Ex Parte Fugate et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 27, 201612975399 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/975,399 12/22/2010 David Fugate 54549 7590 06/01/2016 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 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. P Al 0463A;67097-1397PUS 1 5403 EXAMINER CARRASQUILLO, JORGE L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2837 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2016 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 PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEAMRK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID FUGATE, FRANKE. BULLIS, and CHRISTOPHER A. JOHNSON 1 Appeal2014-006309 Application 12/975,399 Technology Center 2800 Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision2 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-20. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is United Technologies Corporation. App. Br. 1. 2 Our decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed May 3, 2013 ("Final Act."); the Advisory Action mailed July 25, 2013 ("Advisory Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed December 3, 2013 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed March 7, 2014 ("Ans."); Appellants' Reply Brief filed May 1, 2014 ("Reply Br."); and the Specification filed December 22, 2010 ("Spec."). Appeal2014-006309 Application 12/975,399 REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1, 8, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Radhamohan et al. (US 6,012,437, issued Jan. 11, 2000). Final Act. 2. Claims 2--4, 7, 9--11, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Radhamohan and Beyse et al. (US 2009/0026985 Al, published Jan. 29, 2009) ("Beyse"). Final Act. 5. Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Radhamohan and Shelby et al. (US 2007 /0023093 Al, published Feb. 1, 2007) ("Shelby"). Final Act. 7-8. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Radhamohan, Shelby, and Buratti et al. (US 5,867,986, issued Feb. 9, 1999) ("Buratti"). Final Act. 8. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Radhamohan and Meisner et al. (US 5,279, 107, issued Jan. 18, 1994) ("Meisner"). Final Act. 9. THE CLAIMED INVENTION According to Appellants' Specification, "[ t ]his disclosure relates generally to maintaining a component and, more particularly, to monitoring an electrical input current of a device to effectively time a maintenance action on the component." Spec. i-f 2. Independent claim 1 is directed to a method; independent claim 8 is directed to a component arrangement; and independent claim 14 is directed to a turbomachine control circuit. App. Br. 12-13. Claim 1 recites: 1. A method of initiating a maintenance action on a component, comprising: 2 Appeal2014-006309 Application 12/975,399 monitoring an electrical input current required to hold a component in a steady state position; and initiating a maintenance action on the component based on the monitored current. App. Br. 12. ANALYSIS Claim 1 Independent claim 1 recites, "monitoring an electrical input current required to hold a component in a steady state position." App. Br. 12. Appellants argue Radhamohan fails to teach or suggest this limitation. App. Br. 3--4; Reply Br. 1-2. In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner responds: Radhamohan clearly discloses that the drive circuit 72 provides a current feedback signal to controller 70 via electrical connection 82 and that by means of this feedback signal, controller 70 can detect if overcurrent conditions are ever present in motor 40 (see Col. 4, lines 18-21 ). l\1oreover, it is clearly disclosed that the processing circuit transmits electrical control signals for energizing and causing a predetermined steady state current to flow through the actuator that is sufficient to hold the EGR valve in the closed position (see Col. 2, lines 42-46). Thus, Radhamohan clearly discloses all presented features of claim 1. Ans. 2-3. The two passages from Radhamohan that the Examiner cites are: When the position output signal indicates that the EGR valve is less than the predetermined distance away from the closed position, the processing circuit transmits second electrical control signals for energizing the actuator in a second predetermined manner. In the preferred embodiment, the second electrical control signals cause a predetermined mean steady state current to flow through the actuator that is 3 Appeal2014-006309 Application 12/975,399 sufficient to hold the EGR valve in the closed pos1t10n under all differential pressure conditions. Drive circuit 72 provides a current feedback signal to controller 70 via electrical connection 82. By means of this feedback signal, controller 70 can detect if overcurrent conditions are ever present in motor 40 so that power thereto can be discontinued. Radhamohan, 2: 39-46; 4: 18-23.3 We agree with the Examiner. The findings of the Examiner are supported by the cited passages and we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 8 Appellants present an additional argument in support of independent claim 8 related to interpretation of the term "maintenance action" as set forth in the context of this claim. App. Br. 4. The Examiner interprets "maintenance action" as "any action executed by the controller to prevent or localize a possible malfunction or error." Final Act. 3. Appellants argue the Examiner's interpretation is unreasonably broad but fail to offer any alternative interpretation. App. Br. 4. In making this argument, Appellants cite paragraph 27 of the Specification and state it, "describes types of maintenance actions that may be displayed on the display 38." Id. However, paragraph 27 of the Specification does not provide any limiting definition or description of "maintenance action." To the contrary, 3 A small amount of additional material, not within the lines cited by the Examiner, was included in these passages in order to include complete sentences and to provide context for the cited lines. 4 Appeal2014-006309 Application 12/975,399 paragraph 27 of the Specification states, "[t]he maintenance actions may depend on the type of component 18." In addition, paragraph 35 of the Specification states, "[t]he preceding description is exemplary rather than limiting in nature." We are not persuaded of error by this argument and affirm the rejection of claim 8. Claim 14 Appellants present no new arguments in support of independent claim 14. App. Br. 5. Rather, Appellants argue the rejection of independent claim 14 should be withdrawn for the reasons argued for claims 1 and 8. Id. For the reasons stated above, we affirm the rejection of claim 14. Claims 2, 7, 9, and 17 Claim 2 recites, "initiating the maintenance action when the actual current is more than or less than an acceptable range of currents." App. Br. 12. Appellants argue claims 7, 9, and 17 are patentable for the reasons argued for claim 2. App. Br. 8-9. Accordingly, we shall decide this appeal as to claims 2, 7, 9, and 17 based on our consideration of Appellants' argument with regard to claim 2. In the Final Office Action, the Examiner explains that the disputed limitation is "well known in the art." Final Act. 6. Appellants dispute this finding. App. Br. 6. However, the "Background" section of the Specification states, "[ c ]omponents are designed so that the current required to overcome the null bias and move the component to a desired position falls within a normal range of industry standards. A range of electrical input current is specified, rather than an exact value, because of build tolerances 5 Appeal2014-006309 Application 12/975,399 and other variables." Spec. i14. Thus, Appellants' Specification supports the finding of the Examiner. Additionally, the Examiner cites the Abstract of Beyse as: disclos[ing] a method for actuating an electromagnetic valve in which the excitation current can be set such that, in response to a signal for actuating the armature from one position into another position, it causes the actuator to move as a result of an excitation current threshold being exceeded, and is kept at a value which is lower by comparison in order to hold the armature in a specific position. Final Act. 6-7. And, as shown above, the other reference cited against claim 2, Radhamohan, states, "By means of this feedback signal, controller 70 can detect if overcurrent conditions are ever present in motor 40 so that power thereto can be discontinued." Radhamohan 4: 20-23. We are not persuaded of error by this argument and sustain the rejection of claims 2, 7, 9, and 17. Claims 3 and 10 Claims 3 and 10 recite the "range of current is 8 milliamps to 12 milliamps." App. Br. 12-13. In the Final Office Action, the Examiner includes claims 3 and 10 within the group of claims discussed above including claim 2 and states: [I]t is well known in the art that if the monitored current applied for moving or holding a component in a specific position is out of a predetermined range the position will be affected. It is always necessary to have a specific desired current value in order to avoid undesired system behaviors and to control any position change. Hence it is obvious [to] have a preferable current range based on the system requirements to keep a position of a movable component with[ in] a safe range. Presetting a specific range of current to determine if a movable 6 Appeal2014-006309 Application 12/975,399 part is within a desired pos1t10n does not constitute a patentable limitation. Final Act. 6. We agree with the Examiner. Appellants argue the claimed range is not a "design choice." App. Br. 7. However, the only mention of the claimed range in the Specification states, "[t]he input current to holds [sic] the rod 78 in the desired position is called the null bias current. The assembly 70 is designed so that the input electrical current required to hold the rod 78 a desired position will fall between 8 and 12 milliamps." Spec. i-f 31. Thus, Appellants acknowledge the range was a design choice. We are not persuaded of error by Appellants' argument and sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 10. Claims 4, 11, and 18 Claim 4 recites, "initiating the maintenance action when the actual current trends higher or trends lower"; claim 11 recites; "initiating the maintenance action when the null bias current that is monitored trends higher or trends lower"; and claim 18 recites, "initiating the maintenance action when the actual input electrical current required to hold the component at a steady state position trends higher or lower." App. Br. 12- 14. The Examiner includes claims 4, 11, and 18 in the group including claims 2 and 3 discussed above, but fails to specifically address claims 4, 11, and 18 or the limitation related to current trending in those claims. On this record, we reverse the rejection of claims 4, 11, and 18. 7 Appeal2014-006309 Application 12/975,399 Claims 5 and 12 Claims 5 and 12 recite the "current is a null bias current." App. Br. 12-13. The Examiner cites Shelby as teaching this feature. Final Act. 7. Appellants misdirect the argument in support of these claims against Radhamohan and fail to address Shelby. App. Br. 10. We sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 12. Claims 6, 13, and 15 Claims 6, 13, and 15 recite, "the component is an electromechanical servovalve." App. Br. 12-13. Examiner cites paragraph 4 of Shelby. Final Act. 8. Appellants fail to present any argument in support of claims 6, 13, and 15. App. Br. 3-11. We sustain the rejection of claims 6, 13, and 15. Claim 16 Claim 16 recites, "the electromechanical servovalve is configured to actuate a variable geometry blade." App. Br. 13. Claim 16 is rejected based on a combination of teachings of Radhamohan, Shelby and Buratti. Final Act. 8. With regard to Buratti and combining the teachings of the cited references, the Final Office Action states: Buratti shows an engine comprising a turbo supercharger with a variable-geometry turbine having blades movable between two limit positions, and a control assembly for controlling said blades and driven by a control signal (col. 2, lines 58-64). Given the teaching of Buratti a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have readily design[ ed] and recognized the desirability and advantages of to monitor to a null current in order to provide a supercharger with a variable-geometry turbine having blades movable between two limit positions in order to allow more power to be produced for an engine of a given size. 8 Appeal2014-006309 Application 12/975,399 Final Act. 8-9. Appellants present a short, conclusory argument that "there is no legally sufficient reason to make the proposed modification" but do not present any argument contesting the teachings of the references or the factual findings of the Examiner. App. Br. 10. Contrary to Appellants' argument, the Examiner has set forth "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." See KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). We are not persuaded by this argument and sustain the rejection of claim 16. Claim 19 Claim 19 recites, "the component is an aircraft gas turbine engine component, and the maintenance action is an action performed when the aircraft gas turbine engine component is not in flight." App. Br. 14. Claim 19 is rejected based on a combination of the teachings of Radhamohan and Meisner. Final Act. 9. With regard to Meisner, the Final Office Action states, "Meisner discloses a turbomachine control system having for [sic] responding to a failure in the sensed metering valve position, the system being applied in an aircraft (see col. 1, lines 11-13)." Final Act. 9. Appellants argue: [T]here is no reason to modify the internal combustion engine of Radhamohan [to] include an aircraft gas turbine engine component, and to include a maintenance action performed when the aircraft gas turbine engine component is not in flight. Components of internal combustion engines are not aircraft gas engine turbine engine components. The Examiner is simply selecting features from the prior art using the Appellant's claims as a guide. This is hindsight. No person having skill in this art would modify an internal combustion engine to include 9 Appeal2014-006309 Application 12/975,399 gas turbine engine components and then perform maintenance on those added components. App. Br. 11. This argument is not well-taken. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, (CCP A 1981) (citations omitted) ("The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference .... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.)"; In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures."). Appellants have not addressed what the combined teachings of the cited references would have taught or suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the cited combination of teachings is "the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." See KSR at 417. We are not persuaded of error by this argument and sustain the rejection of claim 19. Claim 20 Claim 20 recites, "[t ]he method of claim 1, including performing the maintenance action of the component based on the monitored current." App. Br. 14. Appellants argue, "[t]he rejection fails to show any teaching or suggestion in Radhamohan or Beyse of 'performing a maintenance action."' App. Br. 9. The Examiner includes claim 20 in the rejection directed against claim 2 and other claims as discussed above based on Radhamohan and Beyse, but fails to specifically address claim 20 or its limitation in the Final Office Action. Final Act. 5-7. Claim 20 is not addressed in the Examiner's Answer. Ans. 2-10. On this record, we reverse the rejection of claim 20. 10 Appeal2014-006309 Application 12/975,399 DECISION The rejections of claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19 are affirmed. The rejections of claims 4, 11, 18, and 20 are reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation