UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATIONDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 16, 20212021000027 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 2021) 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. 14/908,561 01/29/2016 Denman H. James 74007US02; 67097-2655US1 8762 54549 7590 07/16/2021 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER KANG, EDWIN G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/16/2021 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): ptodocket@cgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte DENMAN H. JAMES __________ Appeal 2021-000027 Application 14/908,561 Technology Center 3700 __________ Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 23–25, 30–32, 34, and 37–41, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Final Act. 1 (Office Action Summary). Claims 1–22, 26–29, 33, 35, and 36 have been canceled. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons explained below, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Raytheon Technologies Corporation.” Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-000027 Application 14/908,561 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter “relates to a lubrication system that uses a two pump configuration to optimize lubricant delivery in a gas turbine engine.” Spec. ¶ 2. System claim 23, apparatus claim 31, and method claim 39 are independent. See Appeal Br. 2–3. Claim 23 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below. 23. A lubrication system for use in a gas turbine engine comprising: a first engine shaft configured to rotate at a first speed; a second engine shaft configured to rotate at a second speed that is faster than the first speed; a first pump driven by the first engine shaft; a second pump driven by the second engine shaft, wherein the first pump and the second pump provide lubricant to an engine operating system, and wherein the first and second pumps comprise fixed capacity pumps that deliver flow to an engine operating system in proportion to respective rotational speeds of the first and second pumps; a lubricant supply tank that provides the lubricant to both the first pump and the second pump; a first scavenge pump driven by the first engine shaft and a second scavenge pump driven by the second engine shaft, wherein the first and second scavenge pumps return the lubricant from the engine operating system to the lubricant supply tank. REFERENCES Name Reference Date Rago et al. (“Rago”) US 2004/0255590 A1 Dec. 23, 2004 Delaloye US 2006/0054406 A1 Mar. 16, 2006 Szolomayer et al. (“Szolomayer”) US 2010/0065374 A1 Mar. 18, 2010 Appeal 2021-000027 Application 14/908,561 3 THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL2, 3 Claims 23, 25, 30–32, 34, 37, 39, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Szolomayer and Delaloye. Final Act. 3. Claims 24, 38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Szolomayer, Delaloye, and Rago. Final Act. 9. ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 23, 25, 30–32, 34, 37, 39, and 41 as unpatentable over Szolomayer and Delaloye Claims 23, 31, 32, and 39: Appellant contends that “[c]laims 31–32 are allowable for at least the same reasons claim 23 is allowable” and “[c]laim 39 is allowable for at least the same reasons claim 23 is allowable.” Appeal Br. 6–7. Accordingly, we select claim 23 for review, with claims 31, 32, and 39 standing or falling with claim 23. See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2019). Independent claim 23 recites a “lubrication system for use in a gas turbine engine comprising: . . . a first pump driven by [a] first engine shaft” and “a second pump driven by [a] second engine shaft.” Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.). Claim 23 further recites, “a first scavenge pump driven by the first engine shaft and a second scavenge pump driven by the second engine shaft.” Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.). 2 In the Final Office Action, claims 23, 31, and 39 are objected to for informalities. See Final Act. 2. However, the objection is not within the jurisdiction of the Board. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.181. 3 The rejection of claims 25, 34, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite, has been withdrawn. See Ans. 11; Final Act. 2. Appeal 2021-000027 Application 14/908,561 4 Appellant contends that “Szolomayer only discloses two pumps.” Appeal Br. 4. According to Appellant, in Szolomayer’s system, “[t]here is a main pump 16 with multiple stages (main supply stages and scavenging stages) and an auxiliary pump 24 with multiple stages (auxiliary supply stages and scavenging stages).” Appeal Br. 4. This is contrary to the Examiner’s findings, which rely on Szolomayer for disclosing “a first pump” 28, “a second pump” 20, “a first scavenge pump” 30, and “a second scavenge pump” 22A–C. Final Act. 3–4. Appellant’s Specification does not provide a special definition for the claim term “pump.” Spec., passim. We thus look to the plain and ordinary meaning of this term for guidance. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “pump” as “a device that raises, transfers, delivers, or compresses fluids or that attenuates gases especially by suction or pressure or both.”4 Szolomayer states, “[m]ain supply stage 20 pumps liquid L from fluid storage assembly 12” and “[a]uxiliary supply stage 28 pumps liquid L from fluid storage assembly 12.” Szolomayer ¶¶ 17, 18 (italics added). Szolomayer further teaches, “[m]ain scavenge stages 22A, 22B, and 22C pump liquid L and air A from engine components 32A, 32B, and 32C” and “[a]uxiliary scavenge stage 30 pumps liquid L and air A from engine component 32D.” Szolomayer ¶¶ 17, 18 (italics added). Because each of 20, 28, 22A–C, and 30 transfer (i.e., “pump”) fluid, they can each be regarded as a “pump,” as this term is ordinarily and customarily understood. Furthermore, in Szolomayer, each supply “pump” 20 and 28 delivers fluid 4 See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pump (last accessed June 21, 2021). Appeal 2021-000027 Application 14/908,561 5 from storage 12 to an engine component 32A–D. See Szolomayer Fig. 1. In contrast, each scavenge “pump” 22A–C and 30 delivers fluid in an opposite direction, i.e., from an engine component 32A–D to storage 12. See Szolomayer Fig. 1. In accordance with Appellant’s understanding of Szolomayer, main supply stage 20 and scavenging stages 22A–C comprise a single main pump 16. See Appeal Br. 4. However, this would require single pump 16 to deliver fluid to engine components 32A–D and storage 12 as well as from engine components 32A–D and storage 12. See Szolomayer Fig. 1. Appellant does not explain how such opposite flows can be accomplished by single pump 16 and not, instead, by individual pumps 20 and 22A–C. Likewise, Appellant understands that Szolomayer’s auxiliary supply stage 28 and auxiliary scavenge stage 30 comprise single auxiliary pump 24. See Appeal Br. 4. As above, this would require single pump 24 to deliver fluid to one or more engine components 32A–D and storage 12 as well as from an engine component (32D) and storage 12. See Szolomayer Fig. 1. Again, Appellant does not explain how such opposite flows can be accomplished by single pump 24 and not, instead, by individual pumps 28 and 30. Consequently, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contention that Szolomayer only discloses two pumps, in contrast to the Examiner’s understanding that Szolomayer discloses four (or more) pumps. Claim 23 further recites that the first and second pumps “comprise fixed capacity pumps.” The Examiner acknowledges that “Szolomayer does not disclose wherein the first and second pumps comprise fixed capacity pumps.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner relies on Delaloye for such teachings Appeal 2021-000027 Application 14/908,561 6 and provides a reason “to modify the invention of Szolomayer wherein the first and second pumps comprise fixed capacity pumps.” Final Act. 4. Appellant contends that “Delaloye does not disclose using first and second fixed capacity pumps that deliver flow to an engine operating system in proportion to respective rotational speeds of the first and second pumps as driven by two different shafts.” Appeal Br. 4. Instead, as per Appellant, “Delaloye discloses using a fixed capacity pump in combination with an electric motor 129 that drives the pump in response to a maneuver signal.” Appeal Br. 4 (citing Delaloye ¶¶ 26, 30; claim 1; Fig. 1); see also Reply Br. 2–3. This contention does not address the rejection because the Examiner relies on Szolomayer for disclosing first and second pumps driven by different shafts (main and auxiliary shafts 18 and 26, respectively) and on Delaloye for teaching the use of fixed capacity pumps. Final Act. 3–4. Thus, Appellant’s attempt to attack the art individually does not apprise us of Examiner error. Further, Delaloye’s use of electric motor 129 to drive the pumps is expressed by Delaloye as having “the advantage of simplicity” because “the use of multiple motors (and shafts) may support requirements for redundancy.” Delaloye ¶ 26. Hence, Delaloye recognizes that multiple motors and multiple shafts (as in Szolomayer) are suitable, but with the caveat that, as per Delaloye, redundancy may be required. See id. In other words, Delaloye does not preclude the use of motors other than electric motors. Consequently, this teaching in Delaloye directed to the use of an electric motor is not persuasive the Examiner erred when relying upon the combination of Szolomayer and Delaloye for disclosing the limitations of claim 1. Appeal 2021-000027 Application 14/908,561 7 Further addressing Delaloye, Appellant “states that the shaft speed at which volumetric pumps operate is not adjustable independently of engine speed and is not responsive to the actual lubrication needs of the engine.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant further states that Delaloye “addresses this issue by teaching the use of an electric motor 129 to provide the ability to control the pump shaft speed independently of turbo machine speed.” Appeal Br. 5 (citing Delaloye ¶ 26). Appellant argues that Delaloye discloses “information pertaining to the current aircraft maneuver characteristics from an airframe flight controller 142 in the form of a maneuver signal 182 from an airframe flight controller 142” and “uses this information to control the pump shaft speed.” Appeal Br. 5 (citing Delaloye ¶¶ 29–30). As such, Appellant argues that: (1) “one of ordinary skill in the art would be taught to use a fixed capacity pump in combination with an electric motor to control pump shaft speed independently of the component shaft speed,” (2) “[t]here is no disclosure or teaching to suggest that both the main pump and auxiliary pumps of Szolomayer should be modified to be solely fixed capacity pumps,” and (3) “Delaloye teaches away from such a modification because the beneficial arrangement provided by Delaloye eliminates the problems associated with volumetric pumps that are not adjustable independently of engine speed and are not responsive to the actual lubrication needs of the engine.” Appeal Br. 5. As to argument (1), we again note that Delaloye discloses “the use of multiple motors (and shafts) may support requirements for redundancy as needed” and “[a] 3-phase, brushless DC electric motor may provide the necessary actuating function to drive the scavenging pump 125 and supply pump 122.” Delaloye ¶ 26; italics added. As previously stated, this Appeal 2021-000027 Application 14/908,561 8 disclosure suggests use of an electric motor as a (perhaps simpler) alternative and does not teach the use of an electric motor to the exclusion of all others. As to argument (2), Delaloye’s explicit teaching that “fixed capacity pumps have a fixed capacity and are simple, reliable, and light” (Delaloye ¶ 26) provides motivation to replace Szolomayer’s pump with the type of pump disclosed in Delaloye. In fact, it was this teaching in Delaloye the Examiner referenced when combining Delaloye with Szolomayer. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 12. In other words, Appellant does not explain why the main and auxiliary stages of Szolomayer cannot be modified to be fixed capacity pumps. As to argument (3), in order to teach away, a reference must criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. Appellant does not cite any portion of Delaloye as discouraging the claimed use of fixed capacity pumps. “We will not read into a reference a teaching away from a process where no such language exists.” DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Accordingly, Appellant’s above-enumerated arguments do not apprise us of Examiner error. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23, 31, 32, and 39 as being obvious over Szolomayer and Delaloye. Claims 25, 34, and 41: Claim 25 recites “wherein, when an engine operating condition is a low speed condition, only using the first pump to supply a desired amount of the lubricant.” Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.). Claims 34 and 41 recite a similar limitation. Appeal Br. 10–11 (Claims App.). Further, Appellant argues that “[c]laim 34 is also allowable for the same reasons as claim 25 is allowable” and “[c]laim 41 is also allowable for at least the same reasons Appeal 2021-000027 Application 14/908,561 9 claim 25 is allowable.” Appeal Br. 6–7. Accordingly, we address claim 25 with claims 34 and 41 standing or falling therewith. Claim 25 depends directly from claim 23. The Examiner relies on paragraphs 3 and 22 of Szolomayer for disclosing the additional limitations of claim 25. See Final Act. 4. Appellant contends that paragraph 3 of Szolomayer “refers to a single supply pump driven by a high pressure spool” and “does not teach only using a first pump from a two supply pump configuration under an engine operating condition that is a low speed condition.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant further states that paragraph 22 of Szolomayer only “refers to a situation where ‘the gas turbine engine is not operating.’” Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 3. As understood, the Examiner refers to paragraph 3 of Szolomayer to demonstrate that it is desirable to maintain a lubricated operation even when an engine operating condition is a low speed condition. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 12–13. Figure 1 and other portions of Szolomayer, as discussed above with respect to claim 23, clearly disclose at least a single pump (20, 28) supplying fluid to various engine components 32A–D. Further, as expressed in paragraph 22 of Szolomayer, “[w]hen the gas turbine engine is not operating, wind can . . . rotate the fan drive gear system which rotates the low pressure spool, which activates auxiliary pump assembly 24” (assembly 24 comprises pump 28). Thus, as understood, even if the gas turbine engine is not activated, fluid can still be distributed in response to wind causing rotation of the low pressure spool. This, as expressed above, maintains the operation of auxiliary pump assembly 24 (and its pump sub-components). For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Szolomayer fails to teach the claim 25 limitation directed to using a first pump to supply lubricant Appeal 2021-000027 Application 14/908,561 10 “when an engine operating condition is a low speed condition.” We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25, 34, and 41 as being obvious over Szolomayer and Delaloye. Claims 30 and 37: Claims 30 and 37 recites “wherein the first scavenge pump is separate from the first pump and the second scavenge pump is separate from the second pump.” Appeal Br. 9–10 (Claims App.). Appellant contends that “[c]laim 30 is allowable for the same reason claim 23 is allowable” and “[c]laim 37 is also allowable for at least the same reasons claim 31 is allowable.” Appeal Br. 6–7. As explained above, Appellant’s contentions with respect to claim 23 are unpersuasive. Appellant also contends that Szolomayer does not disclose the subject matter of claim 30 because “there are only two pumps disclosed within Szolomayer and not four separate pumps as claimed.” Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 4–5. This contention is unpersuasive because, as explained above with respect to claim 23, we do not agree with Appellant that Szolomayer discloses two––rather than four (or more)–– separate pumps. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 30 and 37 as being obvious over Szolomayer and Delaloye. The rejection of claims 24, 38, and 40 as unpatentable over Szolomayer, Delaloye, and Rago Claim 24: Claim 24 recites “wherein, during engine operation, the first and the second speeds vary over a flight envelope and a ratio between the first and the second speeds changes as a function of flight conditions.” Appeal Br. 9 Appeal 2021-000027 Application 14/908,561 11 (Claims App.). Appellant contends that “[c]laim 24 is allowable for the same reason claim 23 is allowable.” Appeal Br. 7. As explained above, Appellant’s contentions with respect to claim 23 are unpersuasive. Appellant also contends that Rago does not disclose the additional subject matter of claim 24 because paragraph 32 thereof “discloses varying torque and speed for the fan and compressor” and “[t]here is no disclosure of a ratio between the first and the second speeds changing as a function of flight conditions.” Appeal Br. 7. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions in regard to claim 24. This is because paragraph 32 of Rago discloses: For example, during periods of relatively low aircraft velocity the fan bypass flow rate may be increased at the expense of the core engine by adjusting the torque of the compressor, thereby increasing fan speed and decreasing compressor speed. Conversely, during high speed operation, the torque of the fan may be modulated to decrease the bypass ratio and fan speed, and increase the compressor speed and core engine high velocity exhaust gas flow. Rago ¶ 32. From this disclosure, in addition to Figures 1 and 2 of Rago, the Examiner finds that Rago discloses first and second speeds that vary over a flight envelope and a ratio between the first and the second speeds changes as a function of flight conditions. See Final Act. 9; Ans. 14. The Examiner also finds that Szolomayer discloses a first pump that operates at a first speed and a second pump that operates at a second different speed. See Final Act. 3. Appellant does not contest these findings. Furthermore, because Szolomayer’s first and second pumps already operate at two different speeds, there is already a ratio between those two speeds. Any modification of the two speeds, such as by varying a function of flight Appeal 2021-000027 Application 14/908,561 12 conditions over a flight envelope, would likewise result in “a ratio between the first and second speeds” as recited. Appellant further argues that “Rago is directed to a different type of engine configuration” than that of Szolomayer’s configuration, which includes a high speed spool and a low speed spool, and that, as a consequence, “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would thus not look to modify Szolomayer with the teachings of Rago.” Reply Br. 6. Appellant does not explain why a skilled person would not have been motivated to combine the two “in order to meet with various engine operation requirements but without affecting an optimum turbine operation condition.” Final Act. 9 (referencing Rago ¶ 7). Rago teaches engine operation at first and second speeds, which vary over a flight envelope, and Rago also teaches a ratio involving these first and second speeds. Appellant does not explain how this speed variation would be precluded due to the use of high and low speed spools simply because “Rago is directed to a different type of engine configuration” than that of Szolomayer’s configuration. Reply Br. 6. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24 as being obvious over Szolomayer, Delaloye, and Rago. Claims 38 and 40: Appellant contends that “[c]laim 38 is allowable for the same reason claim 24 is allowable” and that “[c]laim 40 is also allowable for the same reason claim 24 is allowable.” Appeal Br. 7–8. As explained above, Appellant’s contentions with respect to claim 24 are unpersuasive. Consequently, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 38 and 40 as being obvious over Szolomayer, Delaloye, and Rago. Appeal 2021-000027 Application 14/908,561 13 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 23–25, 30–32, 34, and 37–41 are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 23, 25, 30–32, 34, 37, 39, 41 103 Szolomayer, Delaloye 23, 25, 30– 32, 34, 37, 39, 41 24, 38, 40 103 Szolomayer, Delaloye, Rago 24, 38, 40 Overall Outcome 23–25, 30– 32, 34, 37– 41 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation