Appeal 2007-2682
Application 10/326,410
over time rather than instantaneous stress values. See the severity equation
illustrated in Sarangapani in Col. 6, ll. 41-43.
In the Answer, the Examiner asserts that any data capable of
indicating or predicting impending component or system failure is indicative
of an instantaneous stress. (Answer, 6:1-2). The argument is misplaced. To
regard the general health of a component as instantaneous stress is not
entirely unreasonable in a general sense. But in the context of claims 34 and
24 where the “instantaneous stress” has to be that “applied to the component
based at least in part on the at least one property,” the general health or
impending failure of the component does not meet the requirement. The
general well being of the component is much too removed from the
instantaneous stress applied to the component at any specific instant as
measured in a property sensing step. The Examiner has overly generalized.
Note also that an impending failure, whether it is predicted or otherwise
indicated, is nonetheless a general prediction of operability and system well
being, and is not an actual measure of instantaneous stress applied to a
machine component based on a measured property.
The Examiner further asserts (Answer 6:11-14) that any sensed
property, e.g., temperature, provides an indication of instantaneous stress
and cites to Figure 5 of Sarangapani as illustrating the plotting of sensed
parameter versus time. There are two problems with the position taken.
First, curve 44 in Sarangapani’s Figure 5 is only a trend line based on
a collection of trend points. Each trend point is not an instantaneous
machine component value but either the maximum, minimum, or average
over a full trending period. (Sarangapani, Col. 4, ll. 30-50). The curves in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013