HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 20, 2020

2020000095 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2020)

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.
14/108,225 12/16/2013 James W. Reyenga H0030384 8849
93153 7590 07/20/2020
Garrett/Griecci
Patent Services
2525 West 190th Street
Legal Department
Torrance, CA 90504
EXAMINER
PETERS, BRIAN O
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/20/2020 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):
pto@griecci.com
sherry.vallabh@garrettmotion.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JAMES W. REYENGA, GLENN F. THOMPSON, and
MIKE GUIDRY
____________

Appeal 2020-000095
Application 14/108,225
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.

CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1–4, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated
by Malone (US 8,701,477 B2, iss. Apr. 22, 2014), and of claims 5, 6, 9,
and 10 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Malone and Wunderwald
(US 6,238,179 B1, iss. May 29, 2001). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Honeywell International Inc. as the
applicant and Garrett Transportation I Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000095
Application 14/108,225
2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to turbochargers. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 4.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A rotary machine, comprising:
a housing; and
a rotor configured to rotate within the housing along an axis
of rotor rotation, the rotor including a rotational pressure-
changing wheel configured with a hub and with a plurality of
blades, the plurality of blades being configured to exchange the
pressure of gas passing through the blades and rotor kinetic
rotational energy, and the hub includes a blade surface that
carries and supports the blades, and a back-disk on an axially
opposite side of the hub from the blade surface;
wherein the housing forms a chamber wall facing the back-
disk, the chamber wall and back-disk defining a back-disk
chamber, the chamber wall separating the back-disk chamber
from an interior of a bearing housing;
wherein the chamber wall forms an orifice that opens the
back-disk chamber to the interior of the bearing housing, the
orifice not being impeded by moving parts, the orifice being
off-center; and
wherein the back-disk chamber forms an annular
passageway between the gas passing between the blades, and
the orifice, the annular passageway being free of other sources
of pressurized gas.
OPINION
Anticipation of Claims 1–4, 7, and 8
by Malone
Appellant argues claims 1–4, 7, and 8 as a group. Appeal Br. 6.
Claim 1 is representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Malone discloses each limitation of claim 1
and, therefore, anticipates the claim. Final Act. 3–4. For a prior art
reference to anticipate a claim, it must disclose all of the limitations of the
Appeal 2020-000095
Application 14/108,225
3
claim, arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim. Net MoneyIN,
Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
In traverse of the rejection, Appellant argues that Malone’s orifice 236
fails to open a back-disk chamber to the interior of a bearing housing as
claimed. Appeal Br. 6.
In response, the Examiner finds that the back of Malone’s impeller
faces a radial wall that includes orifice 236. Ans. 3–4. The Examiner
supports this position with an annotated version of Figure 2 of Malone
specifically identifying certain features as a chamber wall, the interior of a
bearing housing, and a horizontal extension of the chamber wall. Id. at 5.
The Examiner finds that Malone’s bearings 208 are configured such that
orifice 236 opens the back-disk chamber to the interior of element 234,
which the Examiner finds satisfies the bearing housing limitation of claim 1.
Id.
In reply, Appellant argues that seal cavity 234 extends between
labyrinth seal 216 to labyrinth seal 218. Reply Br. 4. As we understand
Appellant’s argument, Malone’s “bearing housing” is limited to structure
that defines oil cavity 212. Id. at 5. In that regard, oil cavity 212 is
allegedly isolated from seal cavity 234 by the two labyrinth seals. Id.
Appellant contends that persons skilled in the turbocharger art distinguish
between turbine housings, compressor housing, and bearing housings. Id.
at 4.
The dispute between Appellant and the Examiner is largely a matter
of claim construction as to whether Malone’s seal cavity 234 is defined by
structure that may properly be characterized as a “bearing housing.” The
Examiner applies a relatively broad construction for the term “bearing
Appeal 2020-000095
Application 14/108,225
4
housing,” whereas Appellant provides a relatively narrow construction.
During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given their
broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the
broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms are given their
ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech.,
Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Construing claims broadly
during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has
the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage.
Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1364.
Claim 1 includes the term “housing” and the term “bearing housing.”
Claims App. Appellant’s Specification identifies element 101 as the
“housing” of the rotary machine. Spec. ¶ 22. The Specification represents
that rotary machines typically include a rotary-device-housing that is formed
by “one or more” sub-housings. Id. ¶ 2. The back surface of the rotor
blades face a wall of a “bearing housing.” Id. ¶ 7. The “bearing housing” is
a sub-housing of the rotary-device “housing.” Id. Rotors are supported
within “the housing” by a set of bearings that include both radial-support
bearings and axial-support bearings. Id. ¶ 2. During operation, gas may
seep from the intended gas pathway into the bearing housing, causing
undesirable axial loads on the rotor. Id. ¶ 8. Gas may be vented from within
the bearing housing. Id. ¶ 10. “Housing” 101 includes chamber wall 125
which defines a portion of the boundary for chamber 127. Id. ¶ 24. The
Specification further teaches that “the housing” is adapted such that chamber
wall 125 will flex during off-axis motion of the rotor. Id. ¶ 29.
Appeal 2020-000095
Application 14/108,225
5
Appellant’s disclosure consists of the Specification and a single
drawing. Spec., Fig. 1. The “housing” is identified in Figure 1 as
element 101. Spec. ¶ 22, Fig. 1. There is no turbine housing, compressor
housing, or bearing housing identified, as such, in Figure 1. Id. Assuming,
arguendo, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would ordinarily
differentiate between a turbine housing, a compressor housing, and/or a
turbine housing as separate sub-housings within the overall device housing,
Appellant’s Specification and Figure 1 provide no guidance as to where one
such sub-housing ends and another such sub-housing begins. See generally
Spec., Fig. 1. Furthermore, it is not entirely clear whether the space within
such sub-housings may be considered to overlap and share common space
within the main device housing. Significantly, Appellant provides no
meaningful guidance by way of explanation in the Appeal Brief and/or the
Reply Brief by which we can discern where, for example, the compressor
housing ends and the bearing housing begins in Appellant’s disclosure.
The Summary of Claimed Subject Matter section of the Appeal Brief
states:
Fundamental to this structure is that the bearing housing
houses the bearings, and that the chamber wall forms an orifice
that opens the back-disk chamber to the interior of the bearing
housing (emphasis added).
Appeal Br. 5. Our rules require that, in the Summary of Claimed Subject
Matter section of the Appeal Brief and for each rejected independent claim,
Appellant shall provide a concise explanation that shall refer to the
Specification in the record by either page and line number or by paragraph
number, and to the drawing by reference characters. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(iii). In the foregoing quote from page 5 of the Appeal Brief,
Appeal 2020-000095
Application 14/108,225
6
Appellant emphasizes the phrase “interior of the bearing housing” by
underline and refers to such as “fundamental.” However, conspicuously
absent from such passage in Appellant’s brief is any citation to either the
Specification or the drawing. In the absence of an operational definition or
other guidance in Appellant’s Specification limiting the scope of the term, a
reasonably broad construction of “bearing housing” is warranted.
It is within the foregoing context of Appellant’s vague and indistinct
disclosure of its own “bearing housing,” that Appellant deigns to
differentiate between Malone’s seal cavity 234 and oil cavity 212. Figure 2
of Malone is an axial cross-sectional view. Malone, Fig. 2. At least a
portion of seal cavity 234 is bounded by the back side of compressor 204.
Id. col. 4, l. 1 – col. 5, l. 10, Fig 2. Seal cavity 234 is an air passage within
the case of turbocharger 200. Id. col. 5, ll. 10–11. Seal cavity 234 features
orifice 236 that generates a choked airflow that may generate a pressure
difference between portions of seal cavity 234. Id. col. 5, ll. 11–28.
Figure 2 may be reasonably interpreted as depicting that at least portions of
bearings 208 are exposed to the interior of seal cavity 234. Id. Fig 2.
Furthermore, Figure 2 may be reasonably interpreted as depicting that at
least portions of bearings 208 are disposed outside of oil cavity 212. Id. In
view of the record before us, we cannot agree with Appellant that the
Examiner errs in finding that the structure defining Malone’s seal cavity 234
satisfies the limitation in claim 1 directed to the interior of a bearing
housing.
We determine that the Examiner’s findings of fact are supported by a
preponderance and sustain the Examiner’s Section 102 anticipation rejection
of claims 1–4, 7, and 8.
Appeal 2020-000095
Application 14/108,225
7
Unpatentability of Claims 5, 6, 9, and 10
Malone and Wunderwald
These claims depend indirectly from claim 1. Claims App. Appellant
does not argue for the separate patentability of these claims apart from
arguments presented with respect to claim 1 which we have previously
considered. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, 9, and 10.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (failure to separately argue claims
constitutes a waiver of arguments for separate patentability).
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
§ Reference(s) Aff’d Rev’d
1-4, 7, 8 102 Malone 1-4, 7, 8
5, 6, 9, 10 103 Malone, Wunderwald 5, 6, 9, 10
Overall
Outcome
1-10

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED