Ex Parte Gibson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2016

12851347 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2016)

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.
12/851,347 08/05/2010 Nathan Gibson H0027155 (002.4517) 1553
89955 7590 12/23/2016
HONEYWELL/LKGlobal
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
MCGOVERN, BRIAN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3656
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2016 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):
patentservices-us @ honey well, com
DL-ACS-SM-IP@Honeywell.com
docketing @LKGlobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NATHAN GIBSON, DON TAKEUCHI,
WALTER LEE MEACHAM, and JAMES KNORR
Appeal 2015-002413
Application 12/851,347
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, LISA M. GUIJT, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nathan Gibson et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s decision, as set forth in the Final Action, dated
January 10, 2014 (“Final Act.”), rejecting claims 1-8 and 15-17.1,2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Honeywell International, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 9-12 and 18-20 are pending, but withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 13 and 14 are canceled. Appeal Br. 19-27 (Claims App.)
Appeal 2015-002413
Application 12/851,347
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ claimed subject matter relates to “a system for adaptively
controlling cooling flow to hydrodynamic gas film bearings.” Spec. para. 1.
Claims 1 and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
reproduced below.
1. A hydrodynamic gas film bearing cooling gas
control system, comprising:
a hydrodynamic gas film bearing;
a supply conduit in fluid communication with the
hydrodynamic gas film bearing, the supply conduit coupled to
receive a flow of cooling gas from a cooling gas supply source
and configured to supply the flow of cooling gas to the
hydrodynamic gas film bearing;
a sensor configured to sense a physical characteristic of
the cooling gas or ambient environment and supply a sensor
signal representative thereof;
a flow control device coupled to the supply conduit and
responsive to flow control device commands to move between at
least two positions to thereby vary the flow of cooling gas,
through the supply conduit, to the hydrodynamic gas film
bearing; and
a control coupled to receive the sensor signal and in
operable communication with the flow control device, the
control configured, in response to the sensor signal, to supply the
flow control device commands to the flow control device,
wherein the physical characteristic of the cooling gas or
ambient environment includes one or more of pressure and
temperature.
2
Appeal 2015-002413
Application 12/851,347
REJECTIONS
The Final Action included the following grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 1, 2, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Arnold (US 2009/0324381 Al, published December 31, 2009) and
Champagne (US 5,066,197, issued November 19, 1991).
2. Claims 3-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Arnold,
Champagne, and Fujii (US 5,566,709, issued October 22, 1996).
3. Claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Arnold and Fujii.
ANALYSIS
First Ground of Rejection
The Examiner found Arnold discloses a hydrodynamic gas film
bearing cooling gas control system as called for in independent claim 1
except that Arnold discloses using a self-actuating flow control device
responsive to pressure of the cooling gas to vary the flow of cooling gas to
the bearing, instead of using a sensor to monitor the pressure of the cooling
gas and a control responsive to a sensor signal to vary the flow of cooling
gas to the bearing.* * 3 Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner found Champagne
teaches using a sensor and a control to regulate flow to a bearing. Id. at 3;
see also Ans. 3. The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to
3 Appellants’ Specification describes that “[a] self-actuating flow control
device, as is generally known, includes a mechanical or other type of feature
(e.g., a diaphragm, temperature responsive material, etc.) that automatically
adjusts the position of the flow control device 204 in response to a change in
a physical characteristic of the cooling gas, machine condition, and/or the
ambient environment.” Spec. para. 22.
3
Appeal 2015-002413
Application 12/851,347
one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have
provided Arnold with a sensor and control as claimed, “for the purpose of
measuring the pressure and temperature of the cooling fluid and monitoring
the operation of the cooling system.” Final Act. 4.
Appellants argue that because Champagne teaches controlling the
rotational velocity of the rotatable element that is supported by the
hydrodynamic bearings, “at most what this combination of references
suggests is providing the system of Arnold with a sensor that is configured
to sense the temperature and temperature of the cooling gas flowing from the
bearings, and with a control that is responsive to the signals from the sensor
to control the rotational velocity of the turbocharger.” Appeal Br. 12. For
the reasons that follow, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
determining the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art in view of Arnold and Champagne.
First, we note Arnold acknowledges a problem in the art of air
bearings is that at low engine speed, cooling air is not required for the air
bearings, and that continuing to pass cooling air to the air bearings when it is
unnecessary detracts from the efficiency of the engine. Arnold, paras. 3, 23.
Arnold solves this problem by devising a cooling gas flow regulating device
that is self-actuating. Id. at paras. 22, 26, and 28 (describing when the
engine is at low speed, the cooling air may not have enough pressure to force
the piston to move away from the receiving cavity, but as the engine speed
increases, the pressure of the cooling air may be able to overcome the spring
force and move the piston away from the receiving cavity to allow cooling
air to travel to the air bearings).
4
Appeal 2015-002413
Application 12/851,347
We agree with the Examiner that Champagne demonstrates it was
well known in the bearing art that flow to the bearings also could be
controlled using sensors and controls. Ans. 3. For example, as noted by the
Examiner, Champagne discloses the use of a bearing pump controller 28 that
is responsive to signals from temperature sensors 101, 103, rotational speed
sensor 105, and pressure sensor 107 to control a bearing pump 26 to supply
an additional flow of fluid to bearings 22, 24, as necessary. Champagne,
Figs. 2, 4, col. 3,11. 40-59 (noting “[t]he function of the bearing pump 26 is
to make up for a deficiency in the pressure and quantity of refrigerant
outputted from the second stage 16 of the compressor 12”). Pressure sensor
107 measures a pressure drop across bearings 22 and 24. Id. at col. 5,11. 4-
7. Although Champagne is directed to control of refrigerant through
hydrodynamic liquid bearings, we agree with the Examiner that it would
have been obvious to employ the same sensor feedback and control of
Champagne in the system of Arnold in place of Arnold’s self-actuating flow
regulating device to control the flow of cooling air to the air bearing. Such a
modification of Arnold amounts to nothing more than a simple substitution
of one known flow control technique (self-actuating) for another flow
control technique (using a sensor and a control) to yield predictable results.
See KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“[W]hen a
patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the
mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the
combination must do more than yield a predictable result”).
Appellants’ argument that Champagne’s “bearing pump controller
(28) controls the speed of the bearing pump (26) based on parameters
5
Appeal 2015-002413
Application 12/851,347
associated with the rotatable element that is supported by the bearings, and
not the pressure or temperature of the cooling gas or ambient environment”
(Reply Br. 5), does not convince us otherwise. As noted supra, bearing
pump controller 28 controls the speed of the bearing pump 26 based on,
inter alia, the rotational speed of the rotor 20 of the compressor 12 and the
pressure drop across the bearings 22, 24. Champagne, col. 5,11. 39^43.
Specifically, Champagne discloses the bearing pump 26 will be turned on to
supply supplemental refrigerant to the bearings 22, 24 when the rotational
velocity of the rotor is greater than 55,000 rpm or when the pressure drop
across the bearings 22, 24 is less than 18 psi. Id. at col. 5,11. 57-60, 64-68.
Thus, Champagne controls the flow of refrigerant to the bearing based on
measurements indicative of the pressure of the refrigerant at the bearing.
We agree with the Examiner’s determination of obviousness that one having
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that one could employ
Champagne’s technique to use a sensor to measure the pressure of the
coolant air in Arnold and a control that opens or closes the flow control
device based on signals from the sensor in place of Arnold’s self-actuating
flow control device.
Champagne additionally teaches protecting the bearings from damage
by slowing or stopping the motor 17, based on feedback from sensors and
use of a control. Champagne, col. 7,11. 6-14; see also Ans. 3 (Examiner
interpreting the motor 17 of Champagne as a flow control device because the
motor influences, or controls flow, through the compressors 14, 16).
Appellants’ arguments directed to this teaching of Champagne, are not
persuasive of error, because even were we to find that Champagne’s motor
6
Appeal 2015-002413
Application 12/851,347
17 is not a flow control device, as discussed supra, Champagne discloses
bearing pump 26, which is a flow control device, and which operates under
control of controller 28 and sensors 101, 103, 105, and 107.
For these reasons, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Arnold
and Champagne. Appellants do not present separate arguments for the
patentability of dependent claims 2 and 15. Appeal Br. 9-13. Accordingly,
these claims fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Second Ground of Rejection
Appellants rely on the arguments presented in support of patentability
of claim 1 to contest the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-8, which depend
therefrom. Appeal Br. 17. For the reasons set forth above with respect to
claim 1, we sustain the first ground of rejection, and thus, likewise, we
sustain the second ground of rejection of claims 3-8.
Third Ground of Rejection
The Examiner found Arnold discloses a hydrodynamic gas film
bearing cooling gas control system as called for in independent claim 16
except that Arnold discloses using a single supply conduit and flow control
device to supply a flow of cooling gas to the hydrodynamic gas film bearing.
Final Act. 7. The Examiner found Fujii teaches using a second supply
conduit and a second flow control device to supply a coolant in a cooling
system for the purpose of operating at less capacity. Id. at 8. The Examiner
determined it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to have provided Arnold with a second supply
7
Appeal 2015-002413
Application 12/851,347
conduit and a second flow control device, as called for in claim 16, “for the
purpose of operating at less capacity.” Id. at 8-9. The Examiner further
determined modifying Arnold to provide redundant supply conduits and
flow control devices between the cooling gas supply source and
hydrodynamic gas film bearing would have been an obvious duplication of
essential working parts that involves only routine skill in the art. Id. at 9
(Examiner noting Appellants’ Specification does not disclose any criticality
for the second conduit and second flow control device).
Appellants argue “Fujii is non-analogous art to the invention defined
by independent [cjlaim 16.” Appeal Br. 14. Appellants do not contest the
Examiner’s reason for modifying Arnold with the teaching of Fujii and also
do not address the alternative reasoning provided by the Examiner based on
duplication of essential working parts.
Analogous Art
“A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination
under § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed invention.” In re
Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Two separate tests define the
scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of
endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not
within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved.” Id. (quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
We agree with Appellants that Fujii, which relates generally to
operation of a fluid plant, is not from the same field of endeavor as
Appellants’ invention directed to a cooling gas supply system to provide
cooling gas to hydrodynamic gas film bearings. Spec, paras. 1-2.
8
Appeal 2015-002413
Application 12/851,347
We turn now to the second inquiry to determine if Fujii is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved.
“A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different
field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the
matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an
inventor's attention in considering his problem.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656,
659 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The problem addressed by the invention is how to regulate the supply
of cooling gas to a hydrodynamic gas film bearing so that only the amount
of cooling gas needed to meet the requirements dictated by the operating
conditions of the device is provided to the bearing. Spec. para. 3. Thus, the
purpose of Appellants’ invention is to regulate flow of a fluid from a fluid
source to the element to which the fluid is to be delivered.
Fujii relates generally to operation of a fluid plant. Fujii, Title. In
particular, Fujii relates to systems within the fluid plant for providing fluid,
such as cooling fluid, from a fluid source to a device in need of cooling, and
the regulation of the flow of that fluid provided by each system during
operation of the plant. See, e.g., Fujii, col. 1,11. 8-13, col. 4,11. 45-64, and
Fig. 1. Thus, the purpose of Fujii is to provide a fluid plant having multiple
fluid handling systems to control flow of fluid from a source to a device to
which the fluid is to be delivered. Based on these findings as to the purposes
of the claimed invention and Fujii, we agree with the Examiner that Fujii
teaches controlling the flow of cooling fluid, and that this teaching is
pertinent to the particular problem facing Appellants, viz, controlling the
flow of cooling gas to avoid oversupplying cooling flow. Ans. 7. For these
9
Appeal 2015-002413
Application 12/851,347
reasons, we find Fujii is analogous art to the claimed invention. As such,
Appellants have not demonstrated error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim
16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Arnold and Fujii.
Duplication of Essential Working Parts
Further, Appellants do not address the Examiner’s additional stated
rationale for obviousness based on duplication of essential working parts.
We also find this reasoning provides a sufficient basis for the determination
of obviousness in this instance. In particular, we find no patentable
invention in using two supply paths having flow control devices therein.
The claimed supply conduits and flow control devices do not differ from the
supply conduit and flow control device in Arnold. Although Arnold has
only one supply conduit and flow control device, the use of a second supply
conduit and flow control device between the fluid source and the bearing
would readily suggest itself to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a
means to add redundancy to the system and to more easily vary capacity. In
fact, the Specification describes the purpose of the additional cooling gas
supply paths is simply to provide additional capacity. Spec. para. 25. Thus,
providing multiple flow paths between the source and the bearing would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to allow for
redundancy, in case one supply path becomes blocked or one flow control
device requires repair or maintenance.
Further, as noted by the Examiner, the technique of using multiple
cooling supply paths to vary capacity to the item to be cooled as needed is
disclosed in Fujii. Final Act. 8. Specifically, Fujii discloses a fluid plant
comprising multiple fluid delivery systems, each operating at less than full
capacity, so that if one system needs to be taken off-line for maintenance or
10
Appeal 2015-002413
Application 12/851,347
repair, the throughput of fluid through the remaining systems can be
increased to make up for the lost capacity of fluid flow through the system
that is off-line. Fujii, col. 2,11. 31-39. Fujii discloses each system includes
a circulating pump, driven by an electric motor, stop valves on either side of
the pump to isolate the pump, as needed, flow control valves and flow
meters to measure the discharged flow from each system, and a pump flow
control system to control rotational speeds of the pumps. Id. at col. 2,11. 45-
64, Fig. 1. Fujii teaches “during normal operation, the apparatus of the
systems are set at capacities below the rated capacities and operated
moderately, and consequently, durabilities of the apparatus can be
lengthened, thus improving the reliability of the equipment.” Id. at col. 6,
11. 51-55. Based on this knowledge in the art to provide multiple flow paths
to vary capacity and allow for redundancy, we agree with the Examiner’s
determination of obviousness.
For these reasons, Appellants have not demonstrated error in the
rejection of claim 16 as unpatentable over Arnold and Fujii. Appellants do
not present separate arguments for the patentability of dependent claim 17.
Appeal Br. 17. Accordingly, this claim falls with claim 16. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-8 and 15-17 is
AFFIRMED.
11
Appeal 2015-002413
Application 12/851,347
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
12