Ex Parte DOOLEY

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2017

13661436 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2017)

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.
13/661,436 10/26/2012 Kevin Allan DOOLEY 05002993-1581US 2029
32292 7590 10/02/2017
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT CANADA LLP (PWC)
1, PLACE VILLE MARIE
SUITE 2500
MONTREAL, QC H3B 1R1
CANADA
EXAMINER
ZIAEIANMEHDIZADEH, NAVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2017 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):
ipcanada@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN ALLAN DOOLEY
Appeal 2016-008333
Application 13/661,436
Technology Center 3600
Before: THU A. DANG, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-008333
Application 13/661,436
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—
6, 8, 10-15, and 17—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to detecting shaft shear event in a
turbine engine. An accelerometer coupled to the engine detects an axial
acceleration indicative of a shaft shear event in the engine. A control system
is configured to, in response to the detected axial acceleration, transmit a
signal to initiate a shut down of a fuel system of the engine. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A system for detecting a shaft shear event in a turbine engine,
the system comprising:
an accelerometer coupled to the turbine engine and configured to
detect an axial acceleration of a casing of the turbine engine; and
a control system configured to:
detect the shaft shear event when the detected axial acceleration
of the casing of the turbine engine exceeds a pre-determined axial
acceleration threshold, the predetermined axial acceleration
threshold being based on a characteristic of the turbine engine to
be indicative of the shaft shear event; and
in response to the shaft shear event detected based on the axial
acceleration of the casing of the turbine engine exceeding the
pre-determined axial acceleration threshold, transmit a signal to
initiate a shutdown of a fuel system of the turbine engine.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Goodenough US 6,708,722 B1 Mar. 23,2004
2
Appeal 2016-008333
Application 13/661,436
Mulera et al. US 2003/0091430 A1 May 15, 2003
Hall WO 97/014025 Al April 17, 1997
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1—4, 8, 10-15, and 17—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mulera in view of Hall.
Claims 5, 6, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mulera, Hall, and Goodenough.
ISSUES
The pivotal issues are whether the Examiner erred in combining
Mulera and Hall as: 1) the combination would have changed the principle of
operation of Mulera, and 2) the combination is based on impermissible
hindsight.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer, Advisory Action,
and Final Action and we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note
that if Appellant failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we
will not unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See
Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v.
Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313—14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (The Board may treat
arguments Appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as
waived).
Appellant first argues that the modification of Mulaera by Hall would
destroy Mulera because:
3
Appeal 2016-008333
Application 13/661,436
(a) Change the relevant property measured. The proposed
modification of Mulera would result in measuring acceleration
instead of displacement, which are non-trivially non-analogous.
Neither reference teaches how to accommodate such a
fundamental change in their respective apparatuses.
(b) Change the component on which the relevant property is
measured. The proposed modification of Mulera would result in
measuring the acceleration of the casing instead of the
displacement of the turbine wheel.
(c) Change the symptom that is used to detect a broken shaft.
The proposed modification of Mulera would result in using an
acceleration threshold of the casing instead of a displacement
threshold of the turbine wheel. Instead of detecting a broken
shaft based on displacement and irrespective of acceleration,
the system of Mulera would be modified to detect a broken
shaft in an opposite manner based on acceleration and
irrespective of displacement.
App. Br. 14.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. The Examiner finds, and
we agree that Mulera teaches a system for detecting a shaft shear event in a
turbine engine (abstract), the system comprising: a detector (element 22, Fig.
5) coupled to the engine (continuation of element 204) for detecting an axial
motion of the power turbine wheel (abstract and para. 7); and a control
system (ECU 50, Fig. 2) configured to detect the shaft shear event when the
detected axial motion of the power turbine wheel exceeds a pre-determined
axial motion threshold (para. 7, i.e., a broken link indicates a “pre­
determined axial motion threshold”) the pre-determined axial motion
threshold being based on a characteristic of the turbine engine to be
indicative of a shaft shear event (para. 7), and in response to the shaft shear
event detected based on the axial motion of the power turbine wheel
4
Appeal 2016-008333
Application 13/661,436
exceeding the pre-determined axial motion threshold, transmit a signal to
initiate a shutdown of a fuel system of the turbine engine (paras. 16—
17) (Final Act. 2—3). The Examiner relies on Hall, for teaching using an
accelerometer (knock sensor 100, Fig. 1) used to measure axial acceleration
of an engine block or casing when the acceleration exceeds a pre-determined
axial acceleration threshold based on a characteristic of the engine (i.e. when
knocking is detected) and adjusting engine’s operating parameters
accordingly to prevent damage to the engine (i.e., pg. 6,11. 5—15 and pg. 13,
11. 11—29; Final Act. 3). We also agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that
at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Hall into the invention
of Mulera to measure acceleration of the engine casing rather than the shaft
for easier installation of the sensor and also avoiding the hostile and
inhospitable environment inside the engine (i.e. Mulera’s para. 3) that may
result in damaging the acceleration sensor components (Final Act. 3).
We further agree with the Examiner that there is no evidence provided
by the Appellant for the assertion that Mulera would be destroyed by the
combination (Ans. 4). Mulera’s principle of operation is detecting a shaft
shear event and cutting off the fuel flow to the engine to mitigate damage,
the proposed modification would further improve Mulera’s invention by
providing a more accurate way of measuring the onset of shaft failure (Ans.
4). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the gist of Mulera’s invention is
directed at the detection of the onset of shaft shear event and the subsequent
immediate interruption of the fuel flow to avoid significant damage to the
engine (Ans. 4; see para. 16). Both Mulera and Hall are directed to the same
5
Appeal 2016-008333
Application 13/661,436
problem of detecting shaft shear event and the subsequent fuel flow shut-off
(Ans. 4).
With respect to the allegation that Mulera’s system is based on
displacement rather than acceleration, Appellant’s arguments do not take
into account what the collective teachings of the prior art would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art and is therefore ineffective to
rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art. (Citations omitted).
See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Therefore, the
combination of Mulaera by Hall teaches the limitations of claims 1
and 12.
Thus, we are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Mulera
and Hall, either individually or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest
detecting a shaft shear event based on a detected axial acceleration of a
casing of a turbine engine exceeding a pre-determined axial acceleration
threshold as defined in independent claims 1 and 12 (App. Br. 15—16). As
we stated supra the combination teaches the recited claim elements.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s hindsight argument (App.
Br. 16—18). We agree with the Examiner’s findings that any judgment on
obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight
reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was
within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made
6
Appeal 2016-008333
Application 13/661,436
and does not include knowledge gleaned only from Appellant’s disclosure,
such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170
USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Ans. 8.
In this case, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Hall’s knock
sensor inherently predicts a shaft shear event because the shaft is contained
and thus secured within the engine block and as such shaft shear is directly
transmitted to the engine casing (Ans. 8). Moreover, it would be common
sense to measure acceleration of the engine casing rather than the shaft itself
for both easier installation of the sensor as well as avoiding the hostile,
inhospitable and corrosive environment inside the engine (i.e., Mulera’s
para. 3) that may lead to malfunction or serious damage to the acceleration
sensor components (Ans. 8). Thus, we agree that it is well within common
knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art to both measure
acceleration (instead of displacement for improving the shear event onset
prediction accuracy) as well as place the sensor in a more stable, easily
accessible for installation and repair, as well as hospitable location (i.e.,
engine casing or surface rather than inside the high-temperature/high-
pressure and highly corrosive engine environment) (Ans. 8).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 12,
and of claims 2—4, 8, 10, 11, 13—15, and 17—19, depending respectively
thereto but not argued separately, over Mulera and Hall. For the same
reasons, we also affirm the rejection of claims 5, 6, and 20 over Mulera and
Hall, in further view of Goodenough, not argued separately.
7
Appeal 2016-008333
Application 13/661,436
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in combining Mulera and Hall as the
combination would not have changed the principle of operation of Mulera
and the combination is not based on impermissible hindsight.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—6, 8, 10—
15, and 17—20 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8