Ex Parte Graham et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 6, 2018

14281573 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 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.
14/281,573 05/19/2014 Nicholas Simon Graham JHN-839-2464 1077
30024 7590 02/08/2018
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
BINDA, GREGORY JOHN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2018 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NICHOLAS SIMON GRAHAM, RAYMOND ANDREW
VINCENT, GEORGE KALIOPE, and PAUL STUKENBORG
Appeal 2017-003357
Application 14/281,573
Technology Center 3600
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, ARTHUR M. PESLAK, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nicholas Simon Graham et al. (“Appellants”)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision in the Final Action (dated Apr. 29,
2016, hereinafter “Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1—4 and 6—8.2 We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
1 The General Electric Company is the applicant as provided in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest in Appellants’ Appeal
Brief (filed Sept. 29, 2016, hereinafter “Appeal Br.”). Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claim 5 is canceled. Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App’x.).
Appeal 2017-003357
Application 14/281,573
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to a device “to modify the torsional
natural frequency of a power train.” Spec. para. 7.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the claimed
invention and reads as follows:
1. A power train comprising:
a torque producing power source including a rotating
connecting flange;
a torque driven power load including a rotating
connecting flange;
a load coupling having a first flange adapted to couple to
the connecting flange of one of the torque producing power
source and the torque driven power load;
a second flange on the load coupling adapted to couple to
the connecting flange of the other of the torque producing
power source or the torque driven power load;
an additional mass attachable to at least one of the
connecting flanges or the load coupling wherein the additional
mass is configured to shift a torsional natural frequency of the
power train away from a torsional frequency corresponding to
an operational condition of the power train and the additional
mass is symmetrically distributed about a longitudinal axis of
the power train, and
trim masses configured to be sequentially added to the
additional mass.
REJECTIONS
I. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Griswold (US 1,645,323, issued Oct. 11, 1927).
II. The Examiner rejected claims 2-A and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Griswold.
2
Appeal 2017-003357
Application 14/281,573
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that Griswold discloses a power train including,
inter alia, “an additional mass (17). . . configured to shift a torsional natural
frequency of the power train away from an operational condition of the
power train.” Final Act. 3^4. According to the Examiner, “the additional
weight’s effect on altering critical speed is inherent.” Advisory Action 2
(dated Aug. 31, 2016, hereinafter “Adv. Act.”) (emphasis added).
Therefore, the Examiner finds that “[i]n order to balance the power train, the
additional weight necessarily moves the torsional natural frequency of the
power train away from the torsional frequency corresponding to this
operational condition” because “[i]f it did not, the power train would not be
balanced.” Examiner’s Answer 4—5 (dated Oct. 26, 2016, hereinafter
“Ans.”).
Appellants argue that there is no disclosure in Griswold that the
addition of mass 17 to balance dynamically shaft 15 would also shift the
natural frequency of the power train. Appeal Br. 10. According to
Appellants, even if there was such a shift, “there is no showing or support of
whether the shift would be towards or away from a natural torsional
frequency.” Id. For example, Appellants note that the “dynamically
balanced shaft [15] of Griswold may have a torsional natural frequency of
the power train that would be excited by the operational condition of the
power train,” and, thus, mass 17 “of Griswold does not inherently shift a
torsional natural frequency of the power train in the specific manner recited
in claim 1.” Id.
3
Appeal 2017-003357
Application 14/281,573
An artisan must be presumed to know something about the art apart
from what the references disclose. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516
(CCPA 1962). A person of ordinary skill in the art of rotating machines
would readily understand that vibration of a rotating machine is the result of
either out-of-balance vibration and/or torsional vibration. The same person
of ordinary skill in the art would further understand that out-of-balance
vibration is caused by uneven distribution of mass around the axis of
rotation of the rotating machine, whereby the resulting center of gravity is
displaced from the rotational axis. In contrast to out-of-balance vibration,
torsional vibration becomes excessive when the vibration occurs at
frequencies close to and at the natural frequency of the rotating machine.
See Spec, paras. 4, 5. As such, the cause of out-of-balance vibration is
different from that of torsional vibration at a frequency close to and at the
natural frequency of the rotating machine.
Nonetheless, although the causes may be different, the correction in
both cases is adding or removing mass from the mass of the rotating
machine. For example, as disclosed in Griswold, mass 17 is added about the
axis of rotor 15 “so that its center of gravity lies on the axis of rotation
thereof,” and, thus, dynamically balances rotor 15. Griswold, p.l, 11. 99—
104, p. 2,11. 9—15, 28—31. Similarly, according to Appellants’ Specification,
“removing, adding or changing . . . masses” results in a shift of the natural
frequencies of the rotating machine (power train) “away from an operational
condition of the power train,” such that during operation, the rotating
machine (power train) does not excite the natural frequency and, thus,
generate excessive vibration. See Spec, paras. 7, 8, and 13.
4
Appeal 2017-003357
Application 14/281,573
As such, adding or removing mass from the mass of a rotating
machine reduces out-of-balance vibration and torsional vibration. However,
this does not mean that adding a mass to dynamically balance a rotor, as
disclosed by Griswold, will necessarily shift the torsional natural frequency
of Griswold’s rotor 15 “away from a torsional frequency corresponding to an
operational condition of the power train,” as called for by claim 1.
“Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily
functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it
anticipates.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir.
2002) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “Inherency,
however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere
fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not
sufficient.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting In
re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). In this case, we appreciate
the Examiner’s position that adding mass 17 about the axis of Griswold’s
rotor 15 will shift the torsional natural frequency of rotor 15. Ans. 4.3
However, we agree with Appellants that “there is no showing or support of
whether the shift would be towards or away from a natural torsional
frequency.” Reply Br. 2.
3 “Whenever mass is added to a power train regardless of whether it is
expressly designed to shift torsional natural frequency or not,
[nonetheless,] it will shift torsional natural frequency because mass is
an independent variable in the equation that determines the critical
speed, i.e., the torsional natural frequency.”
5
Appeal 2017-003357
Application 14/281,573
For example, although adding mass 17 to Griswold’s rotor 15 will
decrease the torsional natural frequency of rotor 15,4 if the operational
frequency of rotor 15 is less than the torsional natural frequency, prior to
adding mass 17, then the decrease of the torsional natural frequency occurs
towards the torsional operational frequency, rather than away. Hence,
although Griswold discloses shifting of the torsional natural frequency of
rotor 15, the shifting does not necessarily occur “away from a torsional
frequency corresponding to an operational condition of the power train,” as
called for by claim 1. Therefore, the Examiner’s finding that mass 17
“necessarily moves the torsional natural frequency . . . away from the
[operational] torsional frequency” is speculation based on an unfounded
assumption that adding mass 17 to Griswold’s rotor 15 to dynamically
balance the rotor would necessarily shift the torsional natural frequency of
rotor 15 away from the operational torsional frequency. Ans. 4—5.
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 1, 6, and 8 as anticipated by
Griswold.
Rejection II
The Examiner’s modification of Griswold does not remedy the
deficiency of Griswold discussed supra. See Final Act. 4.
4 The critical speed (torsional natural frequency) is inversely
proportional with the square root of weight (mass). See Society of
Automotive Engineers Inc., Universal Joint and Driveshaft Design
Manual 267 (1979); see also Adv. Act. 2.
6
Appeal 2017-003357
Application 14/281,573
Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed above, we likewise do
not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 2-4 and 7 as
unpatentable over Griswold.
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Griswold is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2-4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable Griswold is reversed.
REVERSED
7