale to suggest why it would be obvious to modify the prior art to count and size particulate." Appeal Br. 6-7. Appellants' argument is unpersuasive of error because the applied prior art and reasoning is directed to monitoring wash water to determine whether the compressor has been cleaned of, inter alia, particulate matter such as dust, with Particle Counter exemplifying that liquid particle counters 5 Appeal2015-001665 Application 12/258,695 can be used to test the cleanliness of equipment. See Ans. 6, 8. Thus, Appellants' argument fails to account for what one of ordinary skill in the art would have inferred from the specific teachings of the prior art. As to claim 23, Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in relying on Bornstein because it "does not suggest that alkali metal sulfides are detected, only that a prophylactic coating may be applied to a turbomachine to forestall alkali metal sulfide formation." Appeal Br. 7. Appellants' argument is unpersuasive of error where, as explained by the Examiner, Bornstein is relied on to show that it was well known that alkali metal sulfates, such as sodium and calcium sulfates, were known to be corrosives present in gas turbine engines. Ans. 9. As such, Appellants' attack against Bornstein individually lacks persuasive merit. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references."); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (The test for obviousness "is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."). For these reasons, we are unpersuaded of reversible error in the Examiner's conclusion that the subject matter of the claims would have been obvious over the cited prior art. CONCLUSION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10 and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 is AFFIRMED. 6 Appeal2015-001665 Application 12/258,695 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 1.13 6( a )(1 ). AFFIRMED 7