Ex Parte AllamDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 14, 201312182265 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2013) 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. 12/182,265 07/30/2008 Mahdy A. Allam PA006983A;67097-1144PUS1 3453 54549 7590 11/14/2013 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global P.O. Box 52050 Minneapolis, MN 55402 EXAMINER AUNG, SAN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3657 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/14/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MAHDY A. ALLAM ____________________ Appeal 2011-003726 Application 12/182,265 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JAMES P. CALVE, and LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 8-24. Claims 4 and 7 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appeal 2011-003726 Application 12/182,265 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 10 and 14 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A gas turbine engine system involving oil flow management comprising: an oil system operative to direct lubricating oil, the oil system having an oil flow valve having an inlet, a first outlet and a second outlet; the oil flow valve being operative in a first position, in which oil provided to the inlet is directed to the first outlet, and a second position, in which oil is directed to the first outlet and the second outlet; and an oil pressure analysis system operative to receive information corresponding to a measured oil pressure with a pressure sensor downstream of the oil flow valve to calculate a minimum detected oil pressure (PMIN) and maximum detected oil pressure (PMAX) at a corresponding rotational speed and determine whether the oil pressure corresponds to a desired position of the oil flow valve. REJECTIONS1 Claims 10-13 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over McHugh (US 5,042,616; iss. Aug. 27, 1991), Delaloye (US 2006/0054406 A1; pub. Mar. 16, 2006), and Vogel (US 2002/0037226 A1; pub. Mar. 28, 2002). 1 The Examiner withdrew the following rejections: (1) claims 10-13 and 24 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Labala, Delaloye and Vogel; (2) claims 14 and 16-19 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Delaloye and Labala; and (3) claims 15 and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Delaloye, Labala, and McHugh. See Ans. 2. Appeal 2011-003726 Application 12/182,265 3 Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over McHugh in view of Delaloye, Vogel, and Labala (US 2006/0207254 A1; pub. Sep. 21, 2006). Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over McHugh in view of Delaloye, Vogel, and Labala. ANALYSIS Claims 10-13 and 24 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph The Examiner found that “an oil pressure analysis system” in claim 10 is indefinite because it is not clear what type of structure is required. Ans. 4. The Examiner found that it is not clear what structure is required to correlate the information into first and second data subsets with multiple data sets and minimum and maximum oil pressures. Ans. 10. We agree with Appellant that claim 10 recites an oil pressure analysis system having an oil flow valve and a pressure sensor and that Appellant’s Specification discloses corresponding structure of a hardware architecture for the system such as a computing device that can include a processor, memory, and one or more I/O device interfaces. Reply Br. 2; see App. Br. 4. A claim is not indefinite merely because it is broad. The Examiner has not established that a skilled artisan would not understand what is claimed when claim 10 is read in light of Appellant’s Specification. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 10-13 and 24. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 21-23 as unpatentable over McHugh, Delaloye, and Vogel Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 21-23 as a group. App. Br. 5-8. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 21-23 stand or fall with claim 1. Appeal 2011-003726 Application 12/182,265 4 The Examiner found that McHugh discloses all the claimed features except a pressure sensor downstream of the oil flow valve to calculate a minimum and maximum detected oil pressure at a corresponding rotational speed. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner found that Delaloye discloses a downstream pressure sensor that calculates minimum and maximum oil pressure and Vogel discloses detecting oil pressure at a corresponding rotational speed. Ans. 5. The Examiner reasoned that it would have been obvious to modify McHugh with an oil pressure sensor downstream of the oil flow valve to calculate a minimum and maximum oil pressure, as taught by Delaloye, and to detect oil pressure at a corresponding rotational speed, as taught by Vogel, to provide a lubrication to a turbine that may undergo maneuvers under normal, negative, and zero gravitation conditions. Ans. 5-6. Appellant argues that McHugh does not include a pressure sensor but instead relies on the pressure in lines 45, 47 to regulate the position of the oil flow valve 55 and therefore McHugh does not need to detect the pressure in lines 45, 47. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2. This argument is not persuasive as the Examiner relied on Delaloye to disclose a pressure sensor downstream of an oil flow valve. Moreover, The Examiner’s finding that McHugh discloses a pressure sensor in lines 45, 47 is supported by a preponderance of evidence as McHugh discloses that fluid pressure at the active and inactive thrust bearings are monitored in lines 45, 47. See Ans. 11 (citing col. 3, ll. 48-50). Nor does this argument apprise us of error in the Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to include the pressure sensor of Delaloye in McHugh to provide lubrication to the turbine under different gravitation conditions. Appellants’ attorney argument that such a pressure sensor may render McHugh inoperative is speculative and therefore not persuasive. Appeal 2011-003726 Application 12/182,265 5 Appellant admits that McHugh detects oil pressure and the Examiner merely proposes to do so with the downstream pressure sensor of Delaloye. Appellant also argues that Delaloye teaches a lubrication system that does not depend on the rotational speed of the shaft of the main propulsion turbine machine as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8 (citing Delaloye, para. [0022]). Therefore, Appellant argues that Delaloye teaches away from being modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner. Id.; Reply Br. 3. This argument is not persuasive as the Examiner relied on Vogel to detect oil pressure at a corresponding rotational speed to get more precise and accurate pressure readings. Ans. 5, 12. Delaloye’s preference for a system that does not depend on the rotational speed of the turbine shaft does not amount to a teaching away as this disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or discourage pursuit of detecting oil pressure at a corresponding rotational speed as taught by Vogel. Moreover, the Examiner is not proposing to modify the system of Delaloye to detect rotational speed of the shaft, but rather to modify McHugh with Delaloye’s pressure sensor to detect maximum and minimum fluid pressures in McHugh. We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 21-23. Claim 3 as unpatentable over McHugh, Delaloye, Vogel, and Labala Appellant argues that Labala does not cure deficiencies of McHugh, Delaloye, and Vogel as to claim 1. App. Br. 9. As we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over McHugh, Delaloye, and Vogel, there are no deficiencies for Labala to cure. We sustain the rejection of claim 3. Claim 23 as unpatentable over McHugh, Delaloye, Vogel, and Labala The Examiner rejected claim 23 as unpatentable over McHugh, Delaloye, Vogel, and Labala. See Ans. 8. Appellant has not presented any Appeal 2011-003726 Application 12/182,265 6 argument regarding this rejection. See App. Br. 4 (Grounds of Rejection to Be Reviewed on Appeal); see also App. Br. 4-12. As such, we summarily affirm this rejection. DECISION We REVERSE the rejection of claims 10-13 and 24 as indefinite. We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 21-23 as unpatentable over McHugh, Delaloye, and Vogel. We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 3 and 23 as unpatentable over McHugh, Delaloye, Vogel, and Labala. 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)(iv) (2011). AFFIRMED-IN-PART mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation