Ex Parte Nolcheff et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 9, 2018

13182976 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 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.
13/182,976 07/14/2011 Nick Nolcheff H0028081 (002.4531) 7429
89955 7590 02/13/2018
HONEYWELL/LKGlobal
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
PRAGER, JESSE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/13/2018 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):
patentservices-us @ honey well, com
docketing @LKGlobal.com
DL-PMT-SM-IP@Honeywell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NICK NOLCHEFF and JONG LEE
Appeal 2016-008576
Application 13/182,976
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, DANIEL S. SONG, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nick Nolcheff and Jong Lee (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-15, 17, and 19-
23.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Honeywell
International Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-008576
Application 13/182,976
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ invention “relates to integrated secondary air flow
systems of compressors in gas turbine engines.” Spec. ^ 2. Claims 1, 14,
and 20 are independent. Claim 14, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter.
14. A gas turbine engine assembly, comprising:
a compressor section comprising:
a rotor platform;
a rotor blade extending radially outwardly from the rotor
platform, the rotor blade including a pressure sidewall and a
circumferentially opposing suction sidewall extending in a
radial direction between a root and a tip and in an axial
direction between a leading edge and a trailing edge;
a casing having an inner surface surrounding the tip and
spaced radially outwardly from the tip to define a gap between
the casing and the tip, the casing and the rotor platform defining
a primary air flow path between the casing and the rotor
platform to direct a primary air flow in a direct air in a
downstream direction;
an exhaust section fluidly coupled to the compressor
section; and
a secondary air flow system comprising
a bleed inlet disposed in the inner surface of the casing
downstream of the rotor blade and configured to remove
secondary air flow from the primary air flow;
an injection opening disposed in the inner surface of the
casing upstream of the bleed inlet;
an exhaust conduit fluidly coupled to the exhaust system;
a plenum fluidly coupled to the bleed inlet, the injection
opening, and the exhaust conduit,
wherein the bleed inlet and plenum at least partially
define a secondary air flow path for the secondary air flow such
that a first portion of the secondary air flow is directed in
2
Appeal 2016-008576
Application 13/182,976
through the bleed inlet, through the plenum, and out through the
injection opening and a second portion of the secondary air
flow is directed in through the bleed inlet, through the plenum,
and out through the exhaust conduit to the exhaust section, and
wherein the plenum is sized such that the secondary air
flow has a flow rate of less than 0.05 Mach within the plenum;
and
an impeller positioned downstream of the rotor blade and
the casing, the bleed inlet being arranged upstream of the
impeller.
REJECTIONS
1) Claims 14, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Guemmer ’960 (US 2008/0232960 Al,
published Sept. 25, 2008), Gummer ’8052, (US 2006/0104805 Al,
published May 18, 2006), Guemmer ’596 (US 2009/0252596 Al,
published Oct. 8, 2009), and Walker (US 5,351,478, issued Oct. 4,
1994).
2) Claims 1 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nolcheff (US 2010/0111688 Al, published May
6, 2010), Stratford (US 4,919,590, issued April 24, 1990), Walker,
and Schaum (US 4,222,703, issued Sept. 16, 1980).
3) Claims 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nolcheff, Stratford, Walker, Schaum, and
Guemmer ’596.
2 The Examiner and Appellants refer to this reference as “Guemmer '805.”
For consistency, we refer to “Guemmer '805” herein.
3
Appeal 2016-008576
Application 13/182,976
4) Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nolcheff, Stratford, Walker, Schaum, and Blais
(US 5,477,673, issued Dec. 26, 1995).
5) Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Nolcheff, Stratford, Walker, Schaum, Blais, and Guemmer ’960.
6) Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Nolcheff, Stratford, Walker, Schaum, Blais, and Cummings (US
2005/0106009 Al, published May 19, 2005).
7) Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Nolcheff, Stratford, Walker, and Schaum.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
Appellants argue claims 14 and 15 together. Appeal Br. 27-34. We
select claim 14 as representative, and claim 15 stands or falls with claim 14.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(v). We address claims 17 and 19 separately.
The Examiner finds that Guemmer ’960 discloses many of the
limitations of claim 14 but fails to “disclose the bleed inlet disposed in the
inner surface of the casing, the injection opening disposed in the inner
surface of the casing, an exhaust conduit configured to be fluidly coupled to
the exhaust system, and the plenum is sized to limit the flow rate.” Final
Act. 4-5. The Examiner finds that Guemmer ’805 discloses a bleed inlet
disposed on the inner surface of the casing downstream of a blade, Guemmer
’596 discloses an injection opening disposed on the inner surface of the
casing, and Walker discloses an exhaust conduit configured to be fluidly
coupled to an exhaust system and a portion of secondary air flow is directed
4
Appeal 2016-008576
Application 13/182,976
in through the plenum and out through the exhaust conduit. Id. at 5-6. With
respect to the limitation that the plenum is sized to have a flow rate less than
0.05 Mach, the Examiner determines
it is common practice for engineers in the art of gas turbines to
size a flow component to limit the flow rate. Furthermore,
there is no evidence that the claimed flow rates are critical and
there are not unexpected effects or properties compared to other
flow rates, and flow components appear to be able to be sized
within the range, ft would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the gas turbine art to further modify the engine
of Guemmer [’960] by limiting the flow rate at the inlet and
plenum as an engineering expedient for the purpose of reducing
pressure losses at the inlet and plenum.
Id. at 7.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Guemmer ’960 to have
a bleed inlet disposed in the inner . . . casing downstream of a
blade, as taught by Guemmer ’805, and by constructing the
injection opening disposed in the inner surface of the casing
configured to direct... air flow into a gap between the rotor
blade and the casing, as taught by Guemmer ’596 to substitute
one known bleed inlet arrangement for another known bleed
inlet arrangement to predictably enable bypass flow to enter the
casing at a desired location, and to favorably influence radial
gap flow.
Id. at 6.
The Examiner further concludes that it would have been obvious to
further modify Guemmer ’960 to provide “an exhaust conduit configured to
be fluidly coupled to an exhaust system of the gas turbine engine” as taught
by Walker so “that a portion of a secondary air flow is directed . . . through a
bleed inlet, through the plenum, and out through the accessory conduit, to
5
Appeal 2016-008576
Application 13/182,976
utilize the bleed air from the compressor for cooling, deicing, and/or
maintaining cabin pressure.” Id. at 7.
a. The Exhaust Conduit Limitation
Appellants’ first contention is that Walker’s conduits “are not exhaust
conduits” but rather “direct air to the de-icing system.” Appeal Br. 27
(citing Walker 4:29-37). In connection with this contention, Appellants
argue that “claim 14 positively recites ‘an exhaust system’ of a ‘gas turbine
engine assembly’” and one of ordinary skill “would never consider a de­
icing system to be an exhaust system or a generic conduit to be an exhaust
system.” Id. at 28. The Examiner responds that “[cjlaim 14 does not
positively recite that the exhaust system is of the gas turbine engine, and the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim includes exhaust systems of
the compressor.” Ans. 25. The Examiner notes that “Guemmer ’960
discloses a bypass-flow directed away from the compressor section (Fig.
4d), however is silent about exhaust conduits and the exhaust system.” Id.
The Examiner also submits that Walker’s conduits (46, 56) “are considered
exhausting since these portions of compressor bleed air are diverted from the
main flow to exit from the compressor section for uses outside . . . the
compressor portion of the gas turbine, not since the conduits merely conduct
flow.” Id.
Claim 14 recites “a compressor section comprising ... an exhaust
section3 fluidly coupled to the compressor section” and “an exhaust conduit
3 Both Appellants and the Examiner treat this limitation of claim 14 as “an
exhaust system” not “an exhaust section.” See Appeal Br. 28; Ans. 25. This
treatment is consistent with the later limitation in claim 14 of “an exhaust
conduit fluidly coupled to the exhaust system.” Appeal Br. 61 (Claims
App.) (emphasis added).
6
Appeal 2016-008576
Application 13/182,976
fluidly coupled to the exhaust system.” Appeal Br. 60-61 (Claims App.).
We agree with the Examiner that claim 14 does not positively recite that the
exhaust system is the exhaust system of the gas turbine engine. Rather,
because it is recited as fluidly coupled to the compressor section, one of
ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that it may be coupled
to the compressor exhaust or the exhaust system of the gas turbine engine.
This interpretation is consistent with Appellants’ Specification which
describes “exhaust system 290 coupled to the exhaust conduit 292 [which]
may be the engine exhaust section 110 (FIG. 1) or merely a system or
conduit which dumps the [bleed] air overboard the aircraft.” Spec. ^ 24,
Figs. 1, 2. Walker discloses that “[b]leed air extracted from the compressor
is typically channeled through the inner casing, gathered into a plenum
formed between the inner and outer casings, and exited through pipes in the
outer compressor casing.” Walker 1:21-25. Walker further discloses that
“bleed air 38 exits the low pressure turbine plenum 40 through a low
pressure turbine outlet duct 56.” Id. at 4:43 44. This disclosure in Walker
supports the Examiner’s finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
Walker discloses a conduit for exhausting or exiting the air from the
compressor section. Appellants’ argument that one of ordinary skill in the
art would not consider these conduits to be “exhaust conduits” because the
conduits are not the exhaust system of a gas turbine engine assembly is
attorney argument, unsupported by evidence, and in any event, is not
commensurate with the scope of claim 14. We, thus, are not persuaded by
Appellants’ first contention.
7
Appeal 2016-008576
Application 13/182,976
b. The Impeller Limitation
Appellants’ second contention is that Guemmer ’960 does not
specifically disclose an impeller and, in the absence of an impeller, the
combined references do not disclose “the . . . secondary air flow system with
a bleed inlet positioned in between the exit stator and the impeller.” Appeal
Br. 28-29. The Examiner responds that “Guemmer ’960 discloses a bypass
flow in the splitter region (par. 34) upstream from the compressor stages of
the gas turbine” and “[t]he high pressure compressor contains rotor stages
downstream of the bleed inlet. The rotor which appears to be axial
constitutes the impeller.” Ans. 25. In the Reply Brief, Appellants admit that
Guemmer ’960 does in fact disclose an impeller in downstream compressor
stages but argue that “[o]ne skilled in the art would not consider the
‘impellers’ in subsequent, downstream stages to have any impact on the
relationships between the rotor blade, bleed inlet, casing, and impellers as
recited in claim 14.” Reply Br. 5. Appellants’ second contention is not
persuasive because the only relationship recited in claim 14 is that the
impeller be “positioned downstream of the rotor blade and the casing.” In
addition, claim 14 does not require “a bleed inlet positioned in between the
exit stator and the impeller.” Appellants’ second contention, is thus, not
persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 14.
c. The Plenum Flow Rate Limitation
Appellants’ third contention is that the references do not disclose the
limitation in claim 14 that the plenum is sized for “a flow rate of less than
0.05 Mach within the plenum.” Appeal Br. 29. Appellants assert that “the
exact ground of the rejection is not clear” because the Examiner “uses
language that seems to reference various theories.” Id. However, based on
8
Appeal 2016-008576
Application 13/182,976
the language used in the rejection, Appellants argue that “this is not a case of
overlapping ranges in that not one of the prior art references discloses any
ranges for the flow rate within the plenum,” “this is not a case of
optimization within prior art conditions because the Examiner has failed to
define the relevant conditions and demonstrate that the conditions exist in
the prior art,” and “the Examiner has not established flow rates within the
plenum as a results effective variable subject to optimization.” Id. at 29-30.
Appellants alternately contend that even if the Examiner met the initial
burden, the Specification establishes criticality because “the plenum 270 is
sized to provide the same supply pressure to exhaust conduit 292, accessory
conduit 294, and/or injection openings 280 regardless of individual flow
rates” enabling “the plenum 270 to service the injection slots 280, exhaust
conduit 292, and accessory conduit 294 without substantial pressure losses
in the plenum 270.” Id. at 30 (citing Spec. 34-35). Appellants also argue
that the references teach away from a plenum sizing that would result in a
flow rate of less than 0.05 Mach. Id. at 31.
In response, the Examiner asserts that “there is no criticality disclosed
in the specification.” Ans. 26. According to the Examiner, even though the
prior art references do not disclose the flow rate recited in claim 14, the
claimed subject matter is unpatentable because “the structure of the
combination of the prior art appears to be the same” as the claimed subject
matter, and consequently the claimed subject matter “would not perform
differently than the combination of the prior art.” Id.
As evident from their arguments, Appellants recognize that the
Examiner’s findings with respect to this claim limitation are based on one of
ordinary skill in the art determining the optimum condition or working range
9
Appeal 2016-008576
Application 13/182,976
for the flow rate in the plenum. See Appeal Br. 29; Final Act. 7 (“it is
common practice for engineers in the art of gas turbines to size a flow
component to limit the flow rate ... as an engineering expedient for the
purpose of reducing pressure losses at the inlet and the plenum.”). In a
case, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art,
it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine
experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). If the
Examiner shows that the general conditions are disclosed in the prior art,
Appellants have the burden to show the criticality of the claimed range of
flow rates to establish patentability. Id. This rule is limited to cases in
which the optimized variable is a “result-effective variable.” In re Antonie,
559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977).
In this case, Walker discloses bleed air 38 flowing through a plenum
40. Walker 4:29^43, Fig. 1. Walker also discloses that a problem with
existing bleed air systems is an increase in air velocity flowing through slots
resulting in reduced heat transfer. Id. at 1:26-39. Appellants acknowledge
that Walker discloses the general conditions of flow rate in the plenum. See
Appeal Br. 31. Appellants also note that Guemmer ’960 and Gummer ’805
disclose throttling valves to control air flow in the plenum. Id. at 32. One of
ordinary skill in the gas-turbine art would, thus, understand that Walker
discloses the general conditions of air velocity or flow rate in a compressor
plenum, and both Guemmer ’960 and Guemmer ’805 disclose that one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand the need to control the flow rate in
the plenum, albeit by the use of throttling valves, that is, flow rate is
recognized in Walker as a result-effective variable. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that determining a working range for the flow rate in the plenum,
10
Appeal 2016-008576
Application 13/182,976
as recited in claim 14, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art unless Appellants can establish the criticality of the recited flow rate.
In connection with Appellants’ claim of criticality, we note that claim
14, as originally filed in the present application, did not contain this
limitation. See Claim 14 filed July 14, 2011. In support of its criticality
argument, Appellants direct us to paragraphs 34 and 35 of the Specification.
Paragraph 34 discloses generally sizing of the plenum but does not address
the claim limitation at issue. See Spec. ^ 34. Paragraph 35 of the
Specification provides that “local air flows . . . may be greater than 0.05
Mach, although typically, the average Mach number is less than 0.05.”
Spec. 35. Paragraphs 34 and 35 of the Specification do not support
Appellants’ argument because they disclose the claimed range is merely a
typical average flow rate which may be locally exceeded within the plenum.
We, thus, agree with the Examiner that Appellants have not established
criticality of the limitation in claim 14 “that the secondary air flow has a
flow rate of less than 0.05 Mach within the plenum.”
With respect to Appellants’ argument that the references teach away
from a plenum sized to have a flow rate of less than 0.05 Mach, we note that
a prior art reference does not teach away from the claimed subject matter
unless the prior art reference also criticizes, discredits, or otherwise
discourages the solution claimed. See Crocs, Inc. v. U.S. International
Trade Commission, 598 F.3d 1294, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Prior art taught
away by specifically discouraging use of foam straps); In re Fulton, 391 F.
3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants do not direct us to any
disclosure in Guemmer ’960, Guemmer ’805, Guemmer ’596, or Walker
(Appeal Br. 31) that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise would discourage one
11
Appeal 2016-008576
Application 13/182,976
of ordinary skill in the art from sizing a plenum with a flow rate of less than
0.05 Mach. Appellants refer to Walker’s disclosure of requiring the air flow
in the plenum to have a “high rate” of speed. Id. However, Appellants do
not provide any evidence or technical reasoning to evaluate whether
Walker’s high rate of speed is substantially different than the recited flow
rate of less than 0.05 Mach. We, thus, are not persuaded that the references
teach away from this claim limitation.
For all the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
third contention.
D. The Bleed Inlet Limitation
Appellants’ fourth contention is that the references, as combined in
the rejection, do not result in positioning the bleed inlet as recited in claim
14. Appeal Br. 31. Appellants argue that the position of the bleed inlet in
combination with the plenum structure provides “the most overall efficient
system” as opposed to “the delivery of the secondary air flow in
conventional system [which] varies greatly with respect to engine operation
and/or active throttling is required to control air flow.” Id. at 31-32.
Appellants then argue that Guemmer ’960, Guemmer ’805, Guemmer ’596,
and Walker fail to provide the same advantage as the recited bleed inlet. Id.
at 32. Appellants note that Guemmer ’960 discloses a bleed inlet within the
stator, does not supply an accessory system, and uses a throttle valve within
the plenum to manage flow. Id. Appellants note that Guemmer’805
removes secondary air but uses a throttle valve similar to Guemmer ’960 to
control flow in the plenum. Id. Appellants note that Walker discloses
“bleed holes” that are sized to increase air flow speed which, according to
Appellants, does not provide a “stable source.” Id.
12
Appeal 2016-008576
Application 13/182,976
The Examiner responds that Guemmer ’ 805 discloses the recited
structure of the bleed inlet. Ans. 28.In the Final Office Action, the Examiner
finds that “Guemmer ’ 805 discloses a bleed inlet disposed in the inner
surface of the casing downstream of a blade (at 13, Fig. 2).” Final Act. 5.
Appellants do not dispute this finding. See Appeal Br. 23-24, 27-34.
Guemmer ’805 identifies element 7 as a rotor. Guemmer ’805, ]|5. Figure 2
of Guemmer ’805 illustrates that the bleed inlet identified by the Examiner
in the rejection is downstream of rotor blade 7. Consequently, the
Examiner’s finding is supported by the disclosure of Guemmer ’805. Id. at
Fig. 2. The other items noted by Appellants are of no import to the
Examiner’s finding regarding the position of the bleed inlet. Appellants’
argument is an attack on the references individually, while the rejection is
based on the combined teachings of the references. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (One cannot show nonobviousenss by attacking
references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of
references.) We are, thus, not persuaded by Appellants’ fourth contention.
E. Appellants ’ Argument Against the Combination of References
Appellants’ fifth contention is that the rejection is based on
impermissible hindsight, and the Examiner fails to provide any reason for
combining the plenum systems of the prior art references “into a single
plenum fluidly coupled to the bleed inlet, injection opening, and exhaust
conduit.” Appeal Br. 32. Appellants then argue that “the Examiner’s line of
reasoning ignores the most important aspect of Walker . . ., i.e., Walker
discloses different plenums for different purposes.” Id. at 33. Appellants
also argue that Walker discloses removing bleed air from the compressor
13
Appeal 2016-008576
Application 13/182,976
“immediately upstream of the rotor 13 at bleed inlet 42” which is “depicted
in Guemmer ’596 as being the injection opening 10.” Id.
Appellants’ argument concerning the position of Walker’s bleed inlet
does not apprise us of error because, as the Examiner correctly notes, the
rejection does not rely on Walker for the placement of the bleed inlet. See
Final Act. 5. With respect to Appellants’ argument that Walker discloses
more than one plenum, the Examiner relies only on plenum 40 in the
rejection. Id. at 6. This argument is not persuasive because the Examiner
does not propose to bodily incorporate the structure of Walker, including
more than one plenum, into the modified structure of Guemmer ’960. See In
re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425 (“The test for obviousness is not whether the
features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.”); In reNievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the
teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific
structures.”). While Walker may utilize more than one plenum, we are not
persuaded that a person of ordinary skill would view Walker as teaching
against utilization of a common plenum for injection opening, and exhaust
conduit. Indeed, the prior art already discloses that it was known in the art
to use a common plenum in providing multiple flows. See Guemmer ’960,
Fig. 4d; Walker, Fig. 1.
F. Conclusion Regarding Claim 14
We have considered all of Appellants’ contentions and determine that
Appellants fail to persuasively apprise us of error in the Examiner’s factual
findings or rationale, quoted above, for the combination of Guemmer ’960,
14
Appeal 2016-008576
Application 13/182,976
Guemmer ’805, Guemmer ’596, and Walker, which we determine to be
reasonable and supported by rational underpinnings. See KSR Intern. Co. v
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.”). Further, Appellants’ hindsight
argument is of no import where the Examiner has stated a rationale for each
modification that we determine are each supported adequately by sufficient
facts. See In re Cree, 818 F.3d 694, 702, n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We, thus,
sustain the rejection of claim 14. Claim 15 falls with claim 14.
G. Claim 17
Claim 17 depends from claim 14 and further requires “an accessory
system fluidly coupled to the compressor” and “an accessory conduit
extending between the plenum and the accessory system . . . wherein the
plenum is sized such that a distance between the accessory conduit and the
bleed inlet is greater than twice a width of the bleed inlet.” Appeal Br. 61-
62 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Guemmer ’960 as modified by Walker
discloses the subject matter of claim 17 but that the limitation regarding the
distance in the plenum between the accessory conduit and the bleed inlet is
not specifically disclosed. Final Act. 7-8. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds
that the claimed ratio is not critical and, similar to claim 14, concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine this
ratio “as an engineering expedient for the purpose of reducing pressure
losses within the secondary flow system associated with the interference of
openings located in proximity with each other.” Id. at 8.
15
Appeal 2016-008576
Application 13/182,976
Appellants contend that the rejection of claim 17 is inconsistent with
the rejection of claim 14 because “the Examiner cites the de-icing system of
Walker as an exhaust system” in the rejection of claim 14, and “the
Examiner cites the de-icing system of Walker as an accessory system” in the
rejection of claim 17. Appeal Br. 35. Appellants also contend that “it is
unclear how and why the cited references could be considered to establish
any relationship between 1) distance between the accessory conduit and . . .
bleed inlet, and 2) the width of the bleed inlet, particularly a relationship that
requires the first value to be twice that of the second.” Id.
The Examiner responds that Walker discloses two different systems
where “one system, such as the de-icing system (associated with bleed port
46), is the exhaust system and the other system (associated with outlet 56) is
the accessory system.” Ans. 29. For the following reasons, we sustain the
rejection of claim 17.
Walker discloses two outlets for bleed air, i.e., 46 and 56. Walker,
Figure 1. Exit port 46 is “for use when the anti-icing function is needed” and
“bleed air exits the low pressure turbine plenum 40 through a low pressure
turbine outlet duct 56.” Id. at 4:35-36, 42^43. Thus, the Examiner’s finding
that Walker discloses two systems, one for de-icing and one for exhaust is
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Further, Appellants do not
persuasively explain why Walker’s outlets 46 and 56 do not correspond to
the accessory conduit required by claim 17 and the exhaust conduit required
by claim 14 from which claim 17 depends. Further, Appellants’ argument
regarding the plenum size is substantially similar to the argument regarding
flow rate in the plenum in claim 14. For reasons similar to those stated
above in connection with claim 14, Appellants do not persuade us that one
16
Appeal 2016-008576
Application 13/182,976
of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to, or would not
have been able to, determine the working range for the plenum size as
recited in claim 17. Further, unlike claim 14, Appellants do not argue that
the working range for the plenum size recited in claim 17 is critical to the
claimed invention.
For all the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 17.
H. Claim 19
Claim 19 depends from claim 17 and requires the accessory conduit to
be “spaced from the exhaust accessory conduit at a distance at least three
time greater than” the diameter of the accessory conduit. Appeal Br. 62
(Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Guemmer ’960 as modified does
not specifically disclose “a particular spacing relative to the outlets.” Final
Act. 8. Nonetheless, similar to claim 14, the Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify
Guemmer ’960 as recited in claim 19 “as an engineering expedient for the
purpose of utilizing a known cross section to transport the fluids, and to
reduce pressure losses within the secondary flow system associated with the
interference of constrictions located in proximity with each other.” Id. at 9.
Appellants argue that “it is unclear how and why the cited references
could be considered to establish any relationship between 1) distance
between the accessory conduit and the exhaust conduit, and 2) the diameter
of the accessory conduit, particularly a relationship that requires the first
value to be three times that of the second.” Appeal Br. 34-35.
Appellants’ argument regarding the spacing of the exhaust conduit and
accessory conduit is substantially similar to the argument regarding flow rate
in the plenum in claim 14. For similar reasons to those stated above in
17
Appeal 2016-008576
Application 13/182,976
connection with claim 14, Appellants do not persuade us that one of ordinary
skill in the art would not have found it obvious to, or would not have been
able to, determine the working range for this spacing as recited in claim 19.
Further, unlike claim 14, Appellants do not argue that the spacing between
the exhaust conduit and accessory conduit recited in claim 1 is critical to the
claimed invention.
For all the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 19.
Rejection 2
The Examiner finds that Nolcheff discloses many of the limitations of
claim 1 except
a rotor platform, an accessory conduit configured to be fluidly
coupled to an accessory of the gas turbine engine, a second
portion of the secondary airflow is directed in through the bleed
inlet, through the plenum, and out through the accessory
conduit, and the bleed inlet being arranged between the exit
stator and the impeller.
Final Act. 9-10.
The Examiner finds that Stratford discloses a rotor platform, Walker
discloses an accessory conduit fluidly coupled to an accessory system and a
portion of secondary air flow directed through a plenum and out the
accessory conduit, and Schaum discloses a bleed inlet arranged between an
exit stator and an impeller. Id. at 10-11. The Examiner concludes it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nolcheff s
compressor with Stratford’s rotor platform “to form a smooth continuation
to the radially outer surface of the rotor which defines the inner boundary of
the flow path of the air through the compressor,” providing an accessory
conduit as taught by Walker “such that a portion of the secondary air flow is
18
Appeal 2016-008576
Application 13/182,976
directed in through a bleed inlet, through the plenum and out through the
accessory conduit” so as to “utilize the bleed air from the compressor for
cooling, deicing, and/or maintaining cabin pressure,” and arranging the
bleed inlet between the exit stator and the impeller as taught by Schaum “to
reduce the work done to the air by the stage.” Id. at 11-12.
Appellants contend that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
modify the bleed inlet of Nolcheff based on the teachings of Schaum.
Appeal Br. 39. Appellants argue that the bleed inlet in Nolcheff is within
the impeller 208 and the fluid extracted through the bleed inlet is
recirculated and re-injected at a point upstream of the impeller in order to
“increase[s] the efficiency of the impeller 103.” Id. (citing Nolcheff^ 23).
Appellants submit that modifying the location of Nolcheff s bleed inlet to a
point upstream of the impeller, as taught by Schaum, would result in a non­
functional bleed inlet because Nolcheff s injection inlet is located at the
same point. Id.
In the Answer, the Examiner notes that Schaum teaches a bleed inlet
upstream of the diffuser “to reduce the work done to the bleed air by that
stage” and thus Nolcheff would realize “an advantage to reducing work done
on the bleed air” if Nolcheff s bleed inlet is moved “to a more upstream
position” as taught by Schaum. Ans. 30-31. For the following reasons, we
do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Nolcheff s opening 228 corresponds to the
recited bleed inlet. Final Act. 10. Nolcheff s “opening 228 allows the air to
circulate from within . . . impeller 208 through a plenum 230.” Nolcheff
^ 22, Fig. 2. The air “travels from the opening 228 and through the plenum
230 toward the transition duct 244 and then returns to the impeller 208 via
19
Appeal 2016-008576
Application 13/182,976
the impeller leading edge 218 along a first recirculation pathway 234.” Id.
Nolcheff discloses that “this mode of recirculation . . . increases the
efficiency of the impeller.” Id. 23. Nolcheff also discloses that “this type
of recirculation for the purpose of increasing compressor efficiency is highly
novel.” Id.
In the rejection, the Examiner modifies the location of Nolcheff s
opening 228 to a more upstream point between the exit stator and the
impeller. Ans. 30-31; see also Final Act. 11 (“Nolcheff. . . lacks the bleed
inlet in front of the impeller.”). However, modifying Nolcheff to relocate
opening 228 in front of the impeller would preclude Nolcheff s recirculation
of air from the impeller through opening 228, through the plenum, and into
the leading edge of the impeller. The Examiner does not explain how
moving opening 228 in front of the impeller would have been accomplished
without obviating Nolcheff s recirculation flow and the consequent increase
in compressor efficiency. The rejection, thus, undermines the basis of
Nolcheff s invention, and changes the principle of operation of Nolcheff.
Accordingly, the rejection does not render claim 1 unpatentable. See In re
Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959). We, thus, do not sustain the
rejection of claim 1 and claims 4-9 which depend from claim 1.
Rejection 3
Claim 3, which depends from claim 1, is rejected based on the
combination of Nolcheff, Stratford, Walker, and Schaum, with additional
disclosure from Guemmer ’596. Final Act. 14. The Examiner does not rely
on the additional disclosure from Guemmer ’596 to cure the deficiencies in
the rejection of claim 1 discussed above in connection with Rejection 2.
We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 3 for the same reasons.
20
Appeal 2016-008576
Application 13/182,976
Independent claim 20 contains the same limitation as claim 1 of “the
bleed inlet being arranged between the exit stator and impeller.” Appeal Br.
62 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on the same findings and reasoning
based on Nolcheff and Schaum as for claim 1 to establish this limitation.
Final Act. 14-17. The Examiner does not rely on the additional disclosure
from Guemmer ’596 to cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1
discussed above in connection with Rejection 2. Id. at 17-18. We,
therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 20 for the same reasons.
Rejections 4 6
Claims 10-13, 21, and 22 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1.
Appeal Br. 59-60, 64 (Claims App.). The Examiner rejects these claims
based on the combination of Nolcheff, Stratford, Walker, and Schaum, with
additional disclosure from Blais, Guemmer ’960, and Cummings. Final Act.
19-23. The Examiner does not rely on the additional disclosure from Blais,
Gummer ’960, and Cummings to cure the deficiencies in the rejection of
claim 1 discussed above in connection with Rejection 2. Id. We, therefore,
do not sustain the rejection of claims 10-13,21, and 22 for the same reasons.
Rejection 7
Claim 23 depends from claim 14 and requires, inter alia, “the bleed
inlet is arranged between the exit stator and the impeller.” Appeal Br. 59
(Claims App.). The Examiner rejects claim 23 based on the combined
teachings of Nolcheff, Stratford, Walker, and Schaum. Final Act. 23-26.
This rejection relies on Nolcheff as modified by Schaum to establish the
limitation of the bleed inlet “arranged between the exit stator and the
impeller.” Id. at 25-26. We, thus, do not sustain the rejection of claim 23
21
Appeal 2016-008576
Application 13/182,976
for the same reasons stated in connection with the rejection of claim 1 in
Rejection 2.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 14, 15, 17, and 19 is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejection claims 1, 3-13, and 21-23 is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
22