Ex Parte Hurley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

13926147 (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.
13/926,147 06/25/2013 Joseph David Hurley 2012P24868US 1350
28524 7590 09/05/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
GUGGER, SEAN A
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2831
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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIALAND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH DAVID HURLEY and PETER JON CLAYTON
Appeal 2017-000274
Application 13/926,147
Technology Center 2800
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Siemens Energy, Inc.
Appeal Br.
Appeal 2017-000274
Application 13/926,147
Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants’ subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below (with text in bold for emphasis):
1. A method of controlling a shaft of a turbine generator
having an electric generator and a static excitation system that
provides a field voltage to the electric generator, wherein the
shaft is being driven in a first rotational direction at a
predetermined speed and wherein the electric generator
produces power, the method comprising:
detecting a torsional oscillation of the shaft;
calculating a control signal based on the torsional
oscillation; and
using the control signal, controlling an amount of
power drawn by the static excitation system directly from
the power produced by the electric generator.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Sihler
Markunas et al.
US 2007/0279012 Al
US 2010/0175478 Al
Dec. 6, 2007
July 15,2010
(hereafter “Markunas ‘478”)
Dalessandro US 2011/0057631 Al
Markunas et al. US 2011/0115444 Al
(hereafter “Markunas ‘444”)
Mar. 10,2011
May 19, 2011
2
Appeal 2017-000274
Application 13/926,147
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claim 1^4 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Markunas ‘478 in view of Dalessandro.
2. Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being
unpatentable over Markunas ‘478 and Dalessandro, as applied to claims 3
and 13 above, and further in view of Markunas ‘444.
3. Claims 7—9 and 17—19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Markunas ‘478, Dalessandro, and Markunas ‘444, as
applied to claims 6 and 16 above, and further in view of Sihler.
4. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Markunas ‘478 and Dalessandro, as applied to claim 11 above, and
further in view of Sihler.
ANALYSIS
We can focus on the limitation of claim 1 (similarly found in
claim 11) of “using the control signal, controlling an amount of power
drawn by the static excitation system directly from the power
produced by the electric generator” in making our determination in
this case.
The Examiner’s statement of the case regarding Rejection 1 is
presented on pages 3—6 of the Final Office Action. Therein, the Examiner
finds that Markunas ‘478 discloses a method (Figure 2) of controlling a shaft
(8) of a turbine generator having an electric generator (6) and an excitation
system that provides a field voltage to the electric generator (for a WFSM,21
2 Wound field synchronous machine. See Markunas ‘478 12.
3
Appeal 2017-000274
Application 13/926,147
[0011]), wherein the shaft is being driven in a first rotational direction at a
predetermined speed, and wherein the electric generator produces power, the
method comprising: detecting a torsional oscillation of the shaft (top two
boxes of Figure 2); calculating a control signal based on the torsional
oscillation (via 12 and 22, | [0010]); and using the control signal, controlling
an amount of power drawn by the excitation system directly from the power
produced by the electric generator (| [0011]). The Examiner states that
Markunas ‘478 does not explicitly disclose a static excitation system. The
Examiner finds that Dalessandro discloses a static excitation system (1) for a
generator (Figure 1). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to have made the excitation system of Markunas ‘487 a static
exciter, as disclosed by Dalessandro, in order to excite the generator in a
cost-efficient matter (| [0018]).
Appellants argue, inter alia, that because the auxiliary generator
24 of Markunas ‘478 provides power to the GCU3 12 (as indicated by
1 [0011] of Markunas ‘478), Markunas ‘478 does not explicitly teach
the static excitation system directly drawing power from the electric
generator, as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 7—8.
In reply, the Examiner states that Appellants overlook that
1 [0011] of Markunas ‘478 discloses that "the generator 6 may
[emphasis added] have an integral auxiliary generator 24”. The
Examiner interprets the use of the word “may” as implying that the
integral auxiliary generator 24 is not required in some embodiments.
The Examiner states that, in other words, in some embodiments,
3 Generator control unit. See Markunas ‘478 110.
4
Appeal 2017-000274
Application 13/926,147
optional auxiliary generator is relied upon to provide power to the
current line 22, and in others, generator 6, via main bus 10, is relied
on for power. Ans. 3.
In reply, Appellants argue that Markunas ‘478 does not teach
any embodiment other than the one specifically described in
Markunas ‘478, which is incorporating the auxiliary generator 24 (or
some form of auxiliary power), to provide power to the generator
control unit to “develop the generator control signal on the generator
control signal line 22,” as described at | [0011] of Markunas ‘478.
Reply Br. 2—3.
Appellants state that the Examiner now asserts that the use of
the word “may” with reference to the auxiliary generator 24 in
Markunas ‘478 implies an alternative embodiment wherein “generator
6, via main bus 10, is relied on for power” provided to the control
signal line 22. Reply Br. 3.
Appellants argue that this reading of Markunas ‘478 goes
beyond a proper reading of the disclosure of Markunas ‘478 and
beyond what one skilled in the art would be taught by Markunas ‘478.
Reply Br. 3. Appellants submit that a proper reading of the statement
of Markunas ‘478 that “the generator 6 may have an integral auxiliary
generator 24 comprising an unregulated PMM4 that provides
unregulated multiphase AC output power to the GCU 12 by means of
an auxiliary power bus 26” (Markunas ‘478 at | [0011]) indicates that
the power source for supplying power on the auxiliary power bus 26
4 Permanent magnet machine. See Markunas ‘478 12.
5
Appeal 2017-000274
Application 13/926,147
may be the auxiliary generator 24, and thus requires provision of some
form of auxiliary power source that provides the described output
power to the GCU on the auxiliary power bus 26. We agree and are
thus persuaded by such argument.
Accordingly, we reverse Rejection 1. Because the Examiner does not
rely upon the additionally applied references to cure the aforementioned
deficiency of Markunas ‘478, we also reverse Rejections 2-4.
DECISION
Each rejection is reversed.
REVERSED
6