Ex Parte Kochetov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 13, 2017

13449977 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 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.
13/449,977 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