Ex Parte Hiester et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 11, 2019

14621444 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/621,444 02/13/2015 Paul J. Hiester
54549 7590 04/15/2019
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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.
80011US01;
67097-3169PUS1
CONFIRMATION NO.
1779
EXAMINER
MCCAFFREY, KAYLA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/15/2019 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 PAUL J. HIESTER and MATTHEW P. FORCIER
Appeal2018-006218
Application 14/621,444 1
Technology Center 3700
Before DANIELS. SONG, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
ST AI CO VICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE-
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision in the Final Office Action ( dated June 1, 2017, hereinafter "Final
Act.") rejecting claims 1, 4---6, 8, 10, 11, 14--16, 18, and 20. 2 We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 United Technologies Corporation is the applicant and is identified as the
real party in interest in Appellants' Appeal Brief (filed Jan. 2, 2018,
hereinafter "Appeal Br."). Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 12, 13, 17, and 19 are canceled. Final Act. 2.
Appeal2018-006218
Application 14/621,444
We AFFIRM.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to "extracting compressed air for
thermal conditioning of a high pressure compressor rotor." Spec. para. 1.
Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A gas turbine engine comprising:
a compressor including a disk and a blade;
a turbine rotor having a disk and a blade;
turbine conditioning air supplied to said turbine rotor;
said turbine conditioning air contacting said disk of said
compressor to condition said disk;
wherein a tie shaft connects said compressor disk and
said turbine rotor, and said turbine conditioning air passing
along an axial length of said tie shaft; and
wherein a drive shaft extending axially at a location
radially inwardly of said tie shaft and an inner cooling air
passing axially at a position radially between an outer
peripheral surface of said drive shaft and an inner peripheral
surface of said tie shaft, to cool said turbine rotor.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4---6, 8, 10, 11, 14--16, 18, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (US 4,291,531,
iss. Sept. 29, 1981) and Appellants' Admitted Prior Art (paras. 2, 3, 37, Fig.
2, hereinafter "AAPA"). 3
3 In the heading of the rejection the Examiner states that the rejection is
based on 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l). See Final Act. 4. We view the Examiner's
statement as a typographical error because the body of the rejection is clear
2
Appeal2018-006218
Application 14/621,444
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 10
Appellants do not present arguments for the patentability of claims 4--
6, 8, and 10 apart from claim 1. See Appeal Br. 2-3. Therefore, in
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv), we select claim 1 as the
representative claim to decide the appeal of the rejection of these claims,
with claims 4--6, 8, and 10 standing or falling with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Campbell discloses a gas turbine engine 10
including, inter alia, compressor 11 having disk 18 and blade 16, turbine
rotor having disk 30 and blade 31, tie shaft 15 connecting compressor disk
18 and turbine disk 30, and drive shaft 55 extending axially at a location that
is radially inward of tie shaft 15. Final Act. 4--5 (citing Campbell, col. 2, 11.
9-15, Fig. 2). The Examiner further finds that Campbell discloses supplying
turbine conditioning air to cool the turbine rotor and, upon passing along an
axial length of tie shaft 15 through chamber 40, exits gap 20 to contact disk
18 of compressor 11. Id at 4 (citing Campbell, col. 2, 11. 30-36, 54--57, col.
3, 11. 32-36, Fig. 2). However, the Examiner finds that even though
Campbell discloses cooling the low pressure shaft, Campbell fails to disclose
"inner cooling air passing axially at a position radially between an outer
peripheral surface of said drive shaft and an inner peripheral surface of said
tie shaft." Id. at 5 (citing Campbell, col. 4, 11. 45-51). Thus, the Examiner
turns to AAP A, which discloses a gas turbine engine including, inter alia,
inner cooling air 81 passing between outer peripheral surface of drive shaft
80 and inner peripheral surface of tie shaft 85, wherein drive shaft 80
that the rejection is based on 35 U.S.C. § 103. Id. at 4--5; see also Examiner
Answer (dated Apr. 5, 2018, hereinafter "Ans.") 2.
3
Appeal2018-006218
Application 14/621,444
extends radially inward of tie shaft 85. Id (citing Spec., Fig. 2). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art "to modify the gas turbine engine of CAMPBELL to include
an inner cooling air, as taught by AAP A, in order to provide cooling air to
downstream turbine sections." Id ( citing AAP A. para. 3 7).
Appellants argue that because Campbell discloses that the pressure of
air flowing through passage 40 is higher than the pressure at gap 20, "it is
not at all clear that Campbell provides sufficient air into the chamber 40 to
actually contact the disk of the compressor 16." Appeal Br. 3. According to
Appellants, the higher pressure in chamber 40 should urge all of the ... air
to pass toward the gap 20, and not across the disk." Id ( emphasis added).
Appellants' argument is not persuasive because limitations not
appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self,
671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Here, independent claim 1 does not
require turbine conditioning air passing "across the [compressor] disk" but
rather, recites "turbine conditioning air contacting said disk of said
compressor." See Appeal Br. 5 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). We agree
with the Examiner that because gap 20 is formed by compressor rotor disk
18 and inner casing 20, and the pressure of the air in chamber 40 is higher
than the pressure at gap 20, "the air has to contact the compressor rotor disk
16 in order to be drawn out of the gap (20)." Ans. 5 (emphasis added); see
also Campbell, col. 2, 11. 30-33, Fig. 2.
Appellants further argue that "there would be no reason to include a
secondary turbine cooling air inwardly of the tie shaft 15, as Campbell's
chamber 28 has already supplied cooling air to the turbine." Appeal Br. 2-3.
4
Appeal2018-006218
Application 14/621,444
According to Appellants, "there is no showing that Campbell's cooling
airflow is not sufficient by itself." Id. at 3.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument because it is not
commensurate with the Examiner's rejection. The reasoning for the
Examiner's modification of Campbell, according to AAP A, is not to cool
Campbell's turbine rotor, as Appellants argue, but rather to "provid[e]
cooling air for additional, downstream, sections." Ans. 3 ( citing Campbell,
Fig. 1) ( emphasis added). As correctly noted by the Examiner, because
Figure 2 of AAP A illustrates cooling air 81 as flowing beneath turbine rotor
88, "the secondary cooling (81) of AAP A is providing cooling for
downstream turbine sections." Id. at 2 ( citing AAP A, para. 3 7) ( emphasis
added). The Examiner is correct that as Campbell discloses "downstream
turbine ... sections 54, 57 ,"4 then in the engine of Campbell, as modified by
AAP A, cooling air 81 would travel downstream to cool turbine sections 54,
57 "beyond the first turbine rotor (13)." Id. In other words, Campbell's first
turbine 13, as modified by AAPA, would receive cooling air from chamber
28 and secondary cooling air 81, whereas downstream turbine sections 54,
57 would receive only secondary cooling air 81. Id. at 4.
Finally, in the Reply Brief (filed May 30, 2018, hereinafter "Reply
Br."), Appellants argue that because Campbell uses air to cool turbine blades
31 that was not used to cool shaft 15, Campbell fails to disclose "air 'passing
along an axial length of said tie shaft,"' as called for by claim 1. Reply Br. 1
(citing Campbell, col. 3, 11. 45+). We are not persuaded by Appellants'
4 We note reference number "54" corresponds to a fan turbine and "57''
corresponds to a low or intermediate pressure turbine. See Campbell, col. 4,
11. 40-42.
5
Appeal2018-006218
Application 14/621,444
argument because Campbell's air supplied from chamber 28 cools turbine
rotor 13, via a first stream provided by swirler 3 3 and coo ls shaft 15, via a
second stream provided by swirler 39. See Campbell, col. 2, 1. 63---col. 3, 1.
10, col. 3, 11. 30-31, Fig. 2. Similarly, Appellants' Specification describes
supplying air 97 to turbine rotor 186, 188 for cooling the turbine rotor, via
first stream 196, and for cooling tie shaft 185, via second stream 199. See
Spec. paras. 41, 44, 50, Fig. 3. Moreover, Campbell specifically discloses
that air in chamber 40 cools shaft 15 during "its passage past the shaft."
Campbell, col. 3, 1. 30 ( emphasis added); see also Ans. 4.
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 1 as unpatentable over Campbell and AAPA.
Claims 4---6, 8, and 10 fall with claim 1.
Claims 11, 14-16, 18, and 20
With respect to the rejection of claim 11, Appellants argue that
Campbell fails to disclose the claimed function of "turbine conditioning air
[that] is cooled by said inner cooling air as said turbine conditioning air
passes along the axial length of said tie shaft, and said inner cooling air
pass[ es] to said turbine rotor." Appeal Br. 3.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument because Appellants
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking Campbell individually when the
rejection as articulated by the Examiner is based on a combination of
Campbell and AAPA. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, although Appellants are "free to recite features of an
apparatus either structurally or functionally," choosing to use functional
language comes at a cost. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir.
6
Appeal2018-006218
Application 14/621,444
1997). Appellants may be required to prove the prior art does not possess
the claimed functional characteristics when the Examiner provides a sound
basis for believing the functional limitations may, in fact, be an inherent
characteristic of the prior art. Id. ( citing In re Swinehart, 439 F .2d 210, 213
( CCP A 1971) ). The Examiner may establish a sound basis for such a belief
by demonstrating the structural elements performing the functional
limitations in the claimed apparatus are the same as those disclosed in the
prior art. Id. Moreover, a sound basis does not tum on absolute certainty;
rather, a sound basis requires the Examiner "to make sufficient factual
findings, such that it can reasonably infer that the prior art product and that
of the patent at issue are the same." Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Zimmer
Inc., 640 Fed. Appx. 951,958 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In this case, we agree with the Examiner's findings that Campbell
discloses turbine conditioning air within chamber 40, which is radially
outward of tie shaft 15, and AAP A discloses secondary cooling air 81,
which is radially inward of tie shaft 185. Ans. 5; see also Campbell, Fig. 2;
AAP A, Fig. 3. Thus, the Examiner is correct that the combined teachings of
Campbell and AAP A disclose that both turbine conditioning air, within
chamber 40, and secondary cooling air 81, flow over tie shaft 15. Ans. 5.
Similarly, Appellants' Figure 3 illustrates turbine conditioning air 199 and
secondary cooling air 81 flowing over tie shaft 185. Hence, as the air flow
pattern over Campbell's tie shaft 15, as modified by AAPA, is substantially
the same as the air flow pattern over Appellants' tie shaft 185, the Examiner
is on solid footing to shift the burden to Appellants to prove that the
combined teachings of Campbell and AAP A do not possess the disputed
functional limitation of claim 11. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed.
7
Appeal2018-006218
Application 14/621,444
Cir. 1990) ("[W]hen the PTO shows sound basis for believing that the
products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the
burden of showing that they are not."). Appellants have not come forth with
any persuasive evidence or technical reasoning to show otherwise.
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 11 as unpatentable over Campbell and
AAPA.
As Appellants have not separately argued the rejection of claims 14--
16, 18, and 20 (see Appeal Br. 2-3), which depend from claim 11, we
likewise sustain the rejection of these claims as unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Campbell and AAP A.
SUMMARY
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 4--6, 8, 10, 11, 14--16, 18,
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Campbell and AAP A is
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