Ex Parte Duong et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 17, 2019

14600390 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/600,390 01/20/2015
85628 7590 04/19/2019
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. (UTC)
ONE ARIZONA CENTER
400 E. VAN BUREN STREET
PHOENIX, AZ 85004-2202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Loe Quang Duong
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
64365.14900 9721
EXAMINER
EDWARDS, LORENC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3748
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/19/2019 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):
ipdocket@sw law .com
tjessop@swlaw.com
bemery@swlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LOC QUANG DUONG, XIAOLAN HU,
ROBERT 0. BARKLEY, and GAO YANG
Appeal 2018-006751 1
Application 14/600,390
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 8-11, 13, and 18, which constitute all
the claims pending in this application. App. Br. (title page). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons explained below, we do
1 "United Technologies Corporation is the real party in interest in the subject
patent application." App. Br. 2. We proceed on the basis that, for purposes
of his appeal, United Technologies Corporation is the "Appellant."
Appeal2018-006751
Application 14/600,390
not find error in the Examiner's rejection of these claims. Accordingly, we
AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter "relates to gas turbine engines, and, more
specifically, to an overhung radial turbine with an improved bore geometry."
Spec. ,r 1. Claims 1, 10, and 18 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the claims on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A gas engine, comprising:
an impeller configured to rotate about an axis;
a combustor in fluid communication with the impeller; and
an inflow radial turbine aft of the impeller and in fluid
communication with the combustor, the inflow radial turbine
comprising a rotor with a bore having a flat bore end configured
to rotate about the axis,
wherein the bore further comprises a radial section aft of
the flat bore end,
wherein a radius of curvature of the radial section plus a
radius of the flat bore end equals a radius of the bore; and
wherein the radius of curvature of the radial section is 0.54
to 0.56 times the radius of the bore, and the radius of the flat bore
end is 0.44 to 0.46 times the radius of the bore.
King et al.
REFERENCES
us 4,009,568 Mar. 1, 1977
Mikell P. Groover, FUNDAMENTALS OF MODERN MANUFACTURING:
MATERIALS, PROCESSES, AND SYSTEMS, John Wiley & Sons, Jan. 7, 2010, p.
253.
2
Appeal2018-006751
Application 14/600,390
THE REJECTION ON APPEAL2
Claims 1, 8-11, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over King (supported by Groover).
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues independent claims 1, 10, and 18 together and,
regarding claims 8, 9, 11, and 13, contends that these dependent claims are
patentably distinguishable for the same reasons as claims 1 and 10. App. Br.
9-18. We select claim 1 for review, with the remaining claims standing or
falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that King discloses a gas engine having a bore
that comprises a radial section aft of a flat bore end in which a radius of
curvature of the radial section plus a radius of the flat bore end equals a
radius of the bore. Final Act. 7-8 (referencing King Fig. 1). However, the
Examiner acknowledges that "King fails to specifically describe wherein the
radius of curvature of the radial section is 0.54 to 0.56 times the radius of the
bore." Final Act. 8. The Examiner finds that "[t]he radius of curvature of an
inside comer is recognized as a result[] effective variable in that increasing a
radius reduces stress concentration." Final Act. 8 (relying on Groover as
evidence thereof). Groover discloses, under the heading "Product Design
2 Claims 2-7, 12, 14--17, 19, and20 are canceled. App. Br. 19-21 (Claims
App.); see also Advisory Act. 1. As such, we understand that the following
rejections are not before us for review: (1) claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite; (2) claims 5-7, 16, 17, 19, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for failing to further limit the
subject matter of the claim from which it depends; and (3) claims 5-7, 16,
17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over King. See
Final Act. 5-7.
3
Appeal2018-006751
Application 14/600,390
Considerations," that "[s]harp comers and angles should be avoided, because
they are sources of stress concentrations and may cause hot tearing and
cracks in the casting. Generous fillets should be designed on inside comers,
and sharp edges should be blended." Groover ( emphasis added); see also
Ans. 5-6. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to "set the radius of curvature of the radial section (inside comer) of
King's bore to any value, including those claimed, for the advantage of
reducing stress concentration on the part." Final Act. 8. The Examiner
states, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art,
discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in
the art." Final Act. 8 (referencing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456 (CCPA
1955)).
Appellant argues (a) that Groover "is irrelevant to the context of gas
turbine engine operation and the stress resulting therefrom" and, (b) that the
references teach that the "radial section radius should be increased ... which
teaches away from" Appellant's claimed invention. App. Br. 11; see also id.
at 12-16, Reply Br. 2-5. Appellant also disagrees that the Examiner
established the existence of a result-effective variable ready for
optimization. See App. Br. 16-18; Reply Br. 5---6.
Regarding the relevancy of Groover, the Examiner explains, Groover
"pertains to the problem of design for manufacturing and fundamental
principles which are relevant to the design of goods, including gas turbines."
Ans. 3. Appellant contends that Groover "does not address the problem
addressed by Appellant's claimed invention" because Groover is "related to
manufacturing by casting, and not gas turbine engine operation at high
angular velocity." App. Br. 13; see also id. at 12, Reply Br. 2-3. However,
4
Appeal2018-006751
Application 14/600,390
it is not necessary for the prior art to serve the same purpose as that
disclosed in Appellant's Specification in order to support the conclusion that
the claimed subject matter would have been obvious. See KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,419 (2007) ("In determining whether the subject
matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the
avowed purpose of the [Appellant] controls."); see also In re Linter, 458
F.2d 1013, 1016 (CCPA 1972), In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006). Nevertheless, in the present situation, Groover discloses how to
avoid stress concentrations, which can cause material failure, and Appellant
also seeks to reduce stress concentrations in its components. Compare
Groover and Spec. ,r,r 14, 25. Because both Appellant and Groover seek to
minimize stress concentrations, we are not persuaded that the problems they
address differ such that one skilled in the art would consider Groover to be
"contextually irrelevant to Appellant's claimed invention." App. Br. 13; see
also id. at 11, 17, Reply Br. 2, 3.
Regarding Appellant's "teaching away" argument, Appellant contends
that "the references cited" indicate that "the proportional amount of the
radial section radius should be increased (i.e., maximized) to decrease
stress" (i.e., be "a hemispherical bore end with no flat bore end"). App. Br.
11, 14; see also Reply Br. 4--5. This hemispherical geometry, according to
Appellant, "teaches away from the dimensions of Appellant's presently
claimed invention" which is directed to a blend of both flat and fillet
geometry. App. Br. 11; see also id. at 14--16, Reply Br. 3-5.
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive because the Examiner
initially relies on King's bore shape, which is non-hemispherical disclosing
both flat and fillet geometry. See King Fig. 1. The Examiner explains that
5
Appeal2018-006751
Application 14/600,390
King fails to describe the claimed ratio between the two geometries, but that
"discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in
the art." Final Act. 8. Groover is relied upon as teaching the use of
"[g]enerous fillets" and that "[ s ]harp comers and angles should be avoided,
because they are sources of stress concentrations." See also Ans. 4.
Nevertheless, according to the Examiner, such language in Groover "would
not necessarily persuade one having ordinary skill in the art to maximize the
radial section of the bore leaving no flat bore end." Ans. 5. In other words,
this maximizing in Groover to achieve a hemispherical bore as argued by
Appellant would undo the Examiner's initial reliance on King's flat and
fillet geometry. We also disagree that Groover promotes maximizing the
radius of curvature to result in a hemispherical bore ( as is the basis of
Appellant's contention) because Groover discusses providing "[g]enerous
fillets ... on inside comers," not the elimination of fillets and comers
altogether (as would be the result of forming a hemispherical bore). Thus,
Appellant's arguments, which begin from the premise of a hemispherical
bore, are faulty because the Examiner begins from King's flat/fillet
geometry and references Groover as evidence supporting the conclusion that
adjusting the flat/fillet ratio would have been obvious. Appellant's
arguments approach this issue starting from an opposite, hemispherical
perspective, which is not responsive to the Examiner's rejection, which
proceeds from King's flat/fillet bore perspective. Appellant's opposite
approach (the curvature of the hemisphere would be reduced/the curvature
of King's fillets would be increased) is not persuasive that the references
relied upon "teach away" from Appellant's device.
6
Appeal2018-006751
Application 14/600,390
Regarding Appellant's contention that Groover fails to teach that the
fillet's curvature is a result-effective variable, Appellant contends that
Groover "provides no discussion of the proportional make-up of a bore
radius." App. Br. 17; see also Reply Br. 5---6. As noted, Groover expressly
states that "[s]harp comers and angles should be avoided" (to avoid stress
concentrations) and that instead, "[g]enerous fillets" should be employed
and that "sharp edges should be blended." While it may be true that Groover
fails to explicitly describe any mathematical ratio between a bore' s flat and
fillet radii, we disagree that Groover fails to teach varying the radius of the
fillet in order to avoid sharp comers which "are sources of stress
concentrations." In view of such teachings in Groover, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in concluding that it would have been obvious "to set the
radius of curvature of the radial section (inside comer) of King's bore to any
value ... for the advantage of reducing stress concentration on the part."
Final Act. 8; see also Ans. 5---6. Nor are we persuaded that the Examiner
erred in stating that "discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves
only routine skill in the art." Final Act. 8. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner failed to establish the existence of a result-effective
variable ready for optimization. Final Act. 8; see also Ans. 6.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious over King
(supported by Groover). We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 8-11, 13, and
18.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 8-11, 13, and 18 is affirmed.
7
Appeal2018-006751
Application 14/600,390
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