Ex Parte Baralon

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 21, 2014

10908970 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/908,970 06/02/2005 Stephane BARALON 7589.173.NPUS01 5970
65858 7590 01/21/2014
NOVAK DRUCE AND QUIGG LLP (Volvo)
1000 LOUISIANA STREET
FIFTY-THIRD FLOOR
HOUSTON, TX 77002
EXAMINER
VERDIER, CHRISTOPHER M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/21/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEPHANE BARALON
____________

Appeal 2011-012967
Application 10/908,970
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges.

IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2011-012967
Application 10/908,970

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal. Claim 1 is
representative of the subject matter on appeal, and recites:
1. A gas turbine compression system, comprising:
a gas channel,
a low pressure compressor section and a high pressure
compressor section for compression of gas in the channel, the
low pressure compressor section comprising an alternating
series of rotating rotor blades and stationary stator blades with
the last blades in the series being rotor blades, and
a compressor structure arranged between the low
pressure compressor section and the high pressure compressor
section,
wherein the compressor structure is designed to conduct
a gas flow in the gas channel and comprises a plurality of radial
struts for transmission of load, with the struts being spaced by
a distance downstream from the last low-pressure-compressor
rotor blades in the series with no intervening stator blades
therebetween,
wherein at least one of said struts is hollow for housing
service components, and
wherein the compressor structure is designed for
substantially turning a swirling gas flow from the last low-
pressure-compressor rotor blades in the series by virtue of a
plurality of said struts having a cambered shape.
App. Br., Claims App’x (emphasis added).

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-4, 6, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Orlando (US 6,681,558 B2, iss. Jan. 27, 2004),
Munroe (US 5,224,341, iss. Jul. 6, 1993), and Conrad (US
3,652,184, iss. Mar. 28, 1972).
Appeal 2011-012967
Application 10/908,970

3
2. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Orlando, Munroe, Conrad, and Kreitmeier (US 5,102,298, iss. Apr.
7, 1992).
3. Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Orlando, Munroe, Conrad, and Pinsley (US 2,870,958, iss.
Jan. 27, 1959).
4. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Orlando, Munroe, Conrad, and Crall (US
6,439,838 B1, iss. Aug. 27, 2002).

Appellant also relies on the Declaration of Dr. Jonas Larson, filed
under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 on October, 15, 2010 (“Larson Declaration”). App.
Br. 10.

ANALYSIS1
Rejection of claims 1-4, 6, and 13 as unpatentable over Orlando, Munroe,
and Conrad
Independent claim 1 recites, among other features, a “compressor
structure is designed for substantially turning a swirling gas flow from the
last low-pressure-compressor rotor blades in the series by virtue of a
plurality of said struts having a cambered shape.” App. Br., Claims App’x.
The Examiner found that Orlando teaches the recited gas turbine
compression system except for “at least one of the struts is hollow” and “the

1 Appellant indicates that “the ground of rejection to be reviewed on appeal
is the obviousness rejection that has been lodged against claims 1-4, 6, and
13, since all other rejections build on that rejection.” App. Br. 4. As such,
we treat Appellant’s arguments for Rejection 1 as additionally presented for
Rejections 2-4.
Appeal 2011-012967
Application 10/908,970

4
plurality of the struts having a cambered shape.” Ans. 8. The Examiner
further found that Munroe teaches a plurality of hollow struts and that
Conrad teaches a cambered strut in the afterguide blading arrangement 15
located directly downstream of a rotor 12. Id. at 9-10. For the combination
of Orlando and Conrad, the Examiner further determined that Conrad’s
elements 15 are “load bearing, because they support outer wall 17 and inner
wall 18 of housing 11.” Id. at 15. Moreover, the Examiner added that
“[e]ven assuming arguendo that elements 15 in Conrad are not
struts…elements 15 of Conrad are functionally similar to the struts of
Orlando, in that both guide working fluid….” Id. at 16.
Appellant argues that a skilled artisan would not modify the Orlando
struts to have Conrad’s cambered shape because Conrad’s afterguide blading
15, 19 and Orlando’s struts have different functions. In particular, Appellant
contends that the afterguide blading 15 are
actually just the final stator blades in the compressor; that one
of skill in the art would have understood the claim-recited struts
to be the far “beefier” structural elements that carry the major
radial loads in the device (on the order of thousands of pounds);
and that one of skill in the art would have understood the
difference between such claim-recited struts and Conrad's
vanes. Appellant has supported this with Dr. Larson's Rule 132
Declaration, filed October 15, 2010.
App. Br. 6. Looking to the referenced declaration, Dr. Larson states that
[o]ne having skill in jet engine design would not have read the
Conrad reference and, in light of it, made the connection or
mental “leap” to modify the shape of the struts…so that they
function as flow-guiding elements as well as carrying the
sizable radial loads to which they are subjected.
Larson Decl. at ¶ 8. Thus, Appellant essentially argues that the Examiner
has failed to provide an adequate reasoning with rational underpinning to
Appeal 2011-012967
Application 10/908,970

5
modify the Orlando strut with Conrad’s blading shape because the Conrad
blading is not load-bearing and the Orlando strut does not guide working
fluid. See App. Br. 6; see also Larson Decl. ¶ 8.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s position. On the record before us,
we do not find the Examiner has provided adequate reasoning for modifying
Orlando’s strut shape based on the asserted functional equivalence between
Orlando’s strut and Conrad’s afterguide blading 15, 19. First, the Examiner
has not established that the Conrad afterguide blading 15 and guide blades
19 are functionally equivalent to struts with “load bearing, because they
support outer wall 17 and inner wall 18.” See Ans. 15. As Appellant points
out, Conrad “shows… that the guide blades 19 [of element 15] extend
between the outer and inner walls 17, 18 of the flow passageway...,” but
does not disclose “any other structural details as to what lies behind the
walls 17, 18 of the flow passageway and from which one might be able to
assess any load-bearing capability of the guide blades 19.” App. Br. 8-9.
Indeed, Conrad teaches that the “afterguide blading 15 adjoins the rotor 12
which is arranged in the annular channel 16 between an outer wall 17 and an
inner wall 18 of the housing 11,” (Conrad, col. 2, ll. 10-12), but does not
describe the blading 15, 19 as supporting the housing walls 17, 18 “for
transmission of load,” as claimed.
Second, the Examiner has also not established by evidence or
technical reasoning that “elements 15 of Conrad are functionally similar to
the struts of Orlando, in that both guide working fluid….” See Ans. 16.
Although the Examiner explains that Conrad teaches an “after-guide blading
arrangement 15…for the purpose of providing strong deflection and
deceleration of working fluid,” the Examiner does not further explain where
Appeal 2011-012967
Application 10/908,970

6
Orlando teaches that the disclosed struts guide working fluid. Id. Rather,
the Examiner appears to rely on the location of the Orlando struts
“downstream from the low pressure compressor section” to show flow
guiding by the struts. Ans. 15. However, Orlando’s description is largely
silent on the struts and, on the facts before us, one of ordinary skill in the art
could only speculate as to whether Orlando’s struts actually “guide” working
fluid. Such speculation, however, is insufficient to support this rejection.
Without a persuasive articulated reasoning based on rational underpinnings
for modifying the reference as proposed, the Examiner's rejection appears to
be the result of hindsight analysis. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds [require] some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness”) (cited with approval in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007)).
We note that the addition of Monroe’s teaching found by the
Examiner does not remedy the deficiencies of the Examiner’s combination
of Orlando and Conrad.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
of claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 6, and 13 as unpatentable over
Orlando, Conrad, and Munroe.
Rejection of claim 5 as unpatentable over Orlando, Munroe, Conrad, and
Kreitmeier
Claim 5 depends from independent claim 1. The addition of
Kreitmeier’s teachings found by the Examiner does not remedy the
deficiencies of the Examiner’s proposed combination of Orlando and Conrad
discussed supra for claim 1.
Appeal 2011-012967
Application 10/908,970

7
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 5 for the same
reasons as claim 1.
Rejection of claims 7-10 as unpatentable over Orlando, Munroe, Conrad,
and Pinsley
Claims 7-10 depend from independent claim 1. The addition of
Pinsley’s teachings found by the Examiner does not remedy the deficiencies
of the Examiner’s proposed combination of Orlando and Conrad discussed
supra for claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 7-10 for the
same reasons as claim 1.
Rejection of claims 11 and 12 as unpatentable over Orlando, Munroe,
Conrad, and Crall
Claims 11 and 12 depend from independent claim 1. The addition of
Crall’s teachings found by the Examiner does not remedy the deficiencies of
the Examiner’s proposed combination of Orlando and Conrad discussed
supra for claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 12 for
the same reasons as claim 1.

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-13.

REVERSED

mls