2020001047 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2021)

United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 29, 2021

2020001047 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2021)

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. 15/069,197 03/14/2016 Hung Duong 92611US01; 67097-3333PUS1 2072 54549 7590 01/29/2021 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER BEEBE, JOSHUA R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/29/2021 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 HUNG DUONG, GABRIEL L. SUCIU, and NATHAN SNAPE Appeal 2020-001047 Application 15/069,197 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 8–15, 17, and 18. 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 the real party in interest as United Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-001047 Application 15/069,197 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a gas turbine engine. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A gas turbine engine comprising: a main compressor section having a high pressure compressor with a downstream discharge, and upstream locations; a turbine section having a high pressure turbine; a tap tapping air from at least one of the more upstream locations in the main compressor section, the tap passing the tapped air through a heat exchanger and then to a cooling compressor compressing air downstream of the heat exchanger, the cooling compressor delivering compressed air downstream of the tap; and an accessory gear box driving the cooling compressor, wherein the cooling compressor includes an impeller and gear mounted to a common shaft with the gear mounted within the accessory gearbox. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Hiscock US 2,978,869 Apr. 11, 1961 Elovic US 4,254,618 Mar. 10, 1981 Welch US 4,372,517 Feb. 8, 1983 Glickstein US 5,452,573 Sept. 26, 1995 Bruno US 2007/0213917 A1 Sept. 13, 2007 Glahn US 2011/0247344 A1 Oct. 13, 2011 Berryann US 2013/0000317 A1 Jan. 3, 2013 Schwarz US 2014/0260326 A1 Sept. 18, 2014 Foutch US 2015/0275769 A1 Oct. 1, 2015 Appeal 2020-001047 Application 15/069,197 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1–5, 8, 10–15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Elovic, Glickstein, Bruno, and Hiscock. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Elovic, Glickstein, Bruno, Hiscock, and Welch. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Elovic, Glickstein, Bruno, Hiscock, and an engineering expedient. OPINION Related Appeals Our rules require Appellant to identify[] . . . all other prior and pending appeals . . . before the Board . . . which . . . involve an application or patent owned by the appellant or assignee, are known to appellant, the appellant’s legal representative, or assignee, and may be related to, directly affect or be directly affected by or have a bearing on the Board’s decision in the pending appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(ii). Appellant fails to meet its duty in the instant appeal. To the contrary, Appellant affirmatively states that it “is unaware of other appeals or interferences which may be related to, directly affect or be directly affected by or have a bearing on the Board’s decision in the pending appeal.” Appeal Br. 1. The application at issue in this appeal is a continuation-in-part of application number 14/695,578 (“the related application”). The related application was addressed in our decision in Appeal Number 2018-005114 (“the related decision”) where we affirmed the Examiner’s rejections. Ex parte Suciu, Appeal No. 2018-005114 (PTAB May 7, 2019). The related Appeal 2020-001047 Application 15/069,197 4 application and the instant application have the same assignee and legal representative. As explained in more detail below, the related decision directly affects the Board’s decision in the instant appeal because that decision forecloses essentially all of Appellant’s arguments in the instant appeal. Appellant is reminded of its duty under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(ii). Appellant’s Arguments “[A] Board decision in an application is the ‘law of the case,’ and is thus controlling in that application and any subsequent, related application.” MPEP § 706.07(h)(XI). Appellant’s arguments rehash issues that were already addressed in the Examiner’s rejection from the related application, which we affirmed in the related appeal. The related decision is the law of the case for overlapping issues and, therefore, is binding in this case and later related applications at least with respect to those issues. The findings and rationale at issue in the instant appeal were involved in the Examiner’s rejection in the related appeal, which, as noted above, we affirmed in the related decision. See Appeal Br. 3–5. Accordingly, those contentions do not apprise us of reversible error. The only issues not resolved by the related appeal are Appellant’s allegations that “[t]he further addition of Hiscock does not correct the above problems” and “Hiscock does not disclose the recited feature of a common shaft.” Appeal Br. 5. This is not persuasive. The “problems” noted by Appellant are related to the contentions noted above in connection with the related application and the related decision. With respect to the “common shaft,” the Examiner finds that “Hiscock does indeed show a common shaft, Appeal 2020-001047 Application 15/069,197 5 for example shaft (37) powers multiple common elements not just one.” Ans. 8. Appellant does not provide a meaningful response to that finding. For the reasons set forth above, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 8–15, 17, and 18 is affirmed. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 8, 10–15, 17, 18 103 Elovic, Glickstein, Bruno, Hiscock 1–5, 8, 10– 15, 17, 18 6 103 Elovic, Glickstein, Bruno, Hiscock, Welch 6 9 103 Elovic, Glickstein, Bruno, Hiscock, engineering expedient 9 Overall Outcome 1–6, 8–15, 17, 18 Appeal 2020-001047 Application 15/069,197 6 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED