Ex Parte Narayanan et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 10, 2019

13532837 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/532,837 06/26/2012
34082 7590 04/12/2019
ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C.
CAPITAL SQUARE
400 LOCUST, SUITE 200
DES MOINES, IA 50309-2350
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Krishnan Narayanan
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.
P07472US1 7886
EXAMINER
LAMBERT, WAYNE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/12/2019 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):
kconrad@zarleylaw.com
crasmussen@zarleylaw.com
emarty@zarleylaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KRISHNANNARAY ANAN and PAUL REINKE
Appeal2018-001282 1
Application 13/532,837
Technology Center 3700
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-11, 13-16, and 18-21. We have
jurisdiction under § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 We reference herein Appellants' Specification filed June 26, 2012
("Spec."), Appeal Brief filed May 17, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), and Reply Brief
filed November 20, 2017 ("Reply Br."), as well as the Examiner's Answer
mailed September 20, 2017 ("Ans."), and Final Office Action mailed
January 10, 2017 ("Final Act.").
Appeal 2018-001282
Application 13/532,837
SUBJECT MATTERON APPEAL
The invention "relates to a compressor control system," and, more
specifically, to "a compressor surge control system for estimating, correcting
and eliminating surge." Spec. 1:9-12. Claim 1 is the sole independent
claim and representative of the claimed subject matter. We reproduced
independent claim 1 below, emphasizing the limitation at issue.
1. A method of correcting surge control parameters of a
dynamic compressor steps comprising:
providing a dynamic compressor having a compressor with a gas
inlet and a gas outlet, a compressor driver connected to the
compressor, a surge valve fluidly connected between the
gas inlet and the gas outlet of the compressor, and a control
system having a proportional integral derivative controller
(PID) with an automatic surge estimator in electric
communication with the compressor;
establishing surge control parameters with the control system,
wherein the surge control parameters include a surge
detector line, a surge limit line, a surge preventer line, and
a surge control line;
detecting the onset of a surge in the dynamic compressor with
the control system;
measuring variables of the dynamic compressor with the control
system at the time the onset of the surge is detected; and
automatically correcting the at least one surge control parameters
with the control system based upon the variables measured
at the time the onset of the surge is detected.
Appeal Br., Claims App. ( emphasis added).
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-11, 13-16, and 18-21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)as unpatentableoverBlotenberg '534(US 4,831,534,iss.
2
Appeal 2018-001282
Application 13/532,837
May 16, 1989), Blotenberg '535 (US 4,831,535, iss. May 16, 1989), and
Stokes (US 4,380,893, iss. Apr. 26, 1983). 2
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites "a surge detector line." Appeal Br.,
Claims App. The Examiner fmds Blotenberg '534 discloses this limitation.
Final Act. 4. According to the Examiner:
Blotenberg [']534 teaches the adjustment of at least one surge
control parameter namely the parameter represented by line 21
(see also col 5, 11 40 - col 6, 11 6) based on a recorded surge event
( that is the event when a surge actually happens). The times to
which these event occur over time is what is being interpreted as
a surge detector line or a point( s) to which the event of a surge
takes place. A series of these events or point of occurrence
constitutes a line. The memory 19 as seen in the figure of
Blotenberg '534 represents the operation of a compressor based
on a range of fluid pressure and flow ( a compressor map) and the
event of a surge happens within the bounds of operation of the
compressor with associated fluid flow and pressure through the
compressor in operation. Thus a series of these events occurring
leading to the adjustments of surge control parameters
constitutes a surge detector line as could be represented in a
mapping system.
Ans. 2-3.
The sole issue on appeal is whether there is sufficient support for the
Examiner's fmding that Blotenberg '534 discloses the recited "surge
detector line." Appeal Br. 2-5; Reply Br. 2-3. We determine there is not.
2 The heading of the rejection does not refer to claim 21, but the Examiner
addresses the claim in the body of the rejection. Final Act. 3, 9.
Accordingly, we understand that the rejection includes claim 21, and that the
Examiner inadvertently omitted the claim from the heading.
3
Appeal 2018-001282
Application 13/532,837
As set forth above, the Examiner relies on a series of recorded surge
events for disclosing the recited surge detector line. Ans. 2. According to
Blotenberg '534, suction flow is measured, and the flow signal change rate
is compared to limit values. Blotenberg '534, 3:66-4:6. If the limit values
are exceeded, a signal indicative of surge is generated. Id. at 4 :6-10.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Blotenberg '534 discloses
recorded surge events. However, Blotenberg '534 does not disclose plotting
the recorded surge events to form a line.
Moreover, the characteristic field of memory 19 shown in the sole
Figure ofBlotenberg '534 similarly fails to disclose a series of surge events
that form a line. Blotenberg '534 discloses the signal indicative of surge is
fed to computer 15, where it causes the volume and pressure coordinates of
working point A of the compressor to be compared with surge limit line 22.
Blotenberg '534, 4:11-15, Figure. If the location of working point A
deviates from surge limit line 22, e.g., by abscissa amount X, blow-off
line 21 will be corrected accordingly, e.g., shifted by amountX to the right,
to obtain a new blow-off line 21' with an appropriate safety distance D from
surge limit line 22. Id. at 4:15-22, Figure. Accordingly, Blotenberg '534
discloses working point A associated with a surge event, but does not
disclose a line made up of a series of surge events.
Notwithstanding that Blotenberg '534 fails to expressly disclose
plotting a plurality of recorded surge events to form a line, the Examiner
fmds "a series of these events occurring leading to the adjustments of surge
control parameters constitutes a surge detector line as could be represented
in a mapping system," as set forth above. Ans. 3 ( emphasis added). To the
extent the Examiner relies on inherency, the Examiner has not persuasively
4
Appeal 2018-001282
Application 13/532,837
shown Blotenberg '534 inherently discloses the recited "surge detector line."
Even if Blotenberg '534 could plot a plurality of recorded surge events to
form a line, this possibility is insufficient to establish inherency. In re
Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("Inherency, however, may
not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a
certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient."
( citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
In view of the foregoing, there is insufficient support for the
Examiner's fmding that Blotenberg '534 discloses the "surge detector line"
recited in independent claim 1. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 3-11, 13-16, and 18-21
depending therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-11, 13-16, and 18-21 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5