Ex Parte Feulner

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 17, 2002

09220468 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 17, 2002)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte MATTHEW R. FEULNER
__________
Appeal No. 2002-0538
Application 09/220,468
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before FRANKFORT, MCQUADE, and NASE, Administrative Patent
Judges.
MCQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Matthew R. Feulner appeals from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 21, all of the claims pending in the
application.
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to a gas turbine engine which is
defined in representative claims 1 and 10 as follows:
1. A gas turbine engine having a compressor section, a
combustor section, and a turbine section enclosed in an engine
case with an annular flow path extending axially therethrough,
Appeal No. 2002-0538
Application 09/220,468
1 Reading the claims in light of the underlying disclosure
(see specification page 5 and drawing Figures 3 and 4), we
understand the somewhat inaccurate recitation in claim 1 that the
groove in the engine case extends substantially circumferentially
“therethrough,” and the comparable recitations in independent
claims 14 and 21, as requiring the groove to extend substantially
circumferentially “in” or “within” the case. In the event of
further prosecution, the appellant should amend the claims to
eliminate this discrepancy with the disclosure.
2
said compressor section having a plurality of rows of rotating
blades alternating with a plurality of rows of stationary vanes,
said gas turbine engine comprising:
a groove formed in said engine case of said compressor
section and extending substantially circumferentially
therethrough,1 said groove being substantially adjacent to one
row of said plurality of rows of rotating blades, said groove
being in fluid communication with said turbine section for
channeling cooling air from said compressor section to said
turbine section to increase stability of said gas turbine engine.
10. A gas turbine engine having a compressor section, a
combustor section, and a turbine section enclosed in an outer
shroud with an annular flow path extending axially therethrough,
said compressor section having a plurality of rows of rotating
blades alternating with a plurality of rows of stationary vanes,
each said row of rotating blades includes a plurality of blades,
each said blade having a blade tip defining a tip clearance
between said tips of said blades and said outer shroud, said gas
turbine engine comprising:
said outer shroud of said compressor section defining an
opening, said opening being substantially adjacent to one row of
said plurality of rows rotating blades, said opening being in
fluid communication with said turbine section for extracting air
from said tip clearance of said row of rotating blades of said
compressor section to be routed to said turbine section to
increase stability of said gas turbine engine.
Appeal No. 2002-0538
Application 09/220,468
3
THE PRIOR ART
The references relied on by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Uehling 3,641,766 Feb. 15, 1972
Cureton et al. (Cureton) 4,702,070 Oct. 27, 1987
Coffinberry et al. (Coffinberry) 5,918,458 Jul. 6, 1999
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2 and 6 through 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Uehling in view of Cureton.
Claims 3 through 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Uehling in view of Cureton and
Coffinberry.
Attention is directed to the appellant’s main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 12 and 14) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 13) for the respective positions of the appellant and the
examiner with regard to the merits of these rejections.
DISCUSSION
Uehling, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses a
turbojet gas engine 10 comprising a housing 12, a compressor 14,
a combustion system 16, a turbine 18, a tail pipe 19 and an
exhaust nozzle 20. As is conventional, both the compressor 14
and turbine 18 include alternating rows of rotating blades and
Appeal No. 2002-0538
Application 09/220,468
4
stator vanes. The engine also comprises a thrust modulator which
operates without the necessity of reducing engine speed. In
Uehling’s words,
[a]s shown schematically in FIG. 3, the turbojet
engine 10 is provided with a bypass pipe 24 having a
valve 26 interposed therein. One end of the bypass
pipe 24 is connected to the compressor 14 near its
discharge end, and the valve 26 is actuated by the
pilot to bleed off a certain percentage of compressor
discharge air thereby reducing the mass flow though the
combustion system 16 and the turbine 18. A portion of
this bleed air is provided to a turbine cooling flow
path 27 from which it is delivered to various
components of the turbine 18 to cool the same. . . .
. . . [T]he remaining portion of the bleed flow
within the pipe 24 is piped from compressor discharge
to the turbojet tail pipe 19 forward of the exhaust
nozzle 20 and downstream of the turbine 18 . . .
through thrust spoiling means, generally designed by
the numeral 28, as shown in FIG. 3.
As shown in both FIG. 3 and FIG. 4, the thrust
spoiling means 28 take the form of a plurality of swirl
inducing nozzles 30 positioned within a manifold 32, to
which the bleed pipe 24 is connected. By means of the
swirl inducing nozzles 30 the bleed flow is introduced
into the tail pipe 19 so as to maximize swirl of the
gas flowing within the tail pipe 19, thereby
significantly increasing the tail pipe pressure and
momentum losses and reducing the nozzle thrust
coefficient, which, in turn, causes an instantaneous
and additional increment of thrust reduction [column 3,
line 54, through column 4, line 14].
Figure 3 shows Uehling’s bypass pipe 24, which channels
cooling air from the compressor 14 to the turbine 18 via flow
path 27, as communicating with the compressor at a position
adjacent the tip clearance area of a row of rotating blades. As
Appeal No. 2002-0538
Application 09/220,468
5
conceded by the examiner (see page 4 in the answer), however,
Uehling does not specify the nature of the interface between the
compressor 14 and the pipe 24, and thus does meet the limitations
in independent claims 1, 14 and 21 relating to the groove(s) in
the engine case or shroud. The examiner nonetheless concludes
that
[i]t . . . would have been obvious to use either an
annular groove, plural annular groove segments or
plural holes as the openings in the Uehling reference.
While the Uehling reference does not teach a specific
shape for the opening one of ordinary skill would
realize that the opening is either a single opening (an
annular groove) or plural openings (interrupted grooves
or plural opening[s]). Therefore, it would have been
obvious to use an opening shape which would be easy to
manufacture. It also would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to use plural grooves, either
around a single rotor blade set or around plural blade
sets in order to provide an increased protection
against compressor surge and stall [answer, pages 4 and
5].
Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) must rest on a
factual basis. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173,
177-78 (CCPA 1967). In making such a rejection, the examiner has
the initial duty of supplying the requisite factual basis and may
not, because of doubts that the invention is patentable, resort
to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction
to supply deficiencies in the factual basis. Id. The foregoing
rationalization advanced by the examiner to justify the rejection
Appeal No. 2002-0538
Application 09/220,468
6
of claims 1, 14 and 21 is rife with speculation and unfounded
assumptions having no factual support in the fair teachings of
Uehling. Because these evidentiary insufficiencies find no cure
in Cureton, the combined teachings of the two references do not
warrant a conclusion that the differences between the subject
matter recited in claims 1, 14 and 21 and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 14 and 21, and dependent claims
2, 6 through 9 and 15 through 19, as being unpatentable over
Uehling in view of Cureton.
As Coffinberry does not overcome the deficiencies of the
Uehling-Cureton combination with respect to the subject matter
recited in claim 1, we also shall not sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 3 through 5, which depend
ultimately from claim 1, as being unpatentable over Uehling in
view of Cureton and Coffinberry.
At issue in the rejection of independent claim 10 are the
limitations therein relating to the “opening.” As indicated
above, claim 10 requires an opening, rather than a groove, in the
Appeal No. 2002-0538
Application 09/220,468
7
outer shroud of the compressor section substantially adjacent to
one row of rotating blades and in fluid communication with the
turbine section for extracting air from the tip clearance of the
blades to be routed to the turbine section to increase stability
of the engine. Although Uehling does not specify the nature of
the interface between the compressor 14 and the pipe 24, it is
not disputed that this interface must include at least one
opening in the shroud (housing 12). Uehling’s Figure 3, which
shows bypass pipe 24 communicating with the compressor 14 through
the shroud at a position adjacent the tip clearance area of a row
of rotating blades, belies the appellant’s argument that “Uehling
does not teach that the bleed air is extracted through an opening
that is substantially adjacent to a row of rotating blades” (main
brief, page 7). Although patent drawings are not working
drawings, things shown clearly therein are not to be disregarded,
even if unexplained by the specification. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d
1069, 1072, 173 USPQ 25, 27 (CCPA 1972). Due to its position,
Uehling’s opening(s) would necessarily extract air from the tip
clearance area of the rotating blades, and the resulting
reduction in tip clearance leakage would inherently increase the
stability of the engine to the same extent that the extraction of
Appeal No. 2002-0538
Application 09/220,468
8
air from the tip clearance area of the appellant’s compressor
section does (see pages 5 and 6 in the appellant’s
specification).
Hence, notwithstanding the appellant’s arguments to the
contrary, Uehling would have suggested a gas turbine engine
responsive to the “opening” limitations in claim 10. Since
Uehling meets all of the other limitations therein, we shall
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 10 as
being unpatentable over Uehling in view of Cureton, with the
application of Cureton being, at worst, superfluous.
Finally, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 11 through 13 and 20 as being
unpatentable over Uehling in view of Cureton since the appellant
has not challenged such with any reasonable specificity, thereby
allowing these claims to stand or fall with parent claim 10 (see
In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed.
Cir. 1987)).
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 21
is affirmed with respect to claims 10 through 13 and 20 and
reversed with respect to claims 1 through 9, 14 through 19 and
21.
Appeal No. 2002-0538
Application 09/220,468
9
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
) APPEALS AND
JOHN P. MCQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2002-0538
Application 09/220,468
10
JPM/kis
MCCORMICK, PAULDING & HUBER
CITYPLACE II
185 ASYLUM STREET
HARTFORD, CT 06103-4102