Ex Parte Chrabascz et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 201713559976 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/559,976 07/27/2012 Eric Chrabascz 60451US01; 7507 67010-560PUS1 26096 7590 12/04/2017 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. 400 WEST MAPLE ROAD SUITE 350 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 EXAMINER YOUNGER, SEAN JERRARD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/04/2017 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 cgolaw@yahoo.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ERIC CHRABASCZ and BRENT J. MERRITT Appeal 2017-002045 Application 13/559,9761 Technology Center 3700 Before ANTON W. FETTING, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 7, and 13 under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Beers et al. (US 7,402,020 B2, iss. July 22, 2008) (“Beers”).2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation, which is owned by United Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. 2 We understand the rejection of 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite, to be moot due to the amendment of claim 13. See Advisory Act. 1—2 (mailed Feb. 26, 2016) (entering Amendment, filed Feb. 22,2016). Appeal 2017-002045 Application 13/559,976 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Subject Matter on Appeal The Appellants’ invention “relates to a unique turbine housing which will be incorporated into an air cycle machine.” Spec., Background 1 1; see, e.g., Spec., Figs. 1, 3. Claims 1, 7, and 13 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A turbine inlet housing for an air cycle machine comprising: a main housing body extending about a central axis, and for receiving a turbine rotor, and an inlet duct extending away from said main housing body for delivering air into a cavity within said main housing body[;] a downstream face of said main housing body for facing an outlet housing, and said duct being upstream of said downstream face; a plurality of bolt hole bosses formed on said downstream face of said main housing body, said bolt hole bosses for receiving bolts to secure the outlet housing to said turbine inlet housing, and a first plurality of said plurality of said bosses having a ramped surface extending radially outwardly for a greater extent than a second plurality of said plurality of said bosses, and said first plurality of ramped bosses extending between said downstream face and said duct, and said ramped bosses having a forward boss portion, and a ramped surface at an angle of between 50 and 54 degrees extending from an upstream end of said forward boss portion, and a curved surface curving from an upstream end of said ramped surface to merge into said duct; a ratio of a distance to the upstream end of said ramped surface being measured perpendicularly from said central axis to a diameter of a bolt hole formed in said ramped boss is between 4.2 and 4.4; a ratio of a diameter of said duct to a thickness of a wall in said main housing body being between 39.3 and 39.8; and 2 Appeal 2017-002045 Application 13/559,976 wherein a ratio of the distance to the upstream end of said ramped surface measured perpendicularly from said central axis to said thickness of said wall in said main housing body is between 8.8 and 9.3. ANALYSIS The Appellants’ invention is directed to a second turbine stage inlet housing, e.g., inlet housing 30, for use with an air cycle machine, e.g., air cycle machine 20. See Spec., Background Tflf 1—6, Detailed Description 7—8. Inlet housing 30 includes a main housing portion, duct 40, and face 100 having a plurality of bosses that are generally cylindrical 44 or have a ramped radially outwardly extending surface 46 (i.e., ramped bosses). See Spec., Detailed Description H 10-12, Figs. 3, 5, 6. Turning to independent claims 1, 7, and 13, each claim requires an inlet housing with particular dimensions, which are recited in the form of ratios (i.e., dimensional ratios).3 For example, claim 1 recites: a ratio of a distance to the upstream end of said ramped surface being measured perpendicularly from said central axis [t2] to a diameter of a bolt hole formed in said ramped boss [d2] is between 4.2 and 4.4; a ratio of a diameter of said duct [di] to a thickness of a wall in said main housing body [ti] being between 39.3 and 39.8; and wherein a ratio of the distance to the upstream end of said ramped surface measured perpendicularly from said central axis [t2] to said thickness of said wall in said main housing body [ti] is between 8.8 and 9.3. The Specification describes the ratios as a ratio of t2 to d2, ratio of di to ti, and a ratio of t2 to ti. See Spec., Detailed Description H 11, 13, 14, 16, 3 The ratios of claims 7 and 13 are substantially similar to the ratios of claim 1. 3 Appeal 2017-002045 Application 13/559,976 Figs. 4, 5. The first claimed ratio (t2 to d2) is generally directed to relative proportions of sections of the ramped bosses. The second claimed ratio (di to ti) is generally directed to the relative proportions of diameter of the inlet duct and the main housing body’s wall thickness. And, the third claimed ratio (t2 to ti) is generally directed to the relative proportions of a section of the ramped bosses and the main housing body’s wall thickness. Each of the foregoing ratios helps define the claimed inlet housing’s dimensions and geometry. Additionally, each claim requires the ramped bosses to have “an angle of between 50 and 54 degrees extending from an upstream end of said forward boss portion,” hereinafter the “claimed angle range of ramped bosses.” See also Spec., Detailed Description 112, Fig. 5. The claimed angle range of ramped bosses also helps define the claimed inlet housing’s dimensions and geometry. The Specification distinguishes the inlet housing’s geometry from the prior art: A housing as disclosed above [(i.e., the Appellants’ inlet housing)] has beneficial features relative to the prior art. In particular, the ramped bosses operate to provide additional stability at highly stressed areas wherein the bolt holes 46 will be secured into the duct. The various geometries disclosed herein provide a housing which will be able to withstand the stresses, but also utilize a reduced amount of material. Spec., Detailed Description 116. Here, the Specification describes the function of the inlet housing’s geometry, i.e., the ability to withstand stresses while reducing the amount of material used. The Examiner rejects independent claims 1,7, and 13 under (pre- AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Beers. Among other things, 4 Appeal 2017-002045 Application 13/559,976 the Examiner finds that Beers’s ramped bosses — between inlet housing (fourth portion) 46 and outlet housing (fifth portion) 48 near inlet duct (inlet) 20 — correspond to the claimed angle range of ramped bosses. See Final Act. 5—6; Beers, col. 2,11. 1, 9-10, 12—13, Figs. 1—2. Also, the Examiner finds that Beers fails to disclose the dimensional ratios directed to the inlet housing geometry. See Final Act. 6—7. The Appellants contend that the evidence relied upon by the Examiner does not adequately show the claimed angle range of ramped bosses. See Appeal Br. 3. Indeed, Beers does not disclose the angle range of its ramped bosses. Although Figure 1 depicts a ramped boss as identified by the Examiner, the angle that extends from an upstream end of the ramped surface boss’s forward portion cannot be reasonably determined from Beers’s drawings. As such, we determine that Beers lacks adequate evidence to show a ramped surface at an angle range between 50 and 54 degrees extending from an upstream end of said forward boss portion. The Examiner provides a design choice rationale to remedy the failure of Beers to disclose the claimed angle range of the ramped bosses and dimensional ratios directed to the inlet housing geometry. See Final Act. 6— 7. Specifically, the Examiner concludes, “it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the air cycle machine of Beers ... by utilizing the specific shapes and relative dimensions as claimed for the purpose of relieving operational stresses in the second stage turbine housing.” Final Act. 7. We determine that the Examiner’s reasoning lacks rational underpinning at least because the Specification describes the functionality of the inlet housing’s geometry to be more than just relieving operational 5 Appeal 2017-002045 Application 13/559,976 stresses in the second stage turbine housing. As discussed above, the Specification describes the criticality of the inlet housing’s geometry as the ability to withstand stresses while reducing the amount of material used. See Spec., Detailed Description 116; Reply Br. 2. Cf. In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298—99 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (explaining that “design choice” is appropriate where the applicant fails to set forth any reasons why the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would result in a different function). Here, the Examiner’s reasoning does not account for the reduction in the amount of material used due to the claimed angle range of ramped bosses and dimensional ratios. Moreover, we note that the Examiner provides another reason why it would be a design choice to modify the geometry of Beers’s inlet housing to correspond to the claimed invention, i.e., because the modification is cosmetic and ornamental. Final Act. 3 (citing In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229 (CCPA 1947)); Ans. 3. However, the claimed angle range of ramped bosses and dimensional ratios that are directed to the inlet housing’s geometry are more than just ornamental; they are functional, as described above. See Spec., Detailed Description 116; Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 2. Further, despite the Examiner’s reasoning and response to the Appellants’ arguments overlapping with principles akin to the obviousness of ranges and proportions, e.g., routine optimization, (MPEP § 2144.05), the Examiner is very clear that the rejection “A not an optimization rejection" (Ans. 3). For the above reasons, we determine the Examiner fails to set forth a rejection that adequately articulates reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re 6 Appeal 2017-002045 Application 13/559,976 Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7, and 13 as unpatentable over Beers. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1,7, and 13. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation