Ex Parte Davidson et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 16, 2019

14460595 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/460,595 08/15/2014
80944 7590 05/20/2019
Hoffman Warnick LLC
540 Broadway
4th Floor
Albany, NY 12207
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dwight Eric Davidson
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
267305-1 1019
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, ANDREW H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/20/2019 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):
ptocommunications@hoffmanwarnick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DWIGHT ERIC DAVIDSON, JEFFREY JOHN BUTKIEWICZ,
ADOLFO DELGADO MARQUEZ, and JEREMY DANIEL VAN DAM
Appeal 2018-008658
Application 14/460,595
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant, and presumably the real party in interest, 1 General Electric
Company, appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-3, 5,
6, 9, 11, 14, 15, and 29-34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The Brief does not identify the real party in interest pursuant to 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 41.37(c)(i). The named inventors recorded an assignment to the General
Electric Company on August 22, 2014.
Appeal 2018-008658
Application 14/460,595
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a power train architecture with hybrid-type
low-loss bearings and low-density materials. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A power train architecture comprising:
a first gas turbine comprising a compressor section, a
turbine section, and a combustor section operatively coupled to
the compressor section and the turbine section;
a first rotor shaft extending through the compressor
section and the turbine section of the first gas turbine;
a first generator, coupled to the first rotor shaft and
driven by the turbine section of the first gas turbine; and
a plurality of bearings to support the first rotor shaft
within the compressor section and the turbine section of the
first gas turbine and the first generator, wherein the plurality of
bearings includes a hybrid-type low-loss bearing supporting the
first rotor shaft between the compressor section and the turbine
section of the first gas turbine; and
wherein the compressor section, the turbine section, and
the first generator each include a plurality of rotating blade
structures, at least one of the rotating blade structures in one of
the compressor section of the first gas turbine, the turbine
section of the first gas turbine, and the first generator including
a low-density material.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Shibuya
Albrecht
Hoffmann
Kelly
Ghasripoor
US 6,178,734 Bl
US 2003/0233822 Al
US 2007/0130957 Al
us 2007 /0274854
US 2008/0218008 A 1
2
Jan.30,2001
Dec. 25, 2003
June 14, 2007
Nov. 29, 2007
Sept. 11, 2008
Appeal 2018-008658
Application 14/460,595
McMillan
Baten
Arai
US 2010/0054945 A 1
US 2010/0187180 Al
JP 07-189605 A
REJECTIONS2
Mar. 4, 2010
July 29, 2010
July 28, 1995
Independent claim 1 is the sole independent claim before us for
review. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Hoffmann, Ghasripoor, and any one of: Kelly, McMillan, Albrecht,
and Arai. Appellant argues the alternative rejections against claim 1 as a
group (App. Br. 4-12) and, concerning the remaining prior-art rejections,
merely states that the other references applied by the Examiner do not cure
the deficiencies alleged by Appellant (id. at 12-14). Because the issues
herein pertain exclusively to claim 1, we omit reproduction of the rejections
set forth in the Final Action of December 4, 2017 against the dependent
claims for the sake of brevity.
OPINION
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relied on Hoffmann for the basic
architecture described above albeit without the use of a "'hybrid-type low-
loss bearing, "'3 magnetic bearings and a "rotating blade structure[] ...
2 The Answer indicates: "The rejections under 35 U.S.C. [§] l 12(b) of
claims 1, 30, and 34 have been withdrawn due to the claim amendments
filed 2/1/2018 which were entered by the Advisory mailed on 2/13/2018."
Ans. 2.
3 Paragraph 35 of Appellant's Specification defines hybrid-type low-loss
bearings: "the first primary bearing unit includes a magnetic bearing having
magnetic flux as the working fluid. The second primary bearing unit
includes a foil bearing supplied with a high pressure fluid having a very low
viscosity."
3
Appeal 2018-008658
Application 14/460,595
including a low-density material"4• See Final Act. 3-4, 10-11, 11-13, 13-
15. The Examiner cited Ghasripoor regarding the bearing (id. at 3, 10-11,
12, 14) and each of Kelly (id. at 4), McMillan (id. at 11), Albrecht (id.
at 13), and Arai (id. at 14-15) regarding the low-density blade. Id. at 3.
The theme throughout Appellant's argument relates to the absence of
a single reference showing the features for which each of the applied
references is cited: "none of the cited references alone or in combination
would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to use a 'hybrid-type low loss
bearing' to support a 'first rotor shaft' with 'rotating blade structures ...
including a low-density material."' App. Br. 5. An argument that there is
no anticipatory reference in a rejection predicated under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
inapposite. Unlike anticipation, the obviousness inquiry is not whether the
claimed invention is expressly disclosed or suggested in any one of the
references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious
to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of
those references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981); see also
In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Although Appellant informs us of the specific challenges addressed
by Appellant's design and how those differ from the stated goals of
Ghasripoor, Appellant does not apprise us of any technical reason or
evidence to demonstrate why one skilled in the art would not have a
reasonable expectation of the compatibility of the various teachings relied
upon by the Examiner. Ghasripoor, in particular, seeks to improve corrosion
4 Paragraph 38 of the Specification defines "low-density material" as a
"material that has a density that is less than about 0.200 lbm/in3" and gives
several examples.
4
Appeal 2018-008658
Application 14/460,595
resistance in a turbo-machinery (Ans. 3 ( citing Ghasripoor, paras. 2-5))
caused by natural gas impurities (App. Br 7 ( citing, inter alia, Ghasripoor,
para. 8)). Although Appellant may not have identified this concern, because
it would improve upon Hoffmann's power generating system that may be
fueled by natural gas (Hoffmann, paras. 2-3), it supports, rather than detracts
from (App. Br. 7), the Examiner's reasoning in support of the proposed
combination. Ans. 3 ( citing Ghasripoor, paras. 2-5). "[N]either the
particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the [Appellant's] controls"
in an obviousness analysis. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419
(2007). "[ A ]ny need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time
of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining
the elements in the manner claimed." Id. at 420. "[T]he law does not
require that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the
inventor." In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Appellant also argues that Ghasripoor does not instruct to place the
bearings in the specific location in Hoffmann that would be required to
satisfy the claim language: "between the compressor section and the turbine
section of the first gas turbine." App. Br. 8. Appellant does not apprise us
of any specific technical reason or evidence suggesting that this particular
location differs from any other in terms of the applicability of Ghasripoor' s
teachings concerning supporting rotating turbomachinery shafting. An
artisan must be presumed to know something about the art apart from what
the references disclose. In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513,516 (CCPA 1962). We
are not apprised of any reason one skilled in the art would require such a
specific instruction in order to render the claimed subject matter obvious.
The fact that judgment and mechanical skill may be required to implement a
5
Appeal 2018-008658
Application 14/460,595
particular combination does not necessarily mean that particular
combination constitutes a nonobvious invention. Graham v. John Deere Co.
of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 10-12 (1966) (discussing Hotchkiss v.
Greenwood, 52 U.S. 248 (1850)).
Appellant summarily argues against the tertiary references. App.
Br. 11-12. There does not appear to be any dispute regarding the subject
matter for which the Examiner cites these references: low-density blades. 5
For the reasons discussed above, the stated purposes of Kelly, McMillan,
and Arai need not be that of Appellant to support a conclusion of
obviousness. See id. Also for the reasons discussed above, Albrecht need
not expressly state that the blades are carried on hybrid-type low-loss
bearings to support a rejection predicated on multiple references under
§ 103.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ l.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5 It is noted that some of the tertiary references discuss "weight" reduction as
opposed to "density" specifically. It seems fair to presume these disclosures
imply the absence of any volumetric changes which results in decreased
density. This does not appear to be a point of contention.
6