Brian D. Merry et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 25, 2019

14745550 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2019)

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.
14/745,550 06/22/2015 Brian D. Merry 81367US01;
67097-3229PUS1
1098
54549 7590 10/25/2019
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
BEEBE, JOSHUA R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2019 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 BRIAN D. MERRY, GABRIEL L. SUCIU,
JESSE M. CHANDLER, JOSEPH BRENT STAUBACH,
and GARY D. ROBERGE

Appeal 2019-002415
Application 14/745,550
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–19. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

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 United
Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002415
Application 14/745,550

2
BACKGROUND
The Specification “relates to improvements in providing cooling air
from a compressor section to a turbine section in a gas turbine section.”
Spec. ¶ 1.
CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A gas turbine engine comprising;
a main compressor section having a high pressure
compressor with a downstream discharge, and more upstream
locations;
a turbine section having a high pressure turbine;
a tap tapping air from at least one of said more upstream
locations in said compressor section, passing said tapped air
through a heat exchanger and then to a cooling compressor, said
cooling compressor compressing air downstream of said heat
exchanger, and delivering air into said high pressure turbine; and
said cooling compressor rotating at a speed proportional to
a speed of at least one rotor in said turbine section, and said
cooling compressor being allowed to rotate at a speed that is not
proportional to a speed of said at least one rotor under certain
conditions.
Appeal Br. 6.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–6, 11, 12, and 15–18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Elovic2 in view of Glickstein3 and Stanton.4

2 Elovic, US 4,254,618, iss. Mar. 10, 1981.
3 Glickstein et al., US 5,452,573, iss. Sept. 26, 1995.
4 Stanton, US 2,620,636, iss. Dec. 9, 1952.
Appeal 2019-002415
Application 14/745,550

3
2. The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Elovic in view of Glickstein and Stanton “and further in view of an
engineering expedient.”
3. The Examiner rejects claims 8, 9, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Elovic in view of Glickstein, Stanton, and Berryann5
“and further in view of an engineering expedient.”
4. The Examiner rejects claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Elovic in view of Glickstein, Stanton, Berryann, and Jarrell6 “and
further in view of an engineering expedient.”
5. The Examiner rejects claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Elovic in view of Glickstein, Stanton, and Ress.7
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
With respect to the rejection of claims 1–6, 11, 12, and 15–18 over
Elovic, Glickstein, and Stanton, Appellant raises arguments with respect to
these claims as a single group.8 See Appeal Br. 2–4. We select claim 1 as
representative of this group of claims, and claims 2–6, 11, 12, and 15–18
will stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Elovic teaches a gas
turbine engine with the claimed features except that Elovic does not teach
“[a] cooling compressor downstream of the heat exchanger, for delivering

5 Berryann et al., US 2013/0000317 A1, pub. Jan. 3, 2013.
6 Jarrell et al., US 2010/0005810 A1, pub. Jan. 14, 2010.
7 Ress, Jr. et al., US 2013/0199156 A1, pub. Aug. 8, 2013.
8 Although Appellant provides a separate heading for certain claims,
Appellants do not provide any separate, substantial arguments regarding the
rejections of these claims. See Appeal Br. 4–5.
Appeal 2019-002415
Application 14/745,550

4
said [tapped] air to the turbine and said heat exchanger nor said cooling
compressor being driven at a speed proportional to said rotor during some
conditions and not proportional during at least one other condition.” Final
Act. 6–7 (citing Elovic Fig. 2; col. 3, ll. 45–64; col. 5, ll. 5–25; col. 6, ll. 30–
40).
Regarding the claimed “tap,” the Examiner notes that Elovic teaches
that “it may be desirable to extract the cooling air from the compressor 20 at
a location other than the compressor discharge.” Elovic col. 6, ll. 30–32.
The Examiner also finds that Glickstein teaches that “[i]t is desirable to
provide high pressure cooled air, over a wide range of pressures for engine
needs, . . . [which] is achieved by pulling air from bleed/tap ports . . . which
feed into a heat exchanger . . . before being delivered to a radial impeller []
that eventually directs air to needed higher pressure cooling.” Final Act. 7
(citing Glickstein col. 1, ll. 15–20, 45–51; col. 2, ll. 30–37; col. 3, ll. 20–35;
col. 4, ll. 20–35; col. 5, ll.. 20–34, 45–67; col. 6, ll. 15–35). More
specifically and as required by the claim, the Examiner finds that Glickstein
teaches interstage bleeding and auxiliary compressing. Id. The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to incorporate an interstage tap
and auxiliary compressor into the flow cooling system of Elovic “for the
purposes of providing improved pressure of cooling from lower stage,
(colder) air, but still meeting the high pressure cooling needs of the turbine.
. . . This would yield the limitation of claim 1 save for the clutch and speed
proportion.” Id.
Regarding the compressor speed conditions required by claim 1, the
Examiner further relies on Stanton. Final Act. 7–8. Specifically, the
Examiner finds that Stanton teaches “[i]t is known to power cooling devices
Appeal 2019-002415
Application 14/745,550

5
from an engine, and that said engine may not always operate fast enough to
power said cooling devices” and that “a clutch can disengage from the
engine, and permit a flywheel with enough energy to power said cooling
device until such time as the engine is fast enough.” Id. (citing Stanton col,
3, ll. 1–25; col. 4, ll. 5–14). The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to modify Elovic based on this teaching so that the compressor
continues to provided needed cooling at all engine speeds. Id. at 8.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
with respect to claim 1, to the extent consistent with our findings below. See
Final Act. 6–8; see also Ans. 3–8. As discussed below, we are not
persuaded of reversible error by Appellant’s arguments.
Appellant first argues that Elovic does not disclose a cooling
compressor and “[t]here is no showing that Elovic would have any need for
such a complex structure as its tapped air is already at the highest pressure,
downstream of the high pressure compressor.” Appeal Br. 3. We disagree
for the reasons provided by the Examiner. See Ans. 4. First, Elovic
expressly discloses that “it may be desirable to extract the cooling air from
the compressor 20 at a location other than the compressor discharge.”
Elovic col. 6, ll. 30–32. Second, although Elovic does not provide further
explanation, the Examiner relies on Glickstein to teach the specific
arrangement claimed. See Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 4–5. The Examiner
explains that it would have been obvious to include a downstream
compressor as taught by Glickstein “for the purposes of providing improved
pressure of cooling from [a] lower stage, (colder) air, but still meeting the
high pressure needs of the turbine.” Final Act. 7. Glickstein supports the
Examiner’s reasoning. In particular, Glickstein is concerned with providing
Appeal 2019-002415
Application 14/745,550

6
“the capability for producing high pressure air, with air flow rates varying
over a wide range, in response to aircraft requirements.” Glickstein col. 2,
ll. 32–35. Thus, Elovic contemplates that it may be desirable to extract
cooling air from other locations, and Glickstein provides a reason why this
would be desirable and discloses a specific system in which this is
accomplished. Thus, we determine that the Examiner’s conclusion is
supported by adequate reasoning with rational underpinnings. See KSR Int'l
Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Further, to the extent Appellant argues that the combination of Elovic
and Glickstein is based on “hindsight and only hindsight” (Appeal Br. 3), we
are not persuaded. Appellant has not identified how the rejection includes
any knowledge gleaned only from Appellant’s disclosure. In re
McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, (CCPA 1971). Specifically, Appellant
does not contend that any specific structure is lacking from the art of record.
And to the extent Appellant argues that the reasoning for the combination is
only provided by Appellant’s disclosure, we disagree for the reasons
discussed above.
Appellant also argues that Stanton is old and not analogous art.
Appeal Br. 4. Specifically, Appellant argues “that the Elovic technology is
advanced far beyond that of Stanton, and that the ‘problem’ solved by
Stanton is not shown to exist in Elovic;” that Stanton’s “‘technology’ has
been passed by the time of Elovic, and has nothing to do with its gas turbine
engine issues;” and that “Stanton has [nothing] to do with Elovic or
Glickstein.” Id. We disagree. A reference is considered analogous when it
is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention or if it is
Appeal 2019-002415
Application 14/745,550

7
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved. In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Here, we determine that Stanton is at least reasonably pertinent to the
particular problems addressed by the inventors in this application. The
Specification discloses that “[t]his application relates to improvements in
providing cooling air from a compressor section to a turbine section in a gas
turbine engine.” Spec. ¶ 1. More specifically, the Specification discloses
that a gas turbine engine may experience “very immediate deceleration in
speed” and that if the “auxiliary compressor 114 also dramatically reduces
speed, there can be stability issues, and the auxiliary compressor could
experience a phenomenon called surge.” Id. at 62. We find that Stanton is
reasonably pertinent to this problem. Stanton discloses a vehicle air
conditioning system that is driven by a wheel 12 when the automobile is
traveling above a certain speed and is driven by the vehicle engine when the
vehicle is traveling below that speed. See Stanton col. 4, ll. 15–23. Further,
Stanton’s device includes pulleys that function as flywheels, which provide
sufficient energy to power the cooling apparatus when the vehicle slows
down or stops suddenly “so that the engine will have time to begin
operation.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 39–44. Stanton includes flywheels to prevent
operation instability of the air conditioning compressor when the vehicle
slows or stops suddenly. Thus, the Specification and Stanton are both
concerned with continuous and stable operation of a compressor during
periods of deceleration and stoppage, and therefore, we determine that
Stanton is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed in the
Specification, regardless of the age of Stanton.
Appeal 2019-002415
Application 14/745,550

8
Finally, Appellant indicates that the Examiner has not provided a
“reason why the Stanton clutch for a refrigerant circuit associated with an
automobile might provide some teaching or benefit into the Elovic gas
turbine engine cooling system.” Appeal Br. 4. However, in the rejection,
the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to incorporate
Stanton’s teachings into Elovic’s device “to continue operating the
compressor to continue providing needed cooling.” Final Act. 8. Thus, the
Examiner has provided a reason to support the combination. Further, we
find that this reasoning is adequately supported on the record before us. As
discussed above, Stanton teaches a means for continued operation of an air
conditioning compressor when a vehicle slows or stops. And, we agree with
the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a similar
need for continued cooling during deceleration or sudden stops in gas
turbine engines. See Ans. 6–7.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. We
also sustain the rejection of claims 2–6, 11, 12, and 15–18, which fall with
claim 1.
Rejections 2–5
Appellant does not provide any separate, substantial arguments
regarding the rejections of claims 7–10, 13, 14, and 19. Thus, for the
reasons discussed above, we also sustain the rejections of these claims.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1–19.
Appeal 2019-002415
Application 14/745,550

9
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)(l)(iv).

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1-6, 11, 12,
15-18
103 Elovic,
Glickstein,
Stanton
1-6, 11, 12,
15-18

7 103 Elovic,
Glickstein,
Stanton,
“engineering
expedient”
7
8, 9, 19 103 Elovic,
Glickstein,
Stanton,
Berryann,
“engineering
expedient”
8, 9, 19
10 103 Elovic,
Glickstein,
Stanton,
Berryann,
Jarrell,
“engineering
expedient”
10
13, 14 103 Elovic,
Glickstein,
Stanton, Ress
13, 14
Overall
Outcome
1–19

Appeal 2019-002415
Application 14/745,550

10
AFFIRMED