Ex Parte Woolley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

12991288 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/991,288 11/05/2010 Lance D. Woolley
54549 7590 08/02/2016
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.
PA7004US:67097-1505US1 7721
EXAMINER
TADESSE, MARTHA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2016 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 LANCED. WOOLLEY and PETERS. MATTESON
Appeal2014-006949
Application 12/991,288 1
Technology Center 3700
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-10. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
STATEMENT OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appellants, "[t]he real party in interest is the assignee of
the entire right in this application, United Technologies Corporation."
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2014-006949
Application 12/991,288
fNVENTION
"This invention relates generally to refrigerant expansion systems and,
more particularly, to a method and apparatus for preventing bearing failures
caused by high oil levels in the turbine sump." Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1 and 7 are
the only independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below with
added bracketed matter, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method of preventing the lubricant level in a
turbine/compressor sump of a vapor expansion/compressor
system from reaching a high level sufficient to cause a
mechanical failure in the turbine/compressor rotating equipment
including bearings, comprising the steps of:
[a] providing a pumped path out of the sump so that
the lubricant can be removed from the oil sump at a pre-
determined threshold level[;]
[b] providing a passive or active response that causes
oil removal through this path when the lubricant level reaches
the pre-determined level in the sump[;]
[ c] determining when the level of lubricant in the
sump reaches a predetermined threshold level which is above a
minimum required level and below the high level;
[ d] responsively causing lubricant to be pumped out of
the sump so that the lubricant level does not substantially
exceed said predetermined threshold level; and
[ e] said lubricant is pumped out of the sump and into a
condenser.
REJECTIONS
The Appellants request our review of the following Examiner's
rejections:
I. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Waller (US 5,911,289, iss. June 15, 1999) and
Hanna (US 2004/0144093 Al, pub. July 29, 2004);
2
Appeal2014-006949
Application 12/991,288
II. Claims 3, 4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Waller, Hanna, and Taniguchi
(US 7,117,691 B2, iss. Oct. 10, 2006); and
III. Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Waller, Hanna, and Cogswell (US 2010/0186410
Al, pub. July 29, 2010).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3-6
Appellants contend that there is no reason to modify Waller with
Hanna, and even if so modified, working fluid would be returned to the
condenser, and not the lubricant overflow. Appeal Br. 3; Reply Br. 1.
Appellants' contention is persuasive.
The Examiner finds that Waller's oil level control apparatus performs
steps [a]-[ d] of claim 1. See Final Action 2-3. The Examiner acknowledges
that "Waller fails to explicitly disclose the lubricant is pumped out of the
sump and into a condenser," as required by step [ e] of claim 1, and instead
finds that Hanna teaches step [ e] at Figure 2A and paragraph 45. See id.
at 3. The Examiner provides the following rationale to explain how the
combined teachings of Waller and Hanna result in the subject matter of
independent claim 1 :
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art
at the time of invention was made to modify the method of
Waller by the step of pumping lubricant out of the sump and
into a condenser so as the liquid level position of the working
medium within the condenser can be controlled to lie at a
desired position as taught by Hanna[] in order to improve[]
lubrication management and pressurize the lubricating fluid.
3
Appeal2014-006949
Application 12/991,288
Final Act. 3. Additionally, in response to Appellants' contention, the
Examiner asserts:
Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by
improving a product or process is universal; in this case, to
return lubricant oil to the condenser resulting from overflow in
order to increase the reliability of the compressor system as
well as the lifespan of the compressor. If one wanted to utilize
the teaching of Hanna[] to provide return lubricant oil to the
condenser resulting from overflow of Waller, one would do so
by providing the pump (103Q) within the compressor (103) of
Hanna for the purpose of keeping the predetermined fluid level
in the sump. Therefore, appellant argument is not persuasive.
Answer 3.
The Examiner's rationale depends on Hanna teaching that "lubricant
is pumped out of a sump and into a condenser" and that teaching relies on
the functionality of Hanna's oil transfer pump 103Q in relation to
expander 101. See supra. As shown in Figure 2A, Hanna's oil transfer
pump 103Q is configured to deliver lubricant from lubricant sump 103J to
expander 101. "The lubricant pump 103Q is intended to recirculate the
lubricant/working fluid mixture back to the expander sump 101 A so that the
working fluid has the opportunity to separate-out and allow nearly pure
lubricant to return through line 1 lOB." Hanna i-f 47. Although Hanna
discloses that the lubricant and working fluid are not entirely separated,
allowing some lubricant to be carried over to the condenser via the expander
discharge line, the lubricant in Hanna is pumped out of the sump and into the
expander instead of the condenser. Id. In other words, the purpose of
pumping oil from the sump into the expander is to separate the mixture so
that virtually pure lubricant is returned back to pump 103 via return
4
Appeal2014-006949
Application 12/991,288
line 1 IOB. Id. Thus, although some lubricant may be "carried over" to the
condenser, Hanna fails to disclose or suggest that lubricant is "pumped out
of the sump and into a condenser" as claimed, or that Hanna's pumping is
for the purpose of controlling the level of working fluid in the condenser as
the Examiner asserts. Thus, the Examiner's reason for the combination
relies on an erroneous finding and improper rationale.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Waller and Hanna. We also do
not sustain the rejection of claims 3---6 dependent thereon, because the
Examiner's use of Taniguchi and Cogswell fail to remedy the deficiency of
Hanna as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Independent claim 7 and dependent claims 8-10
Although the system of independent claim 7 is of different scope, and
arguments relevant to claim 1 are not commensurate with the scope of claim
7, the Examiner's rationale for the combination of Waller, Hanna, and
Taniguchi is deficient for the reasons stated above. See Final Action 3; see
also Answer 2-3. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 7, and claims 8-10, which depend therefrom, for similar
reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-10.
REVERSED
5