Ex Parte Fishler

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 1, 2018

13351455 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2018)

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.
13/351,455 01/17/2012 Benjamin E. Fishier 59513US01;
67097-2127PUS1
3941
26096 7590 03/05/2018
TART SON OASKFY fr OT DS P C
EXAMINER
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BROWN, ADAM WAYNE
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/05/2018 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
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BENJAMIN E. FISHLER
Appeal 2017-006460
Application 13/351,455
Technology Center 3700
Before LISA M. GUIJT, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and BRENT M. DOUGAL,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
decision2 rejecting claims 1—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Watanabe3 (JP 2007-077860 A; published March, 29, 2007) and
McGehee (US 2,959,917; issued Nov. 15, 1960). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United Technologies Corp.
Br. 1.
2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated April 2, 2015.
3 We refer to the English translation of Watanabe provided in the record.
Appeal 2017-006460
Application 13/351,455
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1,10, and 11 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A gas inlet for a turbo-machine comprising:
a gas passage including an impeller, the gas passage being
bounded on a first side of the gas passage by an inlet shroud
defining a shroud side and bounded on a second side of the gas
passage by a hub wall defining a hub side, the gas passage
including an at least partially radial fluid flow inlet relative to
said impeller, and the gas passage including at least a first axial
fluid flow portion relative to a centerline of said impeller;
said at least partially radial fluid flow inlet connected to
said first axial flow portion via a non-gradual bend in said fluid
passage; and
wherein an arc angle of said non-gradual bend is sufficient
to generate a shockwave extending a portion of a distance from
the first side of said gas passage at an exit of said non-gradual
bend toward the second side of said gas passage at said exit of
said non-gradual bend.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and 10 and claims 2—9, 16, and 17
Regarding independent claims 1 and 10, the Examiner finds, inter
alia, that Watanabe teaches the structure of the claimed turbo-machine,
including “a non-gradual bend in said gas passage . . . created by projection
15.” Final Act. 4 (citing Watanabe, Fig. 2). The Examiner determines that
although Watanabe discloses that “an arc angle of said non-gradual bend is
sufficient to generate an area of turbulence extending a portion of the
2
Appeal 2017-006460
Application 13/351,455
distance from a first side . . . toward a second side” {id. (emphasis added)
(citing Watanabe 118)) and that “shockwaves within the fluid inlet are
responsible for generating noise” {id. (citing Watanabe 123)), which can be
limited by “a disruption in the flow” {id. (citing Watanabe 118)), Watanabe
“fails to teach that said curvature generates a shockwave,'1'’ as claimed. Id.
(emphasis added). The Examiner relies on McGehee for teaching “the use
of protrusions ... to generate shockwaves in order to combat other, noise
generating shockwaves.” Id. (citing McGehee 5:9-13, 4:43—49, 1:15—22).
The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious “to modify the
turbomachine of Watanabe by generating a shockwave as taught by
McGehee for the purposes of weakening the noise generating shockwaves.”
Id. at 4—5 (citing McGehee 4:43^49).
Appellant argues that the Examiner misinterprets McGehee, in that
“[t]he shockwaves utilized by McGehee are created by injecting air through
openings, not by the inclusion of metal wall lobes.” Br. 4 (citing McGehee
3:60-66). In particular, Appellant submits that
McGehee explicitly states that the effect is “comparable to
(although different from) the use of inwardly directed, metal wall
lobes serially around the circumference of a nozzle, a feature of
some prior suppressors.” McGehee does not teach, or otherwise
disclose, that the openings function the same as, or are similar to,
all protrusions into a flow path. Rather, McGehee teaches that
the air openings function similarly to specific configuration of
metal wall lobes arranged serially around the circumference of
a nozzle. Even then, McGehee does not teach that the illustrated
openings function the same as the protrusions, only that they
function similar to protrusions.
3
Appeal 2017-006460
Application 13/351,455
Id.
Appellant also submits that “[t]he protrusions of Watanabe are not
arranged serially around the circumference of a nozzle,” but “are positioned
only on the curved inner part wall 14, and are inside a curve of the curved
passage.” Id. Appellant argues that “[a]s the protrusions are arranged
fundamentally differently than the protrusions described in McGehee, and in
a different location than the protrusions described in McGehee, one of skill
in the art would have had no reason to expect that the protrusions of
Watanabe would function similarly to the openings of McGehee based on
the teachings of McGehee,” and that the rejection “relies entirely on the
unsupported assumption that the protrusions of Watanabe function in this
manner.” Id. Appellant concludes that because the Examiner “improperly
relied on . . . McGehee as teaching subject matter that is not taught,
disclosed or otherwise supported by McGehee,” the Examiner fails to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Id. at 5.
The Examiner responds that Appellant’s argument “ignores the
detailed discussion [in McGehee] of shockwave formation which explains
that the injected air forms concentrated areas of air or ‘air lobes’” and that
“McGehee further explains that it is the lobe structure which forms
shockwaves.” Ans. 5 (citing McGehee 5:13—23). The Examiner also
determines that, in McGehee, “the individual air lobes 32 . . . generate
shockwaves” and that McGehee “teaches that other arrangements will
produce similar effects.” Id. at 5—6 (citing 3:48—53). The Examiner
concludes that “it is not the arrangement of [lobes in] McGehee that
4
Appeal 2017-006460
Application 13/351,455
produces shockwaves, but the individual lobe structures.” Id. at 6. In other
words, the Examiner determines that “McGehee teaches that forming
individual lobes generates oblique shockwaves . . ., not arranging the lobes
in a particular configuration.” Id. (citing McGehee 5:20-23; Watanabe,
Abstract (teaching, according to the Examiner, that “projection 15 generates
turbulence which inhibits noise”),
Watanabe addresses the problem of inlet air “exfoliating” (or coming
apart from) known curved, tubular inlet connectors, whereby a pressure
pulsation produces “disorder” in the “flow velocity distribution” of the
“inhalation of air” (or inlet air) communicated to the compressor, resulting
in noise. See, e.g., Watanabe H 6, 24. Watanabe addresses this problem of
disorder in the flow velocity distribution (which we understand as
turbulence) in the inlet air by implementing rectification means (i.e.,
protrusion 15, rectification mesh 30, or current plate 40) to “uniformize the
velocity distribution” of the inlet air {id. 125), suppress such exfoliation,
inhibit the pressure pulsation produced to the compressor, and reduce noise
{id. 119, 25, 26, 33, 47, Figs. 2-4).
Watanabe also recognizes that, similar to Appellant’s invention, “[a]
pressure pulsation arises in the process in which the disk of the compressor 3
rotates and inhalation of air is curtailed, the flow noise resulting from this
pressure pulsation is emitted from the housing of turbo CHAJA4 51, a duct,
etc., and noise generates turbo CHAJA 1.” Id. 123; cf. Spec. 112
4 “CHAJA” appears in the English language document provided in the
record and may mean “charger,” as in “turbo charger 1.”
5
Appeal 2017-006460
Application 13/351,455
(“Rotation of impeller blades 52 within the compressor assembly 10 at the
normal operating speeds generates pressure perturbations at the blade
passing frequency in the air flow through the gas path 40,” which “propagate
upstream through the gas path 40 to the gas path inlet 20, and emanate from
the inlet 20 as acoustic noise to the far-field.”). However, unlike Appellant’s
invention, Watanabe’s invention does not seek to reduce noise resulting
upstream of the knee-bend connector by suppressing the pressure
perturbations from the blades, but rather, Watanabe’s invention reduces
noise downstream of the knee-bend connector with rectification means that
reduces the turbulence (and exfoliation) of the intake air created by the
pressure perturbations from the blades.
McGehee teaches or suggests injecting air via a series of openings, or
alternatively, inwardly-directing metal-wall lobes, serially around the
circumference of a nozzle to create shockwaves (McGehee 5:9—23) to
induce turbulence and thereby increase the pressure and reduce the velocity
of the exhaust stream flowing forwardly through the nozzle, to address noise
{id. at 5:28—35). The Examiner relies on McGehee for providing the
motivation for the Examiner’s proposed modification, and specifically, for
disclosing that
the suppressor body 10 is extended beyond the equal-pressure
line and air is permitted to inject through to openings in the
suppressor body. This creates oblique shock waves. As in the
case of inlet ducts, if the stream is subjected to more oblique
shocks, the normal shock is spaced farther aft and has less
strength. Therefore, the oblique shock waves in the present
suppressor caused by the injected air serve to space the normal
6
Appeal 2017-006460
Application 13/351,455
shock farther aft and to make it less severe. Suppressor 10 thus
serves to alleviate noise by changing the nature of shock wave
formation ....
McGehee 4:43—53 (emphasis added).
A conclusion of obviousness must be supported by findings and
analysis establishing a reason to combine the known elements in the manner
required in the claim at issue. KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007). Here, as set forth supra, the Examiner proposes modifying
Watanabe’s turbomachine (and specifically, projection 15) to generate
shockwaves, as taught by McGehee, for the purpose of weakening noise
generation. However, we are persuaded by Appellant that the Examiner’s
reasoning is insufficient to support the conclusion of obviousness.
Specifically, although McGehee suggests modifying an inlet duct to include
serially arranged, metal lobes for generating shock waves to change the
nature (i.e., lessen) shock waves traveling through a gas passage, as set forth
supra, claim 1 (and similarly, claim 10) requires “an arc angle of said non-
gradual bend . . . sufficient to generate a shockwave.” We do not agree that,
even if one skilled in the art would have modified Watanabe’s rectification
means (i.e., projection 15 for reducing turbulence and correcting exfoliation
of the intake air to address pressure pulsations impacting the compressor
upstream) to be serially arranged metal lobes for creating turbulence and
reducing the velocity of a gas flow, as taught by McGehee, such a
modification would have resulted in the claimed subject matter: an arc
angle of the knee-bend connector which generates a shockwave extending a
certain distance into the gas passage. In other words, claims 1 and 10 are
7
Appeal 2017-006460
Application 13/351,455
directed to “an arc angle of said non-gradual bend,” and it is unclear how
Watanabe’s projection 15, which “is carrying out a flat mountain shape,” as
modified to be serially arranged metal lobes as taught by McGehee,
discloses the claimed arc angle. Watanabe 121. Rejections based on
obviousness must rest on a factual basis; in making such a rejection, the
Examiner has the initial burden of supplying the requisite factual basis and
may not, because of doubts that the invention is patentable, resort to
speculation, unfounded assumptions, or hindsight reconstruction to supply
deficiencies in the factual basis. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017
(CCPA 1967).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1 and 10, and claims 2—9, 16, and 17.
Independent claim 11 and claims 12—15
Independent claim 11 recites “[a] method for reducing noise in a
turbo-machine comprising the step of: blocking back flow of pressure
perturbations in a fluid passing through a fluid passage by generating a
shockwave in the fluid passage.” Br. 8 (Claims App’x). The Examiner
relies on the findings and reasoning as set forth supra with respect to
independent claims 1 and 10. Final Act. 4—5. Appellant argues that “neither
Watanabe nor McGehee block backflow of pressure perturbations during
operation.” Br. 5 (emphasis added). We agree. Although the Examiner
correctly determines that Watanabe recognizes that the backflow of pressure
perturbations occur from rotating blades, as discussed supra, Watanabe does
not disclose addressing (or blocking) the backflow itself, but rather, the
8
Appeal 2017-006460
Application 13/351,455
turbulence caused in the intake air because of the black flow pressure
perturbations. McGehee is silent as to whether the implementation of
serially arranged, metal lobes in an intake duct addresses the backflow of
pressure perturbations in a fluid passing through a fluid passage. Thus, the
Examiner’s motivation to modify Watanabe’s protrusion 15 to block the
backflow of pressure perturbations lacks rational underpinning.
Accordingly, we also do not support the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 11 and claims 12—15.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—17 is reversed.
REVERSED
9