Ex Parte Narayanan et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 10, 201913532837 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2019) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation