Ex Parte Teicholz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 4, 2018

13669510 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/669,510 11/06/2012 Matthew D. Teicholz
54549 7590 10/09/2018
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.
62471US02;
67097-2113PUS1
6723
EXAMINER
BEEBE, JOSHUA R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/09/2018 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 MATTHEW D. TEICHOLZ, PAUL H. SPIESMAN,
KERRI A. WOJCIK, JOHN R. GENDRON, GLENN D. BARTKOWSKI,
SEAN DJ BLAKE, and WILLIAM G. TEMPELMAN
Appeal2017-004520
Application 13/669,510 1
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated February 26, 2016
("Final Act."), and as further explained in the Advisory Action dated April
6, 2016, rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 7-15, and 17-22. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, United Technologies Corporation, which,
according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-004520
Application 13/669,510
BACKGROUND
The disclosed subject matter relates to variable vane scheduling in a
turbomachine, such as a gas turbine engine. Spec. ,r 2, Title. Claims 1, 10,
and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A variable vane scheduling method,
compnsmg:
adjusting variable vanes from a pos1t10n
based on a first schedule to a position based on a
different, second schedule in response to a control
feature that includes at least an amount of bleed air,
wherein the variable vanes control flow
through a compressor of a turbomachine, and the
first and the second schedules determine the
position based on a variable that includes at least a
rotational speed of a rotor of the compressor and a
temperature of the compressor.
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Myers (US 2010/0251727 Al, published Oct.
7, 2010), Price (US 2010/0281875 Al, published Nov. 11, 2010), and
Wickert (US 2003/0011199 Al, published Jan. 16, 2003).
2. Claims 17, 19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Myers, Price, Wickert, and McArthur (US 5,117,625,
issued June 2, 1992).
3. Claims 18, 20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Myers, Price, Wickert, McArthur, and Rowe (US
2012/0317955 Al, published Dec. 20, 2012).
2
Appeal2017-004520
Application 13/669,510
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
A. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-9
Independent claim 1 recites, among other aspects, the step of
"adjusting variable vanes from a position based on a first schedule to a
position based on a different, second schedule in response to a control
feature that includes at least an amount of bleed air." Appeal Br. 11 (Claims
App.). For claim 1, the Examiner relied on Myers as disclosing "[a]djusting
variable vanes[ ](36, IGV) from a position based upon a first schedule."2
Final Act. 3 (citing Myers ,r,r 4, 24). The Examiner relied on Wickert as
teaching that "[i]t is advantageous to prioritize schedules of vanes (Sl-S4,
IGV) from a position based upon a first schedule[ ](nominal schedule) to a
position based on a different, second schedule[ ](under-frequency) in
response to control features," thereby leading "to more desirable specific
engine operation and the ability to operate the engine more safely or more
focused on particular operating conditions." Id. (citing Wickert ,r,r 13, 15-
19, 23, 24, 26-28). The Examiner also found that Wickert teaches:
that such operating conditions can be advantageous for
maintaining turbine engine operation during various engine
power frequency changes, and that such power demand changes
in an engine, and the transition of the engine operation to new
operating conditions, can result in surge or stall problems, which
can be avoided or the chance of reduced by implementing
prioritized vane schedules that monitor engine operation and
conditions.
Id. ( citing Wickert ,r,r 3---6).
2 "IGV" stands for "inlet guide vanes." See, e.g., Myers ,r 4.
3
Appeal2017-004520
Application 13/669,510
The Examiner found that Price teaches that "[i]t is well-known that
bleed valves and variable inlet vanes can individually modulate or control
engine operation, and that surge margin, or operational conditions with
transient and steady state schedules." Id. at 4 (citing Price ,r,r 30-33).
According to the Examiner,
[i]t would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill[]
in the art at the time the invention was made[] to modify the
system of Myers, to utilize multiple scheduling with conditional
control as taught by Wickert and setting IGV to respond to
rotational speed and temperature of the compressor as taught by
Wickert, wherein that conditional control between schedules is
bleed flow to control IGV scheduling as taught by Price, for the
purpose of reducing the danger of stall and surge behavior
during transient engine operational stages which are known to
arise with turbine engines and are disclosed by both Wickert and
Price.
Id. ( emphasis added). 3
Appellant states that "[t]he reasoning provided in the rejection
essentially takes the position that the skilled person would control IGV
positions based on bleed valve operative states to reduce stall and surge" and
argues that "[t]his reasoning is misplaced." Appeal Br. 4. According to
Appellant, "[ t ]here is no teaching in any of the cited art that surge and stall
would be reduced if IGV position were controlled based on bleed valve
operative states." Id. Rather, "the art shows only that IGV position can
reduce stall and surge if the IGV position is based on a corrected engine
speed." Id.
Rejections based on obviousness must be supported by "some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
3 We will refer to this as the "Examiner's Reasoning Statement."
4
Appeal2017-004520
Application 13/669,510
conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006),
cited with approval in KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418
(2007). We understand the Examiner's Reasoning Statement to indicate that
(at least as of issuance of the Final Office Action) the Examiner took the
position that Wickert and Price provide express motivation to perform the
proposed modification. Specifically, the portion of the Reasoning Statement
shown with emphasis above identifies alleged disclosures from Price and
Wickert as the basis for the proposed modification. For the reasons below,
we agree with Appellant that the passages identified by the Examiner do not
provide sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness as to claim 1. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.
As to Price, we agree with Appellant that paragraphs 30-33 "relate[]
to scheduling vanes and bleed on a compressor operating at a fixed speed to
preserve compressor surge margin," but we also agree that, in those
paragraphs, Price discloses that "the vanes scheduling and bleed on a
compressor are adjusted independently to preserve compressor surge
margin." Appeal Br. 4--5 (emphasis added); see Price ,r 33 ("Taken together,
logic 120 [in Figure 2] provides a method for scheduling vanes and bleed on
a compressor operating at a fixed speed to preserve compressor surge margin
during rapid transients, while allowing an independent scheduling
methodology to maximize power, efficiency and life during steady state
operation" ( emphasis added)). In other words, we agree with Appellant that,
in Price, "[ t ]he vane schedule does not depend on an amount of bleed air" as
in the limitation at issue in claim 1. Appeal Br. 5; see also id. at 4 ("That
Price can schedule vanes and separately bleed on a compressor does not
mean that Price discloses controlling IGV position based on a bleed
5
Appeal2017-004520
Application 13/669,510
operative state."). Thus, these paragraphs of Price do not provide support
for the Examiner's proposed modification, in which the prior art is modified
such that the amount of bleed air is used to adjust between at least two vane
schedules "for the purpose of reducing the danger of stall and surge
behavior." Final Act. 4 (also stating that "conditional control between
schedules is bleed flow to control IGV scheduling as taught by Price"
( emphasis added)).
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner also found that paragraph 18
of Price "discloses controlling IGV' s in part with or based with/upon bleed
valve operative states." Final Act. 4. Although paragraph 18 discloses the
presence of bleed valves 62, 64, 66, and 68 as well as the presence of
variable inlet guide vanes 72 and 74, the Examiner has not adequately
explained how that paragraph describes using the amount of bleed air to
adjust between at least two vane schedules. Id. Instead, the bleed valves are
disclosed as being used "to divert air from path P upstream of combustors
52." Price ,r 18 (discussing Fig. 1). Thus, paragraph 18 also does not
provide support for the Examiner's Reasoning Statement.
We now tum to Wickert. Although Wickert does describe
( 1) adjusting between at least two vane schedules based on certain "control
features" (Final Act. 3) and (2) that the adjustment between different vane
schedules may "provide optimum compressor efficiency without violating
minimum safe compressor surge margin criteria" (Wickert ,r 6), like Price,
Wickert also does not provide support for the Examiner's Reasoning
Statement. As argued by Appellant, "[ t ]hat Wickert can allegedly adjust
IGVs based on a corrected engine speed to control surge and stall does not
mean that adjusting IGV s based on a bleed valve operative state (instead of
6
Appeal2017-004520
Application 13/669,510
an engine corrected speed) would also control surge and stall." Appeal Br.
5.
We tum now to another statement in the Final Office Action regarding
U.S. Patent No. 5,117,625 to McArthur. 4 See Final Act. 4. Citing column 3,
lines 2 to 21 of McArthur, the Examiner stated that "[i]t is well-known to
utilize bleed flow directly to control IGV position control/scheduling." Id.
The Examiner does not otherwise mention McArthur in the rejection of
claim 1. See id. at 2--4. In the Answer, the Examiner quotes a portion of the
previously cited passage of McArthur, which provides:
Means are provided which are responsive to the bleed air signal
for operating the controllable bleed air flow path to provide the
commanded varying bleed air flows. Finally, there is provided a
means which is responsive to the bleed air flow sensor for
causing the moving means to move the inlet guide vane between
the positions thereof to prevent surge in response to decrease in
bleed air flow.
McArthur, col. 3, 11. 8-15. In the Answer, the Examiner states that, in the
Final Office Action, McArthur:
was cited to EXPLICITY show that the surge controls taught by
Price with regard to IGV and bleed valve states as being coupled
during transition states to prevent surge, were known to those of
ordinary skill in the art to easily be designed such that the IGV
could be controlled in response to the bleed valve. While
App[ellant] has articulated a belief that such would be beyond
the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, Examiner cannot find
such an allegation persuasive in light of a clear description by
McArthur, cited in the prior rejection, that such surge control by
controlling the position of IGV in response to bleed flow
conditions is in fact known in the art.
4 McArthur is relied upon in the context of Rejections 2 and 3. See
Final Act. 9-16.
7
Appeal2017-004520
Application 13/669,510
Ans. 3.
As an initial matter, we note that the Examiner's Reasoning Statement
expressly cites to Wickert and Price, but does not mention McArthur. See
Final Act. 4; cf Ans. 3 (relying on "the prior citation of McArthur [as]
showing [that the rejection] is clearly reasoned"); see also Reply Br. 1
("Notably, the rejection does not modify Myers to include any feature of
McArthur. Modifying Myers to include features of McArthur is a new
rejection and should be designated as such."); In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341,
1342 n.3 (CCPA 1970) ("Where a reference is relied on to support a
rejection, whether or not in a 'minor capacity,' there would appear to be no
excuse for not positively including the reference in the statement of the
rejection.").
Moreover, we do not view the cited passage from McArthur as
providing adequate support for the Examiner's Reasoning Statement.
Although the cited passage does describe using the amount of bleed air to
adjust inlet guide vane position "to prevent surge" (McArthur, col. 3, 11. 11-
15), the Examiner has not adequately explained why one of skill in the art
would also view this passage as teaching the use of the amount of bleed air
to adjust between at least two vane position schedules (as required by the
limitation at issue) to prevent surge. Cf Ans. 3 (stating that column 3, lines
2 to 21 of McArthur discloses "that it is well-known to utilize bleed flow to
directly control IGV position control and scheduling" ( emphasis added)).
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or the
rejection of claims 3-5 and 7-9, which depend from claim 1.
8
Appeal2017-004520
Application 13/669,510
B. Claims 10-15
For independent claim 10 ( and claims 11-14, which depend from
claim 10) and independent claim 15, the Examiner relies on the same
deficient findings and conclusions (including the same Reasoning
Statement) as discussed above regarding claim 1. Compare Final Act. 5-9
( claims 10 and 15), with id. at 2--4 ( claim 1 ). Thus, for the same reasons
discussed above, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 10-15.
Re} ections 2 and 3
Claims 17 and 18 depend from claim 1, claims 19 and 20 depend from
claim 10, and claims 21 and 22 depend from claim 15. Appeal Br. 13
(Claims App.). The Examiner's added reliance on McArthur (regarding
Rejection 2) and Rowe (regarding Rejection 3) does not remedy the
deficiencies in the rejection discussed above, regarding claim 1 (see supra
Rejection 1 § A). Thus, for the same reasons discussed above, we do not
sustain the rejections of claims 17-22.
DECISION
We reverse the decision to reject claims 1, 3-5, 7-15, and 17-22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
9