Ex Parte Kochetov et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 13, 201713449977 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/449,977 04/18/2012 Dmitry KOCHETOV 30367 7864 535 7590 KF ROSS PC 311 E York St Savannah, GA 31401-3814 12/15/2017 EXAMINER NGUYEN, NINH H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/15/2017 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): savannah@kfrpc.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DMITRY KOCHETOV and FRANK WIEBE Appeal 2016-005033 Application 13/449,9771 Technology Center 3700 Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1, 3—5, and 7—9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. According to Appellants, the “invention concerns a turbomachine whose rotor is supported on magnetic bearings.” Spec. 1,11. 5—6. Claims 1 and 9 are the only independent claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed claims. 1 According to Appellants, “the real party in interest... is Atlas Copco Energas GmbH.” Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2016-005033 Application 13/449,977 1. A turbomachine comprising: a housing; a rotor shaft centered on an axis, having an outer surface, and formed with an annular groove centered on the axis; a plurality of bearings supporting the shaft in the housing for rotation about the axis, at least one of the bearings being an active magnetic bearing; an impeller fixed on the rotor shaft; an annular copper layer fixed in the groove and rotatable with the rotor shaft; gap sensor means fixed in the housing adjacent the groove for detecting the copper layer and generating an output corresponding to a position of the layer relative to the housing; and control means connected between the sensor means and the active magnetic bearing for shifting the rotor shaft in the housing in accordance with the output. REJECTION AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3—5, and 7—9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Andrews (US 5,248,239, iss. Sept. 28, 1993), Meinzer (US 5,640,472, iss. June 17, 1997), and Payne (US 3,917,988, iss. Nov. 4, 1975). ANALYSIS With respect to the rejection of independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that although Andrews teaches a number of the claim’s recitations (Final Action 3), “Andrews does not disclose ... an annular copper layer fixed in [a rotor shaft] groove and rotatable with the shaft” (id. at 4). 2 Appeal 2016-005033 Application 13/449,977 Instead, the Examiner relies on Meinzer to teach the use of a copper layer on a rotor shaft. More specifically, the Examiner explains that the rejection does not rely on the real invention of Meinzer at all. The only reason Meinzer is mentioned in the rejection is the facts stated in the “Background Art” section of Meinzer that it is a common practice to add a copper ring to the rotor of a magnetic bearing to improve sensitivity of the sensor in some situations. Answer 4. Appellants argue, however, that the Examiner errs in combining Meinzer with Andrews, because Meinzer “teaches away” from the combination. Appeal Br. 8—9. Based on our review, we agree with Appellants, and, thus, we do not sustain claim 1 ’s rejection. “‘A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon [examining] the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. Para-Ordnance Mfg. Inc., v. SGSImporters Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (alteration in original). Also, a reference teaches away from a modification when the reference, taken as a whole, “criticizes], discredits], or otherwise discourage[s]” the modification. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this case, as set forth above, the Examiner finds that Meinzer discusses the use of a gap sensor arrangement with a copper ring as “Background Art.” See Meinzer col. 1,11. 8—col. 2,1. 46. Based on our review, we determine that this portion of Meinzer criticizes, discredits, and discourages one from using such an arrangement, by discussing numerous disadvantages associated with the system. More specifically, Meinzer discourages the use of a gap sensor arrangement that uses a copper ring based on the following: 3 Appeal 2016-005033 Application 13/449,977 For magnetic bearing applications, the gap distance sensors are typically placed as close as possible to the magnetic bearing (and, thus, the electro-magnetic coils), so as to allow precise control of the gap between the rotor and the stator. However, one drawback of using an inductive sensor is that the inductive sensor cannot be placed too close, e.g., less than 0.25 inches, to the electro magnetic coils of the magnetic bearing. If the inductive sensor is placed too close to the magnetic bearing, the inductive effects caused by changes in electro-magnetic flux generated by changing current through the magnetic bearing coils will corrupt the eddy currents sensed by the inductive sensor, thereby producing an erroneous distance measurement. Another disadvantage of an inductive sensor is that the resistivity of the copper ring changes over time and temperature, which changes the eddy currents and introduces errors in the distance measurement. Further, another drawback to using an inductive sensor is the high cost, e.g., $4,000.00 for a set of four sensors around a radial bearing. Id. at col. 2,11. 9-27. The Examiner responds to Appellants by indicating that “[although Meinzer mentions that resistivity of a copper ring changes over time and temperature[, Meinzer] . . . does not give any information on over what time period or over what temperature range that resistivity of a copper ring starts to change. If it takes a long time for this change to occur, the issues with the change in resistivity of the copper ring can be corrected during routine maintenance of a turbomachine.” Answer 4—5. However, the Examiner does not demonstrate that Meinzer’s statements are less discouraging because Meinzer fails to indicate how long it takes for the system to be impacted negatively. Rather, the reverse may be more likely—because Meinzer indicates that disadvantages result from using a copper ring, but does not indicate that the impact is minor or slow to develop, for example, one of ordinary skill may assume that the impact is significant and develops 4 Appeal 2016-005033 Application 13/449,977 quickly, and, thus, may be discouraged from using a copper ring in Andrew’s arrangement. Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 9, which recites similar recitations and is rejected for similar reasons. Further, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 3—5, 7, and 8, which depend from claim 1, inasmuch as the Examiner does not rely on any other reference to remedy the rejection of claim 1. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3—5, and 7—9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation