Ex Parte Davidson et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 16, 2017

12956461 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2017)

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.
12/956,461 11/30/2010 Dwight E. Davidson 242436/GEC-155 9418
87853 7590 08/16/2017
Dority & Manning, PA and General Electric Company
Post Office Box 1449
Greenville, SC 29602
EXAMINER
PETERS, BRIAN O
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2017 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 DWIGHT E. DAVIDSON and
PAUL G. DELVERNOIS
Appeal 2015-005722
Application 12/956,461
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1—6, 8—17, and 19-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2015-005722
Application 12/956,461
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a system and method for operating a
compressor. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A compressor comprising:
a first plurality of stator vanes, wherein the first plurality
of stator vanes has a first position, wherein the stator vanes of the
first plurality of stator vanes are inlet guide vanes;
a second plurality of stator vanes downstream from the
first plurality of stator vanes, wherein the second plurality of
stator vanes has a second position;
first means for adjusting the first position of the first
plurality of stator vanes separately and independently from the
second position of the second plurality of stator vanes;
second means for adjusting the second position of the
second plurality of stator vanes separately and independently
from the first position of the first plurality of stator vanes; and
a control system operable to provide control signals to the
first means and the second means to adjust the first position of
the first plurality of stator vanes separately and independently
from the second position of the second plurality of stator vanes
and the second position of the second plurality of stator vanes
separately and independently from the first position of the first
plurality of stator vanes, the control signals based on a speed
signal input and an operating mode signal input
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
REFERENCES
appeal is:
Wanger
Horii
Rowe
US 3,861,822 Jan. 21, 1975
US 6,530,210 B2 Mar. 11, 2003
US 2010/0021285 A1 Jan. 28,2010
2
Appeal 2015-005722
Application 12/956,461
REJECTION
Claims 1—6, 8—17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rowe, Wanger, and Horii.
OPINION
l.1 The Examiner finds that Wanger teaches position control of stator
vanes that are inlet guide vanes 22 “separately and independently from other
downstream stator vanes.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner further finds that,
among other features, Rowe teaches control of a second group of stator
vanes 42 separately and independently from the inlet guide vanes 30. Id. at
4—5. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify
Rowe’s compressor:
by substituting the variable inlet guide vanes as taught by
[Wanger] in order to control the adjustment of the inlet guide
vanes separately and independently from other downstream
stator vanes so as to accommodate the flight modes where
distortion occurs when the aircraft produces circumferential
variations in the axial velocity of the air entering the inlet.
Id. at 5—6.
Appellants argue that “Rowe does not disclose or suggest separate
and independent operation of the various pluralities of stator vanes.”
Appeal Br. 5. Rather, it is argued, Rowe teaches collective adjustment of
multiple stages. Id. at 6—7.
Appellants’ arguments are against Rowe individually, where the
rejection is based on the combination of Rowe and Wanger. One cannot
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
1 Appellants divide their arguments between two numbered subheadings
which we maintain for convenience. See Appeal Br. 5 and 8.
3
Appeal 2015-005722
Application 12/956,461
rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted) (explaining that obviousness
must be considered in light of “what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art”). The
Examiner’s rejection relies on teachings from both Rowe and Wanger
related to control of specific stator vanes to find that the claims are obvious.
Thus, we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Appellants also state that the combination of Wanger and Rowe does
not teach or suggest “the separate and independent adjustment of a stage of
stator vanes relative to another adjustable stage of stator vanes.” Reply Br.
4. But other than providing this statement, Appellants provide no
explanation of why the claims are not obvious in view of the combined
teachings of Wanger and Rowe. The Examiner has established that Wanger
and Rowe teach the control of different groups of stator vanes for different
purposes and that the combination of teachings would require substitution of
known parts according to their known function (see Final Act. 4—6), while
Appellants provide no discussion of why the “separate and independent
adjustment of a stage of stator vanes relative to another adjustable stage of
stator vanes'1'’ would not be an obvious result of these teachings. For this
reason, we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
2. Appellants next argue that the cited references “do not teach an
operating mode signal input” as required by the independent claims. Appeal
Br. 8 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner found that this is taught by Horii,
which discloses a control system that “detects the inlet guide vane opening
4
Appeal 2015-005722
Application 12/956,461
and starts a spray nozzle (17) for a water wash when the inlet guide vanes
are opened.” Final Act. 6.
Appellants argue “that such activity can[not] be considered an
operating mode signal input” when viewed in light of the Specification.
Appeal Br. 8. In particular, Appellants explain that “an operating mode
signal input reflects the operating mode of the compressor, and various
examples of operating modes include start up, shutdown, wash down,
turndown, etc.” such that “[t]he detection of an inlet guide vane opening, as
disclosed by Horii. cannot possibly be considered an operating mode signal
input.” Id. (citing Spec. 127).
The cited portion of the Specification goes on to additionally explain
the association of an operating mode signal input and stator vane position as
follows: “each operating mode [signal input] having its own preprogrammed
schedule of speed and associated stator vane 12 positions for each stage of
stator vanes 12.” Spec. 127. The Examiner cites Horii for teaching an input
based on a “wash down” mode with an “associated stator vane [] position[],”
thus the Examiner’s finding is consistent with the teachings of the
Specification. For this reason, we are not informed of error in the
Examiner’s rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—6, 8—17, and 19—22 is affirmed.
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5