UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATIONDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 11, 202015021060 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2020) 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. 15/021,060 03/10/2016 Jeffrey S. Beattie 67097-2661US1; 73414US02 5634 54549 7590 05/11/2020 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER LEGENDRE, CHRISTOPHER RYAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/11/2020 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 JEFFREY S. BEATTIE, JASON D. HIMES, MATTHEW ANDREW HOUGH, and CHRISTOPHER CORCORAN ____________________ Appeal 2019-005514 Application 15/021,060 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 13, 14, 16–18, and 21–24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-005514 Application 15/021,060 2 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 13, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 13. A method for providing fluid flow to a rotating section of a gas turbine engine comprising: communicating a fluid from a tangential on board injector to a first cavity, the first cavity provided by a cover plate attached to a first axial side of a disk; and allowing the fluid to flow across an outer surface of the disk and through an exit at a second axial side opposite the first axial side. EVIDENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Corsmeier US 3,768,924 Oct. 30, 1973 Glasspoole US 6,183,193 B1 Feb. 6, 2001 Tibbott US 2012/0082568 A1 Apr. 5, 2012 Hough US 2016/0222788 A1 Aug. 4, 2016 REJECTIONS2 I. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.3 2 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of claims 1, 5, 7, 10–12, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tibbott and Tiemann (US 7,059,835 B2, iss. June 13, 2006), as evidenced by Ahmad (US 2012/0070310 A1, pub. Mar. 22, 2012), and a rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tibbott, Tiemann, and Glasspoole. Ans. 3; see also Final Act. 4–7, 9–10. 3 The Final Action included a rejection of claims 5, 7, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. See Final Act. 3. Appellant submitted an after-final amendment dated December 6, 2018 (“Amendment”), which was entered per the Advisory Action dated December 31, 2018. The Examiner indicated that the Amendment overcame the indefiniteness rejection of Appeal 2019-005514 Application 15/021,060 3 II. Claims 13, 14, and 16–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tibbott and Glasspoole. III. Claims 21, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hough and Corsmeier. IV. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hough, Corsmeier, and Glasspoole. OPINION Rejection I – Indefiniteness Claim 24 recites that “the first blade shelf includes a third axial portion that extends circumferentially from the upper portion a third distance different from the first distance and the second distance.” Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). The Examiner rejects claim 24 as being indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis for “the upper portion.” Final Act. 3. Appellant does not present any arguments contesting this rejection. See Appeal Br. 5–11 (presenting arguments only with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103). Consequently, Appellant has waived any argument of error, and we summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. See In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984–85 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that the Board did not err in sustaining an indefiniteness rejection when the appellant failed to contest the claims 5 and 7, which was withdrawn. Advisory Act. 3. However, it appears that the Examiner did not withdraw the indefiniteness rejection of claim 24. See id. (explaining that, “[s]ince the previous 112(b) rejection has not been addressed, the previous corresponding rejection is maintained”); see also Amendment 6 (retaining the language identified by the Examiner as lacking antecedent support). Thus, we understand the indefiniteness rejection of claim 24 to be before us on appeal. Appeal 2019-005514 Application 15/021,060 4 rejection on appeal); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c) (“An appeal, when taken, is presumed to be taken from the rejection of all claims under rejection unless cancelled by an amendment filed by the applicant and entered by the Office.”). Rejection II – Obviousness based on Tibbott and Glasspoole In contesting this rejection, Appellant presents arguments without regard to any particular claim. See Appeal Br. 9–10. Thus, we select claim 13 as representative, and claims 14 and 16–18 stand or fall with claim 13. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (providing that when multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group by an appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group to decide the appeal with respect to the group as to the ground of rejection on the basis of the selected claim alone). The Examiner finds that Tibbott discloses communicating a fluid from a fluid source to a first cavity (i.e., the space delimited by and between cover plate 38 and disk 33 - see Figure 4), the first cavity provided by a cover plate (38 - Figure 7a) attached to a first axial side of a disk (33); and allowing the fluid to flow across an outer surface (42 - Figure 7a) of the disk and through an exit at a second axial side opposite the first axial side. Final Act. 7–8 (boldface and italics omitted). The Examiner finds that Tibbott does not disclose that “the fluid source is a tangential on board injector.” Id. at 8 (boldface and italics omitted). However, the Examiner finds that Glasspoole discloses “a gas turbine engine comprising a rotor cooling system that includes a tangential on board injector, which is effective at providing the cooling flow to the rotor (see col.1:ll.20-29) by Appeal 2019-005514 Application 15/021,060 5 imparting a swirling movement to the cooling flow.” Id. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious “to modify the method of Tibbott to include a tangential on board injector, as disclosed by Glasspoole, for the purpose of imparting swirling movement to the cooling flow.” Id. Appellant argues that Tibbott teaches away from swirling cooling flows. Appeal Br. 9–10 (citing Tibbott ¶¶ 14–15). According to Appellant, “one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to impart swirling movement to the cooling flow of Tibbott’s Figure 7(a) arrangement, as the Examiner proposes.” Id. at 10 (italics omitted). We are not persuaded by this argument. A reference teaches away from a claimed invention or a proposed modification if “a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Prior art does not teach away from claimed subject matter merely by disclosing a different solution to a similar problem unless the prior art also criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution claimed. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, Appellant does not point to, nor do we find, any disclosure in Tibbott criticizing, discrediting, or otherwise discouraging the combination of teachings proposed by the Examiner in the rejection. The fact that Tibbott discloses problems associated with the cooling arrangement shown in Figure 3, in which cooling air swirls around in cavity 41 (Tibbott ¶¶ 14–15), does not constitute a teaching away from the Examiner’s proposal to use Glasspoole’s tangential on board injector (TOBI) to provide Appeal 2019-005514 Application 15/021,060 6 cooling air to Tibbott’s rotor in the arrangement shown in Figure 7(a) (see Final Act. 8; Ans. 4–5). The Examiner also explains that, since Tibbott[’s] cooling flow D is in Tibbott[’s] circumferentially-bounded cavity 41, it is already fully incorporated into the Tibbott rotor assembly 38,33,35,34,36 and rotating therewith around the centerline X-X of the gas turbine engine such that any upstream circumferential/tangential vector component (such as that produced by the TOBI of Glasspoole) is negated. Accordingly, the local circulation of Tibbott[’s] flow D within cavity 41 is unrelated to and not influenced by the circumferential/tangential flow around the centerline of the gas turbine engine produced by the TOBI of Glasspoole. Ans. 5 (emphasis omitted). In this regard, Appellant does not persuasively refute the Examiner’s position. Appellant asserts that “[t]he Office’s unsubstantiated argument that lead[s] to its conclusion that the flows are unrelated (Examiner’s Answer, Page 5) do[es] not cure this deficiency” (Reply Br. 2), but does not provide any explanation as to why the Examiner’s position would be deficient. Moreover, Appellant does not proffer any evidence to support the contention that using a tangential on board injector to impart swirling movement to Tibbott’s arrangement shown in Figure 7(a) would result in cooling air swirling in cavity 41. See Reply Br. 2. Appellant’s assertion amounts to nothing more than attorney argument unsupported by evidence and, thus, is entitled to little, if any, weight. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470; see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405. For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s determination that the subject matter of claim 13 would have been obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 13, and claims Appeal 2019-005514 Application 15/021,060 7 14, and 16–18 falling therewith, as unpatentable over Tibbott and Glasspoole. Rejection III – Obviousness based on Hough and Corsmeier In contesting this rejection, Appellant presents arguments without regard to any particular claim. See Appeal Br. 10–11. We select claim 21 as representative, and claims 23 and 24 stand or fall with claim 21. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner finds that Hough discloses an assembly including, in relevant part, a cover plate (74A - Figure 6) providing a cavity at a first axial side of the disk, a passageway (i.e., the radial space between surface 51 and seal 58 - Figure 6) including an inlet, and the passageway extending from the inlet to an exit (72A - Figure 5) provided at a second axial side of the disk opposite the first axial side, the passageway is provided by an upper surface (51 - Figure 6) of the disk, the exit in fluid communication with the inlet, and the passageway configured to provide fluid flow from the cavity to the exit. Final Act. 10 (boldface and italics omitted). The Examiner finds that Hough does not disclose that “the inlet is provided by a notch provided in at least one of the disk and the cover plate in fluid communication with the cavity.” Id. at 11 (boldface and italics omitted). However, the Examiner finds that Corsmeier discloses “a gas turbine engine rotor comprising a passageway (26) located radially between the blade root and the disk, wherein the passageway includes an inlet formed by a notch . . . in the disk.” Id. (referencing a mark-up of Corsmeier’s Figure 2 on page 11 of the Final Action, showing a notch). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious “to modify the assembly of Hough to include forming the inlet as a Appeal 2019-005514 Application 15/021,060 8 notch in the disk, as disclosed by Corsmeier, for the purpose of reducing resistance/obstruction of the flow into the passageway.” Id. Appellant argues that “there would have been no such motivation for the design in Hough. The Examiner points to no resistance or obstruction of flow into Hough’s passageway, and there would be no need for removal of such a resistance.” Appeal Br. 11 (italics omitted). Appellant asserts that “the Examiner’s proposed reasoning for the modification is to resolve a problem that doesn’t exist in Hough.” Id. (italics omitted). This argument is unpersuasive. Appellant appears to insist on an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the cited art to establish obviousness, but such a requirement has been foreclosed by the Supreme Court. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007) (stating that a rigid insistence on teaching, suggestion, or motivation is incompatible with its precedent concerning obviousness). The Court noted that an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for [an examiner] can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418. Instead, the relevant inquiry is whether the Examiner has set forth “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Here, the Examiner articulates adequate reasoning based on rational underpinnings as to why it would have been obvious to modify Hough to include a notch in the rotor disk, as taught by Corsmeier. See Final Act. 11. The Examiner further explains, in the Answer, “that the identified notch Appeal 2019-005514 Application 15/021,060 9 provides (i.e., by avoiding a 90 degree turn/elbow leading into space/passage 26) a more direct fluid path from hole 28 to space/passage 26 than would otherwise exist, which one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize as limiting obstruction/resistance to flow.” Ans. 7 (citing Corsmeier, Fig. 2). The Examiner takes the position that [t]he modification over Hough involving removal of material such that a notch, as identified in Corsmeier, is formed in rotor dis[k] 46 to establish a more direct fluid path (i.e., reducing obstruction/resistance to flow) from hole 60 to the passageway between surface 51 and seal 58 results in the same advantages that can be inferred from the disclosure of Corsmeier. Ans. 7. In this regard, Appellant does not offer any factual evidence or persuasive technical rationale to refute the Examiner’s reasoning or explain why it would be deficient. For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s determination that the subject matter of claim 21 would have been obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 21, and claims 23 and 24 falling therewith, as unpatentable over Hough and Corsmeier. Rejection IV – Obviousness based on Hough, Corsmeier, and Glasspoole In contesting the rejection of claim 22, Appellant relies on the aforementioned arguments asserted against the rejection of independent claim 21, and argues that the Examiner’s application of Glasspoole does not cure the purported deficiencies in the combination of Hough and Corsmeier. See Appeal Br. 11. For the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s arguments fail to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 21 and, likewise, fail to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 22, which we sustain. Appeal 2019-005514 Application 15/021,060 10 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 24 112(b) Indefiniteness 24 13, 14, 16–18 103 Tibbott, Glasspoole 13, 14, 16–18 21, 23, 24 103 Hough, Corsmeier 21, 23, 24 22 103 Hough, Corsmeier, Glasspoole 22 Overall Outcome 13, 14, 16–18, 21–24 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