Ex Parte Widmer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2017

12554459 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 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.
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1 Claims 14—20 have been withdrawn from consideration.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.”); 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.’”). 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 Art”:
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