Ex Parte Lou et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 31, 201712196544 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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. 12/196,544 08/22/2008 Xinsheng Lou W06/002-0(ALS-0019) 1585 117185 7590 ALSTOM C/O Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC 1737 King Street, Suite 500 Alexandria, VA 22314 EXAMINER KIM, DAVID H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2124 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2017 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): ADIPDOCl@BIPC.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte XINSHENG LOU, CARL H. NEUSCHAEFER, PAUL J. PANOS, and JOSEPH W. QUINN Appeal 2016-000631 Application 12/196,5441 Technology Center 2100 Before JUSTIN BUSCH, CATHERINE SHIANG, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—21 which constitute all claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as ALSTOM Technology Ltd. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-000631 Application 12/196,544 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Claimed Invention The claimed invention relates to optimizing a fluidized bed combustion (FBC) process in a power plant, through neural network modeling techniques. Spec. Tflf 1—3. Claims 1 and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows: 1. A system for optimizing a modeled fluidized bed combustion power plant, the system comprising: a processor including[] a model of a fluidized bed combustion system which provides at least one simulated output of the fluidized bed combustion power plant in response to a user selected input of the fluidized bed combustion power plant; and an optimizer which provides at least one optimized simulated output of the fluidized bed combustion power plant in response to at least one user selected optimization setting and the at least one simulated output of the fluidized bed combustion power plant. Claims App. 1 (App. Br.) (emphases added). The Rejections on Appeal Claims 1—5, 7, 8, 10-12, 16—19, and 21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Dong-Feng Wang et al., “Modeling the Circulating Fluidized Bed Boiler Using RBF-NN Based on Immune Genetic Algorithm” Proceedings of the First International Conference on Machine Fearning and Cybernetics (2002) (“Wang”). Final Act. 2-6. Claims 6, 9, 13, 14, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wang and Rahul B. Kasat & Santosh 2 Appeal 2016-000631 Application 12/196,544 K. Gupta, “Multi-objective optimization of an industrial fluidized-bed catalytic cracking unit (FCCU) using genetic algorithm (GA) with the jumping genes operator” Computers and Chemical Engineering 27 (2003) (“Kasat”). Final Act. 7-10. Claim 15 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wang and Kofman et al. (US 7,529,722 B2; May 5, 2009) (“Kofman”). Final Act. 10—11. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer, and provide the following for highlighting and emphasis. Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Regarding claim 1, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Wang discloses a “model of a fluidized bed combustion system,” as recited in the claim. App. Br. 3—5. Specifically, Appellants contend the neural network of Wang “can be a model of a fluidized bed combustion system only after training,” and “[bjefore training, it is a neural network with no specific use.” Id. at 3 (emphasis added). We disagree. As the Examiner finds, Wang discloses a genetic algorithm that incrementally improves the performance of a model output; in other words, 3 Appeal 2016-000631 Application 12/196,544 it optimizes the model. Ans. 12 (citing Wang § 2.2,11). The abstract of Wang further supports the Examiner’s finding: “a modeling method using parallel Radial Basis Function Neural Network (RBF-NN) is proposed based on immune GA [Genetic Algorithm] optimization.’ '’ Wang Abs. (emphasis added). We discern no error in the Examiner’s finding that “improved accuracy [in the Wang model] doesn’t change the fact that the algorithm is a model of the fluidized bed both before and after training.” Ans. 12 (emphasis added). The claim does not require any particular extent of training or accuracy before an algorithm is considered a “model” of the fluidized bed. Id. With regard to optimization, as the Examiner finds, Wang teaches “the genetic algorithm is incremental,” id., and “converges to a local optimal solution,” Wang § 2.2,11. Giving the claim its broadest reasonable construction in light of the Specification, as we must, In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004), we discern no error in the Examiner’s finding that Wang’s incremental improvement and “optimal solution” discloses the “optimizer” recited in claim 1. Appellants argue independent claim 16 separately, but the thrust of the argument is the same as the argument with respect to claim 1. Specifically, Appellants contend “there can be no simulated output from the model of the fluidized bed combustion system,” as recited in claim 16, “because there is no feature of the optimizer” disclosed in Wang. App. Br. 4. For the reasons explained above, this argument does not persuade us of error. The remaining claims subject to the rejection are dependent, and are not argued separately. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain 4 Appeal 2016-000631 Application 12/196,544 the rejection of claims 1—5, 7, 8, 10-12, 16—19, and 21 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Wang. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 6 as unpatentable over Wang and Kasat because, according to Appellants, Kasat does not teach “user selected input” that “includes economic inputs,” as required by the claim. App. Br. 5. Although Appellants concede Kasat teaches “maximization of the yield of gasoline (economic reasons),” Appellants contend “these are not user inputs.” Id. (emphasis added). This argument, however, is unpersuasive of error. The Examiner relies not on Kasat alone, but the combination of Kasat with Wang in rejecting claim 6. Ans. 13—14. As the Examiner finds, Kasat “teaches that there are economic considerations for fuel,” Ans. 13; see also Kasat at 1790, while Wang teaches fuel is a user input, Ans. 13 (citing Wang § 4, |2). Because “one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of references,” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981), we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6. The remaining claims rejected as obvious are not argued separately. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 6, 9, 13, 14, and 20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wang and Kasat, and the rejection of claim 15 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wang and Kofman. 5 Appeal 2016-000631 Application 12/196,544 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—21. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation