Dmitriy Baryshnikov

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 25, 2020

2020000928 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 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.
14/833,936 08/24/2015 Dmitriy Baryshnikov 510607 8558
53609 7590 08/25/2020
REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C.
2215 PERRYGREEN WAY
ROCKFORD, IL 61107
EXAMINER
LAMBERT, WAYNE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/25/2020 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):
RockMail@reinhartlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DMITRIY BARYSHNIKOV

Appeal 2020-000928
Application 14/833,936
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–16 and 18–20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Woodward,
Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000928
Application 14/833,936

2
BACKGROUND
The Specification discloses that “[t]his invention generally relates to
centrifugal pumps and their associated componentry, and more particularly
to the impeller of a centrifugal pump.” Spec. ¶ 1.

CLAIMS
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. An impeller for a centrifugal pump, the impeller
comprising:
a disc shaped shroud having a central axis, and a central
hub circumscribing the central axis;
a disc shaped base plate having a central axis coaxial with
the central axis of the shroud, the base plate having a plurality of
vanes extending from a first surface of the base plate;
wherein the shroud includes a plurality of serrations
formed circumferentially along a periphery of the shroud;
wherein the base plate includes a plurality of serrations
formed circumferentially along a periphery of the base plate, the
plurality of serrations of the base plate including a plurality of
major teeth and a plurality of minor teeth, wherein a radial extent
of each of the plurality of vanes is aligned with a respective one
of the plurality of major teeth such that the respective one of the
plurality of major teeth extends beyond both sides of the radial
extent in the circumferential direction; and
wherein the shroud is mounted against the base plate.
Appeal Br., Claims App. 1.
Appeal 2020-000928
Application 14/833,936

3
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4–9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Buse 4672 in view of Buse 277.3
2. The Examiner rejects claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Buse 467 in view of Buse 277 and Neumann.4
3. The Examiner rejects claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Buse 467 in view of Buse 277 and Moore.5
4. The Examiner rejects claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Buse 467 in view of Buse 277 and design choice.
5. The Examiner rejects claims 16 and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Buse 467 in view of Smith6 and Moore.
DISCUSSION
Claims 1–15
A prima facie conclusion of obviousness must be supported by the
clear articulation of a reason why the claimed invention would have been
obvious. The Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007) indicated that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 should be made explicit. The Federal Circuit has stated that
“rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory
statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re

2 Buse, US 3,746,467, iss. July 17, 1973.
3 Buse, US 4,767,277, iss. Aug. 30, 1988.
4 Neumann, US 867,069, iss. Sept. 24, 1907.
5 Moore, US 2,625,365, iss. Jan. 13, 1953.
6 Smith, GB 877,878, pub. Sept. 20, 1961.
Appeal 2020-000928
Application 14/833,936

4
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR, 550
U.S. at 418.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has not
set forth an adequate reason to support the proposed combination of art with
respect to the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11. See Appeal Br. 6−9;
see also Reply Br. 6–10.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Buse 467 teaches an
impeller as claimed, except that Buse 467 “does not explicitly teach such
that the respective one of the plurality of major teeth extends beyond both
sides of the radial extent [of the plurality of vanes] in the circumferential
direction.” Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner finds that Buse 277 also teaches
an impeller, which includes a plurality of teeth extending beyond both sides
of the radially extent of impeller vanes in the circumferential direction. Id.
at 4. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify
Buse 467 to include this feature from Buse 277:
as it is noted that the use of a known technique (in this case the
use of a serration of a impeller base plate to extend to both sides
of a vane as attached to the base plate as taught by Buse [277]),
to improve a similar devices (in this case the use of the serration
of the major teeth of Buse [467] to extend beyond both sides so
as to suitably attach the vane to the base plate and suitably control
fluid flow centrifugally) was an obvious extension of prior art
teachings.
Id. at 5.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has merely catalogued the
teachings of the cited references without providing an objective reason to
combine them. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant also asserts that the Examiner
provides no evidence for the reasoning providing, i.e., there is no evidence
cited showing that the proposed modification would improve suitability for
Appeal 2020-000928
Application 14/833,936

5
either attaching the vane to the base plate or controlling fluid flow. Id. at 8–
9; see also Reply Br. 8. We agree. The Examiner does not provide any
evidence or explanation showing how the proposed modification achieves
the stated benefits, e.g., the Examiner does not provide evidence either
showing that Buse 467 includes some deficiency in these areas or showing
that Buse 277 provides an advantage in these areas which is derived from the
relative thickness of the major teeth.
In the Answer, the Examiner explains that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in
the art understands that modifications to vanes and/or main or shroud plates
of an impeller affect[] the flow of fluid through that impeller, such as
affecting fluid vortices, which may also adversely affect the vibration of the
system.” Ans. 4. The Examiner determines that a modification of Buse 467
based on Buse 277 as proposed, “may be done to tailor the performance of
the impeller[, s]uch tailored performance may include preventing or
controlling vibration with configurations of teeth and vane such vibrations
which may lead to failure of the impeller.” Id. at 4, 7. We agree with
Appellant that this reasoning is also not sufficient to support the conclusion
of obviousness. See Reply Br. 8–9. We agree with Appellant that this
reasoning amounts to a rationale stating that it would have been obvious to
make the combination because it is known to optimize certain parameters.
The Examiner does not provide any evidence or explanation showing that
the propose modification would provide any improvement over the
unmodified prior art device, and without such evidence or explanation, we
determine that the Examiner does not adequately support the conclusion of
obviousness.
Appeal 2020-000928
Application 14/833,936

6
Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded of error in the rejection of
claim 1. The Examiner relies on the same reasoning with respect to the
rejection of independent claim 11, and thus, we also find error in the
rejection of this claim. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 1 and 11. The Examiner also relies on the same reasoning with
respect to the rejections of dependent claims 2–10 and 12–15, and the
Examiner does not provide further findings and/or reasoning with respect to
the art of record for the rejections of these claims that cures the deficiency in
the rejection of the independent claims from which they depend. Thus, we
also do not sustain the rejections of claims 2–10 and 12–15.
Claims 16 and 18–20
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has not
set forth an adequate reason to support the proposed combination of art with
respect to the rejection of independent claim 16. See Appeal Br. 11–13; see
also Reply Br. 12–14.
With respect to claim 16, the Examiner finds that Buse 467 discloses a
centrifugal pump as claimed except that:
Buse [467] does not explicitly disclose a pump casing defining
an inlet, and outlet, and an internal cavity disposed between the
inlet and the outlet; a drive shaft, a portion of the drive shaft
rotatably disposed within the internal cavity; an impeller
disposed within the internal cavity, the impeller mounted to the
drive shaft such that it is rotatable with said drive shaft; wherein
the first width is less than the second width.
Final Act. 14. The Examiner relies on Smith and Moore to cure these
deficiencies. Id. at 14–15. The Examiner determines that the combination
would have been obvious because “it is noted that the use of a known
technique . . . to improve a similar device . . . was an obvious extension of
Appeal 2020-000928
Application 14/833,936

7
prior art teachings.” Id. at 15. The Examiner also provides the following
reasoning for the combination: “so as to allow for the pumping of a fluid as
is conventionally known in the art with [an] impeller situated in a casing and
so as to allow for designed modification of the weight of the impeller to
tailor its performance under various speeds as is known in the art.” Id.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the Examiner has not set forth any
reasoning why a person of ordinary skill in the art would deviate from the
configuration presented in Buse 467. Appeal Br. 12. We agree. As with the
rejection of claims 1 and 11 discussed above, the Examiner fails to provide
any evidence or an adequate explanation for the proposed modification such
as by showing that the modification would provide an improvement over the
unmodified prior art device. For example, although the Examiner asserts
that the combination would allow for a modified weight to tailor
performance, the Examiner does not cite to any evidence discussing the
effects of weight change, or otherwise tie the benefit to shrouds of differing
axial width, as claimed. To the extent that the Examiner is merely
concluding that the modification would have been obvious in order to
optimize performance, we determine that such reasoning, as discussed
above, is not sufficient by itself to support the conclusion of obviousness.
Based on the foregoing, we are also persuaded of error in the rejection
of claim 16. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 16. For
the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims
18–20.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1–16 and 18–20.
Appeal 2020-000928
Application 14/833,936

8
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–9, 11,
12, 14, 15
103 Buse 467, Buse
277
1, 4–9,
11, 12,
14, 15
2, 3 103 Buse 467, Buse
277, Neumann
2, 3
10 103 Buse 467, Buse
277, Moore
10
13 103 Buse 467, Buse
277, design
choice
13
16, 18–20 103 Buse 467,
Smith, Moore
16, 18–
20
Overall
Outcome
1–16,
18–20

REVERSED