Ex Parte Widmer et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201712554459 (P.T.A.B. May. 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. 12/554,459 09/04/2009 Neil Colin Widmer GEEP-44915 8580 15118 7590 06/02/2017 RnnalH M Kaohrrmrik EXAMINER Cooper Legal Group LLC 6505 Rockside Road XU, XIAOYUN Suite 330 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER Independence, Uh 441:51 1797 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/02/2017 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): patdoc @ cooperlegalgroup. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NEIL COLIN WIDMER, DAVID MOYEDA, WILLIAM RANDALL SEEKER and MICHELLE SIMPSON Appeal 2016-002610 Application 12/554,459 Technology Center 1700 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JULIA HEANEY, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1—13.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM. 1 Claims 14—20 have been withdrawn from consideration. (App. Br. 3). Appeal 2016-002610 Application 12/554,459 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention, as represented by independent claim 1, is directed to a method for controlling operation of a boiler including sensing a plurality of operating conditions at a common location within the boiler to detect a combustion anomaly and allow for optimization of boiler operation. (Spec. 1 8). Independent claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A method of controlling operation of a system that includes a boiler with a plurality of burners, the method including: sensing a plurality of operating conditions with a first sensor disposed to sense each of said plurality of operating conditions at a first common location along the boiler, wherein at least one of the plurality of operating conditions sensed at the first common location is indicative of a combustion anomaly occurring during operation of the boiler when a sensed value of the at least one of the plurality of operating conditions falls outside of a predetermined range of suitable values indicative of desired combustion; relating the combustion anomaly back to an offending burner identified from among the plurality of burners as being a significant contributor to the combustion anomaly based on a model that takes into consideration the plurality of operating conditions sensed at the first common location, wherein the model relates the operating conditions sensed at the first common location to individual contributions of the plurality of burners to the combustion anomaly; adjusting at least one of a process input and a boiler configuration affecting operation of the offending burner in an individualized manner relative to other, non-offending burners included in the plurality of burners that contribute to the combustion anomaly to a lesser degree than the offending burner to establish a desired value of the operating conditions at 2 Appeal 2016-002610 Application 12/554,459 the first common location and substantially-balanced combustion where substantially-uniform operating conditions exist across a cross-section of a portion of the boiler; recording the sensed value in a non-transitory computer- accessible memory; after said adjusting, repeating said sensing the plurality of operating conditions; and based on said sensing and said repeating said sensing, determining whether said adjusting has improved uniformity of said operating conditions across the cross-section, and updating the model in response to said determining to reflect an effect of the adjustment on the plurality of operating conditions sensed at the first common location for correction of future combustion anomalies. The Examiner maintains the following rejections: Claims 1—9, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Knittel et al. (WO 2008/106056 Published Sep. 4, 2008) (Knittel) in view of Jung (Ph. D. Thesis, University of London, 1992). Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Knittel, Jung and further in view of Zamansky et al (US 6,206,685 Bl, Mar. 27, 2001) (Zamansky). 3 Appeal 2016-002610 Application 12/554,459 OPINION2 Upon consideration of the evidence in this appeal record in light of the respective positions advanced by the Examiner and Appellants, we determine that Appellants have not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that the applied prior art would have rendered the subject matter recited in claims 1—13 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections of the above claims for the reasons set forth in the Final Action and the Answer. We add the following. The Examiner found Knittel teaches a method of controlling operation of a system that includes a boiler with a plurality of burners.3 (Final Act. 2; Knittel p.3,11. 24-27). The Examiner found Knittel teaches during operation sensing a plurality of operating conditions at a common location along the boiler. (Final Act. 2; Knittel p.5,11. 18—34, p.6,11.1—32). Knittel states its invention is directed to operational efficiency of the burners (optimum air/fuel ratio), emissions from the combustion system, and monitoring flame loss, fuel rich burner conditions, leak or rupture of the product tube. (Knittel p.3,11. 24—27; p. 7,11. 1—7). Knittel further discloses: The central feature of the preferred embodiment of the instant invention is the monitoring of oxygen, temperature, carbon monoxide, 2 Appellants’ arguments are directed to the appealed claims as a whole and are not specific to any particular claim. (See Appeal Brief generally). Appellants have addressed all of the rejections together. We limit our discussion to independent claim 1 as representative of the subject matter on appeal. 3 A complete statement of the Examiner’s rejections appears in the Final Action. (Final Act. 2—6). 4 Appeal 2016-002610 Application 12/554,459 water vapor and/or hydrocarbons in a single analytical system. The combination of these measurements along with an understanding of the process conditions that affect these gas measurements allows not only combustion efficiency optimization, emissions reduction and safety monitoring, but also allows the discrimination between conditions. One embodiment of this invention allows discrimination between air rich or fuel rich conditions along with discrimination between unsafe conditions such as product tube leaks and burner flame out. Another embodiment of this invention which includes additional point oxygen measurements allows localized diagnostics in multiple burner systems. (Knittel p.10,1. 29-p.11,1. 4). The Examiner recognized Knittel did not specifically teach iteratively updating the model in response to the effect of the adjustment on the operating conditions. The Examiner found Jung teaches iteratively updating a model in response to the effect of the adjustment on the operating conditions. (Final Act. 3^4; Jung, 2.2.3, Iteration Method, Fig. 2.1). The Examiner determined the teachings of Knittel and Jung would have rendered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the artiteratively updating a model in response to the effect of the adjustment on the operating conditions. (Final Act. 4). Appellants argue a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have sought to utilize the teachings from Jung for the purpose of modifying the device of Knittel. (App. Br. 6). Appellants argue Knittel is directed to a model for optical sensor calibration and not a model for controlling operation of the system. (App. Br. 7). Appellants further argue the resulting device of the Knittel/Jung combination would not operate to provide a model for controlling operation of a system as set forth by the claims. (App. Br. 9). Appellants’ arguments are without persuasive merit. As set forth above, Knittel utilizes a single analytical system for monitoring and optimizing combustion efficiency; inclusive therein is localized diagnostics 5 Appeal 2016-002610 Application 12/554,459 of multiple burner systems. (Knittel p.10,1. 29—p.l 1,1. 4). On this record, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had sufficient skill to recognize that after anomalies have been determined within the mulitple burner system and modifications to correct these anomalies have been performed such as suggested by Knittel, the system monitoring should continue to determine if additional corrections were required to provide operation that optimum efficiency. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that continuous monitoring and updating of the model utilized to monitor the system would have been necessary to account for the modifications employed in the system to correct anomalies. See, e.g., In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“For obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.†(citations omitted)); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“[T]he test [for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.â€); In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (skill is presumed on the part of one of ordinary skill in the art); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969) (“Having established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely, as put forth by the solicitor, on a conclusion of obviousness ‘from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.’â€). In the present case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the steps required to address a malfunctioning burner. See for example the present Specification which describes under the heading 6 Appeal 2016-002610 Application 12/554,459 “Description of Related Artâ€: If one or more of the burners is not operating in an optimal manner, a condition referred to as a combustion anomaly, the boiler can emit unsatisfactory levels of by products... In such circumstances the offending bumer(s) must be singled out from the array of burners, and then adjusted to optimize performance of the boiler. (Spec. 13). Moreover, notwithstanding the above, Appellants disclose that prior art attempts to determine the source of combustion anomalies in multi-burner systems relied upon a plurality of measured operating condition sensed at various different locations within the boiler. (Id. || 5—7). Appellants disclose there is a need in the art for controlling the operation of a boiler to optimize performance by sensing a plurality of operating conditions at a common location within the boiler to detect a combustion anomaly and allow for optimization of boiler operation. (Id. | 8). Knittel discloses optimization of boiler operation utilizing a single analytical system for monitoring oxygen, temperature, carbon monoxide, water vapor and/or hydrocarbons to determine burner performance. (Knittel p.10,1. 29—p.l 1,1. 4). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—13 for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given above. ORDER The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed. TIME PERIOD 7 Appeal 2016-002610 Application 12/554,459 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). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation