Ex Parte Roberge

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 7, 2016

12096819 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/096,819 09/08/2008 Gary Roberge
54549 7590 06/09/2016
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
PA0000814U;67097-529PUS1 5198
EXAMINER
SUTHERLAND, STEVEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/09/2016 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 GARY ROBERGE
Appeal2013-002173
Application 12/096, 819
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON i\.PPEi\L
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Gary Roberge (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
rejection of claims 1--6, 8-10, and 12-18. 1'2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 The Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 7 and 11 in the Advisory
Action mailed March 22, 2012.
2 In the Amendment After Final Rejection filed March 16, 2012, Appellants
proposed canceling claim 16; however, this amendment was not entered by
the Examiner. Accordingly, claim 16 is still pending and stands rejected as
discussed infra.
Appeal2013-002173
Application 12/096, 819
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1 A turbine engine comprising:
a fan including a plurality of fan blades, at least one of the
fan blades having a centrifugal compression chamber defined
therein;
an axial compressor including a plurality of compressor
blades and compressor vanes, a core airflow path defined through
the axial compressor and through the centrifugal compression
chamber, at least one of the compressor blades and compressor
vanes having a suction surf ace with an opening therein leading
to an interior thereof; and
a passageway connecting the interior of the at least one of
the compressor blades and compressor vanes to at least one low
pressure area of the turbine engine.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Anderson
Rumford
Auxier
Paul
Bagnall
us 2,893,204
us 4,783,026
us 5,403, 158
US 2004/0025490 Al
US 2005/0081530 Al
REJECTIONS
July7, 1959
Nov. 8, 1988
Apr. 4, 1995
Feb. 12,2004
Apr. 21, 2005
I. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
II. Claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Paul in view of Auxier.
2
Appeal2013-002173
Application 12/096, 819
III. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Paul, Auxier, and Rumford.
IV. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Paul, Auxier, and Anderson.
V. Claims 12-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Paul, Auxier, and Bagnall.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Appellants do not contest the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph. See generally Appeal Br. Accordingly, we
summarily sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 16 as failing to
comply with the written description requirement.
Rejection II
Claims 1-3 and 6
Appellants argue claims 1-3 and 6 together. See Appeal Br. 3-5. We
select independent claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2, 3, and 6
stand or fall with claim 1.
Claim 1 requires "at least one of the compressor blades and
compressor vanes having a suction surface with an opening therein leading
to an interior thereof." Appeal Br. 11. The Examiner finds that "Auxier
teaches a hole on the suction surface (56) of a plurality of compressor blades
leading to the interior of the blades, and a passageway (54) leading to a low
pressure area of the turbine (tip of the compressor blade)." Final Act. 3.
3
Appeal2013-002173
Application 12/096, 819
Noting that in Auxier "the orifice 56 and slot 54 begin on the pressure
side not the suction side," Appellants argue that "Auxier does not teach
bleeding air from the suction side of the airfoil as claimed by the Examiner."
Appeal Br. 4 (citing Auxier 4:23-52, Fig. 4).
Appellants' argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 1. As
noted supra, claim 1 requires an opening in a suction surface of a
compressor blade or a compressor vane. See Appeal Br. 11. Claim 1 does
not require an opening on a suction side of a compressor blade or a
compressor vane. Id. The Examiner explains that:
Surface 46 will act as a suction surface as claimed because the
passage in the blade (as seen in figure 4 ), is at a lower pressure
than the surface (46) of the blade. Airflow (A) would not pass
through the channel defined by the inlet (56) and outlet (58) if
the air pressure within the channel is greater than the pressure
outside the blade.
Ans. 2.
Responding to the Examiner's explanation; Appellants contend that
the Examiner's reasoning "ignore[s] the features of the claims." Reply Br.
2. This argument is unconvincing, as claim 1 does not require a suction
surface on the suction side of the blade or vane. See Appeal Br. 11.
Appellants further contend that "[ s ]uction surfaces are defined in the
specification as suction side surfaces 56." Reply Br. 2. (citing Spec. 6:2-8).
However, the Specification does not define suction surfaces as suction side
surfaces 56. Rather, the Specification describes suction side surfaces 56
stating:
suction side surfaces 56 of the compressor blades 52 and the
compressor vanes 54 via the conduits 59, 60. The suction
provided on the suction side surfaces 56 prevents a separation
of the airflow from the airfoils (compressor blades 52 and 5
4
Appeal2013-002173
Application 12/096, 819
compressor vanes 54) that would otherwise occur due to the
large amount of turning and compression provided by the
compressor blades 52 and compressor vanes 54.
Spec. 6:2---6. 3 This description is not a definition of the claim terminology
"suction surface." For an inventor to act as his or her own lexicographer, the
definition must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity,
deliberateness, and precision. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa per Azioni,
158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Accordingly, Appellants do not
apprise us of error.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim
1, and claims 2, 3, and 6, which fall therewith.
Claims 8-10 and 18
Independent claim 8 requires "b) bleeding air from the suction side of
the airfoil to prevent separation." Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis added). As with
claim 1; Appellants argue that "Auxier does not teach bleeding air from the
suction side of the airfoil as claimed by the Examiner." Appeal Br. 4.
Appellants direct our attention to Auxier's Figure 4 which clearly shows
"the orifice 56 and slot 54 begin on the pressure side not the suction side."
Id.
Appellants are correct. Auxier states, "[t]he inlet orifice 56 of the C-
shaped slot 54 is judiciously disposed on the pressure surface and the outlet
orifice 58 is judiciously disposed on the tip section 44 so that there is a
sufficient pressure drop to induce pumping of the main gas stream gases
3 Lines 7 and 8 of the Specification do not pertain to suction side surfaces
56. See Spec. 6.
5
Appeal2013-002173
Application 12/096, 819
through the slots 54." Auxier 4:44--48. Thus, the Examiner's finding is in
error.
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting
independent claim 8, and claims 9, 10, and 18, which depend therefrom.
Re} ection III
Regarding claim 4, the Examiner determines that "Paul in view of
Auxier does not teach that the low pressure area is radially outward from the
combustor." Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that "Rumford teaches
sending air bled from a compressor ( 48) to a low pressure area ( 46) radially
outward from a combustor (26)." Id. Based on this finding, the Examiner
reasons that it would have been obvious "to combine the teaching of placing
a low pressure area radially outward from a combustor, as taught by
Rumford, to the gas turbine taught by Paul in view of Auxier, in order to use
the compressed air to deice the forward end of a nacelle in a gas turbine."
Id. at 4--5.
Noting that "Rumford teaches that the pressure difference between the
discharge passage 50 and exhaust passage 51 creates the adequate flow
through passage 58," Appellants contend that "one would not modify Paul in
view of Auxier, where air is bled at a tip of a compressor blade with the
teachings of Rumford, where air is bled into a passage at the discharge side
of the compressor." Appeal Br. 6 (citing Rumford 6:11-15).
Responding to this argument the Examiner finds that "[b ]oth Rumford
and the combination of Paul and Auxier teach bleeding air to a low pressure
area" and determines that "[t]he term 'low pressure' in the claims does not
limit the area where air is bled to because 'low pressure' is a relative term."
6
Appeal2013-002173
Application 12/096, 819
Ans. 3. However, the Examiner's finding and reasoning are not responsive
to the argument raised by Appellants in that the Examiner does not explain
why one skilled in the art would apply Rumford's teaching of a pressure
difference between a discharge passage and an exhaust passage in the
manner claimed. Thus, Appellants are correct that the reasoning articulated
by the Examiner lacks rationale underpinnings.
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting
claim 4.
Rejection IV
Appellants argue that "[t]he Examiner's reliance on Anderson does
not address the above noted issues in Section A of this Appeal Brief."
Appeal Br. 7. As discussed supra, we find no deficiencies in the rejection of
claim 1----discussed in Section A of the Appeal Brief. Appellants provide no
other arguments pertaining to claim 5. Accordingly, Appellants arguments
are unpersuasive.
We sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 5.
Rejection V
Claims 12-14
Appellants argue claims 12-14 together. See Appeal Br. 8-9. We
select claim 12 as the representative claim, and claims 13 and 14, stand or
fall with claim 12.
Regarding claim 12, the Examiner determines that "Paul in view of
Auxier does not teach that the compressor vanes have a suction surface with
an opening leading to an interior connecting to a second low pressure area."
7
Appeal2013-002173
Application 12/096, 819
Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds that "Bagnall teaches using compressor
vanes (62) with openings (68) on a suction surface (surface of blade 62)
leading to an interior (69), which further leads to a low pressure area (72)."
Id. at 6-7. Based on this finding, the Examiner reasons that it would have
been obvious "to combine the compressor vanes of Bagnall with the engine
of Paul in view of Auxier, in order to control the boundary layer on the
surface of a stator structure." Id. at 7 (citing Bagnell i-f 6).
Appellants argue that "there is no teaching in Paul as modified by
Auxier that such boundary layer would be present, given the structural
differences between Paul and Bagnall." Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 4.
Appellants contend that "the Examiner provides no evidence that one of
ordinary skill would consider there to be a boundary layer on all stator
vanes, especially since the vane of Bagnall relied upon by the Examiner is
not a compressor vane but is a core engine inlet guide vane." Id.
Responding to this argument, the Examiner proffers a dictionary
definition stating that "[a] boundary layer is defined by Webster's
Dictionary as 'a region of retarded fluid near the surface of a body which
moves through a fluid or past which a fluid flows'." Ans. 3. Based on this
definition, the Examiner determines "that all vanes and blades within a gas
turbine through which fluid flows will have a boundary layer." Id. In
response, Appellants proffer their own definition stating that a "boundary
layer is defined as, 'a thin layer of flowing gas or liquid in contact with a
surface."' Reply Br. 3. However, Appellants do not explain why using
either definition, the Examiner's determination is incorrect. Further,
Appellants' argument that the need to control the boundary layer must be
recognized by Paul (see id.) is unavailing.
8
Appeal2013-002173
Application 12/096, 819
In addition, Appellants argue that "the rejection is improper because it
extends beyond the teachings of Bagnall." Appeal Br. 8. In support of this
argument, Appellants contend that "[ o ]ne of ordinary skill would not
consider the inlet guide vanes 62 of Bagnall to be compressor vanes." Id. at
9. However, Appellants do not explain what the structural differences
between Paul's vanes and Bagnall's vanes are. Accordingly, Appellants'
conclusory argument does not apprise us of error.
Further, noting that although "Bagnall teaches that apertures 84,86 are
in a relatively low pressure area and are arranged to bleed fuel further
downstream," Appellants argue that "there is no teaching that the chamber
72 would be considered a low pressure area." Appeal Br. 9.
Appellants' argument is not responsive to the rejection as articulated
by the Examiner. We note that claim 12 does not recite a low pressure area.
Accordingly, we understand Appellants' argument to pertain to the low
pressure area recited in claim 1, from which claim 12 depends. The
proposed rejection does not rely on Bagnall to teach the low pressure area as
the rejection relies upon Auxier to meet this limitation. See Final Act. 3.
Accordingly, Appellants' argument is unconvincing.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim
12, and claims 13 and 14, which fall therewith.
Claim 15
Noting that "the Examiner does not point to any of the cited
references disclosing the first passageway leads to a first low pressure area
and the second passageway leads to a second low pressure area in a different
9
Appeal2013-002173
Application 12/096, 819
location than the first low pressure area," Appellants argue that "[n]one of
Paul, Auxier, or Bagnall disclose this feature." Appeal Br. 9.
Responding to this argument, the Examiner explains that "Bagnall is
relied upon as teaching a low pressure area that is fluidly connected to a
compressor vane, and Auxier is relied upon as teaching a second low
pressure area that is fluidly connected to a compressor blade." Ans. 3--4.
Appellants do not contest this explanation in the Reply Brief.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 15.
Claim 16
Appellants do not present any arguments pertaining to claim 16.
Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim
16.
Claim 17
Claim 17 depends from claim 4. Bagnall fails to cure the deficiencies
in the rejection of claim 4. For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's
decision rejecting claim 17.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 12-16 are
AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 4, 8-10, 17, and 18 are
REVERSED.
10
Appeal2013-002173
Application 12/096, 819
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
11