Ex Parte Grosse-Laxzen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2016

12934358 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/934,358 02/15/2011
22116 7590 05/02/2016
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rolf Grosse-Laxzen
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.
2008P01229WOUS 6875
EXAMINER
AHMED, NASIR UDDIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2855
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2016 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):
IPDadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROLF GROSSE-LAXZEN and KLAUS WERNER
Appeal2014-006334
Application 12/934,358
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-006334
Application 12/934,358
STATE~vfENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
10-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to determining the suction mass flow of a gas
turbine. Spec., Title. Claim 10, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
10. A method for determining a suction mass flow of a gas
turbine, comprising:
using as input characteristic quantities
a turbine inlet pressure,
a combustion chamber pressure loss, and
a pressure loss between surroundings and a compressor
inlet;
ascertaining for each input characteristic quantity a provisional
value for a suction mass flow resulting in a first provisional
value, a second provisional value and a third provisional
value;
ascertaining for each provisional value a validated value by
cross-balancing the first, second and third provisional values
thereby receiving first, second and third validated values; and
generating a characteristic quantity of the suction mass flow of
the gas turbine as an average value based upon the first,
second and third validated values wherein the suction mass
flow is determined
without solving energy balances,
without information relating to a fuel calorific value, and
without information relating to a fuel mass flow.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
2
Appeal2014-006334
Application 12/934,358
Badami
Ha bets
US 7,021,126 Bl
US 7,946,157 B2
Apr. 4, 2006
May 24, 2011
"Measurement of Fluid Flow by Means of Pressure Differential
Devices Inserted in Cross-Section Conduits Running Full - Part 1:
General Principles and Requirements," International Standard ISO
5167-1, 2nd ed., (2003) ("ISO 5167").
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 10, 11, 13, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Badami and ISO 5167. Final Act. 3--4.
Claims 12, 14, 15, and 17-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Badami, ISO 5167, and Habets. Final Act. 5-7.
APPELLANTS' CONTENTION1
"[B]ecause the pressure sensors of the Badami reference ... are
associated with a steam turbine (i.e., are not associated with a gas turbine),
... the reference [does not teach] a combustion chamber loss or [] a pressure
differential between surroundings and a compressor inlet [as required by
claim 10]." App. Br. 6.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent claims 10
1 We note Appellants raise additional contentions of error, but we do not
reach them as our resolution of this contention is dispositive of the appealed
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
3
Appeal2014-006334
Application 12/934,358
and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). \Ve agree with Appellants' conclusions as
to these rejections.
Appellants argue "one skilled in the art would not consider a steam
turbine capable of exhibiting any 'combustion chamber pressure loss' or any
'pressure loss between surroundings and a compressor inlet'. These
parameters are not known in the art to have any relationship to steam
turbines." App. Br. 7. Thus, according to Appellants, Badami's method of
estimating steam turbine performance fails to disclose using at least two of
the parameters recited by claim 10, i.e., combustion chamber loss and a
pressure differential between surroundings and a compressor inlet. App. Br.
6. In response the Examiner finds Badami 's "[ d]ata include pressure
measurements including high and low pressures (P3/Pl: col 5 lines 25-32)."
Ans. 3.
We agree with Appellants that Badami's monitoring of steam turbine
performance, having no combustion chamber to monitor, fails to teach or
suggest determining a suction mass flow using a combustion chamber
pressure loss. In particular, the Examiner has provided insufficient evidence
or explanation of why Badami's high and low pressure measurements in a
steam turbine teach or suggest the argued combustion chamber pressure loss
parameter of a gas turbine required by claim 10. Therefore, based on the
evidence of record, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 10
and, for the same reasons, the rejection of independent claim 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) and the rejections of dependent claims 11and13-21.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 10-21 is reversed.
4
Appeal2014-006334
Application 12/934,358
REVERSED
5