Ex Parte SUCIU et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 7, 2018

13705462 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
131705,462 12/05/2012 Gabriel L. SUCIU
54549 7590 06/11/2018
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.
59678US01;67097-2026PUS1 3492
EXAMINER
GOYAL,ARUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/11/2018 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
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GABRIEL L. SUCIU and CHRISTOPHER M. DYE 1
Appeal2017-005679
Application 13/705,462
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges.
OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-7 and 9-18, which are all of the pending claims.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 United Technologies Corporation ("Appellant") is the applicant as
provided in 37 C.F.R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-005679
Application 13/705,462
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal.
l, A gas turbine engine~ comprising:
a propulsion assembly including at least a high pressure
turbine and a low pressure turbine, the turbines being situated to
rotate about an engine central axis, operation of the propulsion
assemb 1y requiring a first amount of a fluid during a first
operating condition and a second, greater amount of the fluid
during a second operating condition;
a low speed spool configured to rotate about the engine
central axis with the low pressure turbine;
a first pump that is operatively associated with the low
speed spool such that operation of the first pump is dependent on
rotation of the low speed spooL the first pump having a first fluid
delivering capacity configured to correspond to at least the first
amount and
a second pump having a second fiuid delivering capacity
con figured to correspond to at 1east a difference between the first
amount and the second arnount) wherein the second fluid
delivering capacity is lower than the first fluid delivering
capacity;
the first pump providing the fluid for propulsion assembly
operation during the first and second operating conditions and
the second pump providing the t1uid for propulsion assembly
operation only during the second operating condition.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Gaubatz
DiBenedetto
Poisson
us 2,761,387
US 2010/0296947 Al
US 2010/0293919 Al
2
Sept. 4, 1956
Nov. 25, 2010
Nov. 25, 2010
Appeal2017-005679
Application 13/705,462
THE REJECTIONS 2
I. Claims 1-5, 9-15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over DiBenedetto and Gaubatz. Final Act. 4--8.
II. Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over DiBenedetto, Gaubatz, and Poisson. 3 Id. at 8-9.
OPINION
Rejection I
Appellant argues claims 1-5, 9-15, and 18 as a group. Appeal Br. 3-
6. We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2-5, 9-15, and
18 stand or fall therewith. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that DiBenedetto teaches many of the limitations
of independent claim 1, but acknowledges that it fails to teach (i) the gas
turbine engine requiring different amounts of fluid during first and second
operating conditions; (ii) a second pump having a second fluid delivering
capacity lower than the fluid delivering capacity of the first pump and
corresponding to at least the difference between the amount of fluid required
during the first and second operating conditions; and (iii) the first pump
providing fluid during the first and second operating conditions and the
second pump providing fluid only during the second operating condition.
Final Act. 4--5.
2 The Examiner's rejection of claims 1----7 and ~}---18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to pmiicularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the
invention (Final Act. 2----3) has been withdrawn. Adv. Act 2 (June 22, 2016).
3 We consider the Examiner's references to "Martin" instead of "Poisson"
(Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 3) to be a typographical error in light of the indication
that the rejection in the Final Action is being maintained (Adv. Act. 2; Ans.
2).
3
Appeal2017-005679
Application 13/705,462
The Examiner finds that Gaubatz teaches (i) a gas turbine requiring
different amounts of fluid during first and second operating conditions (id. at
5 (citing Gaubatz 8:1-7)); (ii) second pump 28 having a second fluid
delivering capacity lower than the fluid delivering capacity of first pump 20
(id. (citing Gaubatz 2:46-52)) and corresponding to at least the difference
between the amount of fluid required during first and second operating
conditions (id. (citing Gaubatz 8:1-7)); and (iii) first pump 20 providing
fluid during first and second operating conditions (i.e., both when first pump
20 is adequate and when first pump 20 is inadequate) and second pump 28
providing fluid only during the second operating condition (i.e., only when
first pump 20 is inadequate) (id. (citing Gaubatz 7:71-73, 8:1-7)). The
Examiner takes the position that because Gaubatz's second pump 28 "is
running idle [during the first operating condition when first pump 20 is
adequate,] it works only as pass through and the fuel is not provided by the
second[] pump 28." Ans. 2. The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use the known two-pump technique
of Gaubatz to improve the similar single pump gas turbine of DiBenedetto.
Final Act. 6.
Appellant argues that "even when the secondary pump 28 is running
idle, 90% of the fluid exiting the first pump 20 passes through the pump 28,
and the pump 28 therefore still provides fluid for operation." Appeal Br. 5.
Appellant further argues that that "if a pump receives fluid at its inlet and
discharges that fluid at its outlet[,] it is providing the fluid regardless of
whether it is idle." Reply Br. 1.
Claim terminology is construed during examination by giving claims
"their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification"
4
Appeal2017-005679
Application 13/705,462
and "claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would
be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci.
Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal quotation and
citations omitted). Here, turning to the express language recited in claim 1,
claim 1 requires that the "second pump" is "providing" the fluid.
Appellant's Specification equates a pump providing fluid for propulsion
assembly operation with the driving or active control of the pump. See, e.g.,
Spec.i-f 13 ("The method includes ... driving a first pump using rotation of a
low speed spool ... for providing the fluid for propulsion assembly
operation during the first and second operating conditions. The method
includes driving a second pump only during the second operating condition
for providing the fluid for propulsion assembly operation with the first
pump." (emphasis added)); id. f 15 ("controlling the second pump to
provide a corresponding amount of the fluid to the propulsion assembly"
(emphasis added)); id. f 44 ("A controller 134 controls operation of the
electric motor 132 and a valve 136 for selectively controlling the amount of
fuel provided to the manifold 122 at any given time." (emphasis added)).
In light of the Specification, we understand a pump "providing" fluid
to be a pump that is being driven or controlled specifically to supply fluid
for use, not merely an idle pump that acts as a pass through by receiving
fluid at an inlet and discharging fluid at an outlet. Consequently, we are not
persuaded that second pump 28 is providing fluid for operation during the
first operating condition identified by the Examiner (e.g., so-called "normal
operation") merely because during this "normal operation," 90% of the
output of first pump 20 passes through idle second pump 28. The argument
that Gaubatz fails to teach a second pump that provides fluid only during the
5
Appeal2017-005679
Application 13/705,462
second operating condition because the second pump acts as a pass through
during the first operating condition (Appeal Br. 5) is Appellant's sole
argument against the Examiner's rejection, and we find it unconvincing for
the reasons discussed above.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find that the Examiner erred in
determining that the subject matter of independent claim 1 is rendered
obvious by DiBenedetto and Gaubatz. We sustain the rejection of claim 1,
and claims 2-5, 9-15, and 18 falling therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over DiBenedetto and Gaubatz.
Rejection II
Appellant argues claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 as a group. Appeal Br. 6.
We select claim 6 as the representative claim, and claims 7, 16, and 17 stand
or fall therewith. 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv).
Claim 6 recites that the second pump is driven by a power element
distinct from the low speed spool (e.g., by an electric motor). Appeal Br. 9
(Claims App.). The Examiner acknowledges that DiBenedetto and Gaubatz
fail to teach this limitation and turns to Poisson, finding it teaches a gas
turbine engine comprising first and second pumps 18, 20 in which the
second pump is driven by an electric motor distinct from shaft power. Final
Act. 8-9 (citing Poisson i-fi-f 10, 13, Fig. 1). The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the gas
turbine of DiBenedetto/Gaubatz so as to apply the known technique of
driving a first pump with shaft power and a second pump with an electric
motor as taught by Poisson in order to yield the predictable result of
improving fuel delivery for slow shaft speeds such that the mechanical fuel
pump can be reduced in size. Id. at 9; see Poisson i13.
6
Appeal2017-005679
Application 13/705,462
Appellant argues that Gaubatz's common drive arrangement in which
pumps 20, 28 are driven by common shaft 29 "is integral to Gaubatz's
design, as both pumps are designed to provide fluid at the same time."
Appeal Br. 6 (citing Gaubatz 2:37--46). Appellant continues that "[t]he
Examiner's proposed modifications would change the principle of operation
of Gaubatz, because the second pump 28 would be driven by something
other than the common shaft 29." Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument in that it appears to
rely on an unduly narrow definition of the principle of operation of Gaubatz.
The "principle of operation" referred to by Appellant relates to the "basic
principles" under which the prior art device was designed to operate. In re
Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959). Under Ratti, "a change in the basic
principles" refers to change that is fundamental in scope so as to relate to
scientific or technical principles under which the invention is designed to
operate. Id. ("This suggested combination of references would require a
substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in [the
primary reference] as well as a change in the basic principles under which
the [primary reference] construction was designed to operate." (emphasis
added)). We do not find that a "change in basic principles" occurs by the
Examiner's proposed modification. That is, whether the secondary pump is
driven by a common shaft or by an electric motor does not affect the overall
principle of operation which is directed more broadly toward providing
suitable pump combinations for supplying fuel to a gas turbine engine in
order to ensure adequate supply of fuel at various points of operation, even
in the event of pump failure. See Gaubatz 1: 15-39. We also agree with the
Examiner that "[ e ]ven if the primary pump is driven by the shaft and the
7
Appeal2017-005679
Application 13/705,462
secondary pump is electric-motor driven, there is no teaching ... which
states that both pumps cannot be operated at the same time," as desired.
Ans. 3.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find that the Examiner erred in
determining that the subject matter of dependent claim 6 is rendered obvious
by DiBenedetto, Gaubatz, and Poisson. We sustain the rejection of claim 6,
and claims 7, 16, and 17 falling therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over DiBenedetto, Gaubatz, and Poisson.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5, 9-15, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over DiBenedetto and Gaubatz is
affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over DiBenedetto, Gaubatz, and Poisson
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8