Ex Parte Elorza Gomez et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 16, 201712998076 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 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. 12/998,076 03/15/2011 Sergio Elorza Gomez 5038.1091 3981 23280 7590 02/21/2017 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC 589 8th Avenue 16th Floor New York, NY 10018 EXAMINER YOUNGER, SEAN JERRARD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/21/2017 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): ddk @ ddkpatent .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SERGIO ELORZA GOMEZ and ALEXANDER HALCOUSSIS Appeal 2015-004427 Application 12/998,076 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LISA M. GUIJT, and ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision1 rejecting claims 9-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 9, 18, and 19 are independent. Claim 9 is reproduced below. 1 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated March 12, 2014 (“Final Act.”). Appeal 2015-004427 Application 12/998,076 9. An axial flow machine comprising: an asymmetrical air inlet; and a compressor downstream from the asymmetrical air inlet, the compressor having an inlet guide baffle composed of guide vanes, at least some of the guide vanes of the inlet guide baffle having a vane profile and/or an angle of attach deviating from other remaining guide vanes, a constant outflow angle being produced over an entire periphery by the inlet guide baffle. REJECTIONS I. Claims 9, 11, 14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wanger (US 3,861,822; iss. Jan. 21, 1975) and Donelson (US 3,765,623; iss. Oct. 16, 1973). II. Claims 10 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wanger, Donelson, and Fiala (US 6,540,478 B2; iss. Apr. 1,2003). III. Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wanger, Donelson, and Shahpar (US 7,118,331 B2; iss. Oct. 10, 2006). IV. Claims 15 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wanger, Donelson, and Karadimas (US 4,705,452; iss. Nov. 10, 1987). V. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wanger, Donelson, and Robuck (US 7,507,180 B2; iss. Mar. 24, 2009). 2 Appeal 2015-004427 Application 12/998,076 ANALYSIS Rejection I Regarding independent claim 9, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that Wanger’s compressor 12 is downstream from an air inlet and has an inlet guide baffle composed of inlet guide vanes 22, at least some of which have a vane profile and/or an angle of attack deviating from other remaining guide vanes, such that a constant outflow angle is produced over an enter periphery by the inlet guide baffle, as claimed. Final Act. 3 (citing Wanger 3:30—35, Figs. 1, 3). The Examiner relies on Donelson for teaching an asymmetrical air inlet. Id. at 3^4 (citing Donelson, Abstract, Figs. 1, 4). The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to modify Wanger’s axial flow machine by using an asymmetrical air inlet upstream of the compressor, as taught by Donelson, “to further reduce or minimize inlet airflow distortion into the compressor.” Id. at 4. Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s findings. See Appeal Br. 4—5; Reply Br. 2.2 Instead, Appellants argue that there is “no reason or factual basis in the prior art. . . that the special air inlet of Donelson would in any way create ‘additional control over the flow characteristics’ ... or ‘further reduce or minimize inlet airflow distortion,”’ as determined by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 5. In support, Appellants submit that Wanger “does not show an asymmetrical air inlet. . . nor does it want to or require any: the variations are corrected by varying the pitch” and “Donelson teaches 2 Appellants’ Reply Brief omits page numbers; we refer to the pages consecutively as pages 1 to 3. 3 Appeal 2015-004427 Application 12/998,076 providing a special air inlet to eliminate the need for variable geometry: ‘[ajnother object is to provide an efficient air inlet needing no variable geometry so the air inlet is reliable and easy to maintain.’” Id. (citing Donelson 1:65—68). Appellants conclude that “[i]f anything such asymmetry could make control by the variable structure of Wanger more difficult to control.” Id. Additionally, Appellants argue that “Donelson at most would teach replacing the inlet guide vanes of Wanger with a lipped air inlet, not combining them.” Reply Br. 2. The Examiner responds that “Donelson teaches explicitly that an asymmetrical air inlet can help minimize flow distortion during certain operating conditions,” and, therefore, Donelson teaches that “[s]uch minimization allows further control over the flow characteristics through the device.” Ans. 2. The Examiner reasons that “[t]he person of ordinary skill, finding such minimization desirable, would readily be able to apply such a teaching to any gas turbine engine air inlet in order to reap the benefits of the reduced distortion contemplated by Donelson.” Id. at 2—3. The Examiner further reasons that Wanger’s modified device “would operate largely the same” because Wanger’s device “resides downstream from the inlet and is not related to the operation or shape of the inlet.” Id. at 3. Appellants reply that “Wanger clearly teaches that all circumferential variations are handled by the variable pitch, and nothing in either Wanger or Donelson suggests adding an asymmetrical air inlet to the Wanger device.” Reply Br. 2. However, to the extent Appellants insist on a teaching in one reference to modify the other, the rigid application of the TSM test was 4 Appeal 2015-004427 Application 12/998,076 explicitly disavowed by the Supreme Court in KSR International Co, v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415, 419 (2007). Appellants also argue that the Examiner’s proposed combination increases the cost and complexity of Wanger’s gas turbine. Reply Br. 2. However, Donelson teaches that distributing the lip thickness ratios about the periphery of the air inlet (i.e., incorporating an asymmetrical air inlet) “minimize[s] the flow distortion,” but does not eliminate it, while addressing concerns about “weight and drag penalties.” Donelson Abstract, 1:35—38; see also Ans. 4 (“such flow disturbances are inherent”). In other words, the Examiner’s reasoning that one skilled in the art would be able to balance the advantages and disadvantages of adding an asymmetrical air inlet, as taught in Donelson, to Wanger’s gas turbine to further reduce or minimize inlet airflow distortion via Wanger’s downstream variable pitch inlet guide vanes and into the compressor is sufficiently supported by factual underpinnings. Nor do Appellants provide any evidence or argument that such a combination would not be expected to provide certain air flow advantages despite an increase in cost or complexity. Moreover, each of Donelson and Wanger teach the use of either an asymmetrical air inlet or variable pitch inlet guide vanes under certain operating conditions, such that one skilled in the art would be led to consider incorporating both designs depending on the operating conditions of concern. See Wanger 3:22—26 (“certain flight modes of the aircraft will produce distortion in the form of circumferential variations in the axial velocity of the air entering the inlet”), 3:42-45 (“In certain other modes of 5 Appeal 2015-004427 Application 12/998,076 operation, the engine inlet is not subject to distortion, but there is advantage in changing the angle of attack of the incoming air with respect to all of the rotor blade in the first rotor stage.”); Donelson 1:7—11 (“Certain flight conditions, such as when the aircraft is at low speed during takeoff, particularly when a cross-wind is present and/or at a high angle of attach, demand that the lip have a minimum thickness to prevent flow separation.”). Donelson also discloses that the asymmetrical air inlet “smoothly ducts air to a jet engine during adverse conditions,” and because, according to the Examiner’s proposed modification, Donelson’s asymmetrical air inlet is upstream of Wanger’s variable pitch inlet guide vanes, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the two could not work in tandem to address different flight conditions or to concurrently address the same flight conditions. In view of these teachings from the references, we are not persuaded by the Appellants’ further argument that the Examiner improperly relied on hindsight. Reply Br. 2. Finally, Appellants argue that Donelson teaches away from the Examiner’s proposed modification, because Donelson “specifically teaches that the variable types of devices in Wanger are disadvantageous.” Reply Br. 2 (citing Donelson 1:17—30). Donelson discloses that “the normal solution has been to provide means to vary the geometry of the air inlet for use during adverse operating conditions,” however, Donelson does not specifically discuss the inlet guide baffle. Donelson 1:21—24. Further, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive, because this passage in Donelson does not “criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage” the use of Donelson’s 6 Appeal 2015-004427 Application 12/998,076 asymmetrical air inlet in addition to a gas turbine having variable pitch inlet guide vanes for managing air flow. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (prior art does not teach away from claimed subject matter merely by disclosing a different solution to a similar problem unless the prior art also criticizes, discredits or otherwise discourages the solution claimed). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 9, and claims 11, 14, and 16 depending therefrom. Rejection II Regarding claims 10 and 18, the Examiner relies on Wanger and Donelson, as applied to claim 9 supra, and further on Fiala for “teaching an axial flow machine having two separate rows ... of inlet guide vanes for a gas turbine engine . . ., one downstream from the other, designed to displace and partially prevent flow instabilities and disturbances . . . prior to entering the compressor.” Final Act. 5 (citing Fiala 1:13—16; 2:61—65). The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious “to modify the axial flow machine of Wanger by utilizing an additional set of guide vanes (of the same design and features), as taught by Fiala, in order to further reduce residual airflow disturbances into the compressor.” Id. In addition to the arguments presented against claim 9 supra, Appellants argue that there simply is no indication or teaching in Wanger that any residual airflow disturbances remain after the Wanger variable pitch device. In fact... Wanger teaches that the pitch of the inlet guide vanes is varied to correct these circumferential variations of angle of attack, and the addition of Fiala would appear simply 7 Appeal 2015-004427 Application 12/998,076 to add unnecessary structure to the Wanger device. Appeal Br. 6. The Examiner responds that “such flow disturbances are inherent.” Ans. 4. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s determination that flow disturbances are inherent in gas turbines, such that one skilled in the art would be led to consider improving the operation of Wanger’s gas turbine, as modified by Donelson, to include Fiala’s guide baffle downstream from the inlet baffle into Wanger’s gas turbine. Indeed, Wanger discloses the use of variable pitch inlet guide vanes to “increase efficiency” of the gas turbine, but certainly does not guarantee absolute efficiency. Wanger 3:40-41. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Accordingly, and also for the reasons stated supra with respect to claim 9, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 18. Rejection III—V Appellants chose not to present separate arguments for the patentability of claims 12, 13, 15, 17, and 19. Appeal Br. 6—7. Therefore, for the reasons stated supra, we also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 13, 15, 17, and 19. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 9-19 is AFFIRMED. 8 Appeal 2015-004427 Application 12/998,076 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 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation