Ex Parte Gray et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2012

11173920 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2012)

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.
11/173,920 07/01/2005 Charles L. Gray JR. 310121.424 8914
31785 7590 12/18/2012
DAVID H. READ
USEPA, NVFEL
2565 Plymouth Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
EXAMINER
TRIEU, THAI BA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3748
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHARLES L. GRAY, JR. and DAVID JAMES HAUGEN
____________

Appeal 2010-012378
Application 11/173,920
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and
SCOTT A. DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charles L. Gray, Jr. and David James Haugen (Appellants) seek our
review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims
Appeal 2010-012378
Application 11/173,920

2
1-3, 5-13, 15-28, 30, and 31. Claims 4, 14, and 29 are pending and not
rejected.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “multi-stage turbochargers
having bypass systems for diverting exhaust gas flow around a first turbine.”
Spec. 1, ll. 9-11. Appellants have recognized that a pressure drop, which
occurs in the exhaust that flows between ports in the bypass line of a
conventional multi-stage turbocharger, represents a loss of useful energy.
Spec. 7, ll. 6-25. Appellants’ invention is directed to a valve, system, and
method to reclaim some of the energy lost in the bypass channel. Spec. 7, ll.
25-27.
Claims 1, 7, 21, 22, 26, and 30 are independent. Claims 1 and 30 are
directed to a valve, claims 7, 21, and 26 are directed to a system, and claim
22 is directed to a method. Claims 1 and 7, reproduced below, are
representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A turbocharger bypass valve, comprising:
a valve body having a first passage extending between a
first gas inlet and a gas outlet, and a second passage extending
between a second gas inlet and the gas outlet, the first and
second passages configured such that gas streams entering the
first and second inlets are combined into a single gas stream
exiting the gas outlet;
a valve member actuable between a closed position in
which the valve member substantially blocks all gas flow in the

1 The Examiner withdrew the rejections of claims 4, 14, and 29. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2010-012378
Application 11/173,920

3
second passage and an open position in which the valve
member is retracted, leaving the second passage unobstructed,
such that gas flowing in the second passage is substantially
unimpeded by the valve member, the valve member configured
to direct gas flowing in the second passage in a substantially
focused stream toward the outlet; and
a control mechanism configured to control actuation of
the valve member according to a pressure level at the second
gas inlet.
7. A system, comprising:
a first turbine having an inlet and an outlet;
a bypass channel having a first end in fluid
communication with the inlet of the first turbine and a second
end in fluid communication with the outlet of the first turbine,
and configured to provide a bypass for a flow of gaseous fluid
around the first turbine;
a second turbine having an inlet in fluid communication
with the outlet of the first turbine and the second end of the
bypass channel, and an outlet; and
a valve positioned in the bypass channel and configured
to regulate a flow of gaseous fluid in the bypass channel, the
valve further configured to increase a velocity of a stream of the
gaseous fluid passing therethrough, and focus the stream toward
the inlet of the second turbine such that the increased velocity
of the stream of fluid is substantially preserved as it enters the
second turbine.
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies upon the following evidence:
Paul US 2,394,471 Feb. 5, 1946
West US 3,576,102 Apr. 27, 1971
Kanesaka US 4,930,315 Jun. 5, 1990
Ando US 5,501,427 Mar. 26, 1996
Appeal 2010-012378
Application 11/173,920

4
Mayer US 6,751,956 B2 Jun. 22, 2004
Dorsch GB 2 110 755 A Jun. 22, 1983
THE REJECTIONS
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
1. Claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite.
2. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10, 30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dorsch and either Paul or Ando.
3. Claims 7-9, 11-13, 16-19, and 21-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kanesaka and Dorsch.
4. Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Kanesaka, Dorsch, and Mayer.
5. Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Kanesaka, Dorsch, and West.
ANALYSIS
Rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
Claim 31 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the first and
second passages merge according to an orientation and configuration
selected to preserve kinetic energy of the gas stream that enters the second
inlet as it combines with the gas stream that enters the first inlet.” App.
Br. 46, Claims Appendix. The Examiner rejected claim 31 because it is not
clear which orientation and configuration for the first and second passages is
to be selected to preserve energy of the gas stream. Ans. 5. The Examiner
further explained that the functional language renders the claim improper
Appeal 2010-012378
Application 11/173,920

5
because the structure disclosed in the Specification is incapable of
preserving the kinetic energy of the gas.2 Ans. 16.
Appellants argue one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
what is meant by “preserve kinetic energy of the gas stream” when the claim
language is read in view of the Specification, and in particular, the
description of the embodiments of Figures 7, 8A, 8B, and 9. App. Br. 11-12
(citing Spec. 13, l. 17 – Spec. 15, l. 7). Figures 7, 8A, and 8B depict a gate-
type bypass valve 70 and Figure 9 depicts a venturi-type bypass valve 66.
Spec. 13, l. 17 and Spec. 14, l. 24. With reference to gate-type valve 70, the
shape of the sliding valve member 80 is selected to function as a nozzle to
increase a velocity of the flow of gases and minimize turbulence of a second
stream 96 and focus the stream as it joins with stream 94. Spec. 14, ll. 10-
14. The second passage 75 is straight between the valve body inlet and
outlet to minimize energy loss due to changes in direction, and the geometry
of the valve body and sliding valve member are selected to combine the
streams with as little turbulence as possible, so that the combined stream
retains a high energy level. Spec. 14, ll. 17-22. With respect to venturi-type
bypass valve 66, when the valve is fully open, exhaust flow in the bypass
channel 33 is free to flow around the valve member 68 unimpeded, and as
the valve member 68 moves toward the closed position, the shape of the
valve member 68 in cooperation with the shape of the valve seat 67

2 The Examiner has not presented a separate rejection of claim 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of enablement or adequate written
description.
Appeal 2010-012378
Application 11/173,920

6
progressively restricts the flow while directing it into a focused stream as it
enters the exhaust channel 28. Spec. 15, ll. 1-7. Based on the Specification,
one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an orientation and
configuration of the first and second passages designed to “preserve kinetic
energy of the gas stream” are those orientations and configurations that
focus the stream exiting the bypass channel as it joins with the exhaust
stream and that minimize turbulent flow at the point at which the two
streams merge within the valve body.
As such, we find that the Specification provides an adequate
understanding to one of ordinary skill in the art as to an orientation and
configuration for the first and second passages to preserve energy of the gas
stream as called for in claim 31. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of
claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10, 30 and 31 as unpatentable over Dorsch and
either Paul or Ando
The Examiner determined that Dorsch discloses a valve as called for
in independent claims 1 and 30 except it fails to disclose an open position of
the valve member in which the valve member is retracted leaving the second
passage unobstructed or unimpeded by the valve member, and a gate-type
valve member. Ans. 6-7. The Examiner determined that it would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a gate-type valve, as
taught by Paul and Ando, in place of Dorsch’s valve member 24/25 “to
improve the flow control in the [Dorsch] device.” Ans. 7. See also Ans. 19-
Appeal 2010-012378
Application 11/173,920

7
21 (annotated Figure 2 of Dorsch showing proposed modifications based on
Paul and Ando).
As noted by Appellants, Dorsch relies on the closely controlled and
continuous obstruction and resistance provided by the cone member 25,
which has a diminishing taper downstream of the propulsion jet nozzle 33, to
prevent a reduction of the velocity with which the exhaust gases emerge
from the propulsion jet nozzle 33. Dorsch, p. 2, ll. 42-49. Replacing
Dorsch’s valve cone 24/cone member 25 with the plate valve member of
either Paul or Ando would appear to provide less control over the velocity
with which the exhaust gases emerge from the bypass pipe. Since Dorsch
teaches using a high velocity exhaust emerging from the bypass pipe to
entrain the exhaust gas in the pipe downstream of the exhaust turbine so as
to reduce exhaust gas pressure downstream of the turbine (Dorsch, p. 2,
ll. 33-42), having less control over the velocity of this bypass exhaust gas
would be contrary to the purpose of Dorsch’s system. As such, we agree
with Appellants (App. Br. 23) that the Examiner’s proposed modification of
Dorsch with the valve member of either Paul or Ando is not based on
rational underpinnings. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 30 and their dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 31
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dorsch and either Paul
or Ando.
Claim 10 depends from claim 7, which is rejected over the
combination of Kanesaka and Dorsch. As the Examiner has failed to set
forth a prima facie case of obviousness of independent claim 7 over the
Appeal 2010-012378
Application 11/173,920

8
combination of Dorsch and either Paul or Ando, we also reverse the
rejection of claim 10.
Rejection of claims 7-9, 11-13, 16-19, and 21-28 as unpatentable over
Kanesaka and Dorsch
The Examiner determined that Kanesaka discloses the system of
independent claims 7, 21, and 26 except for a valve/bypass means/means to
perform the function of increasing the velocity of the stream and the valve
being a venturi-type valve. Ans. 8-10. The Examiner determined that
Dorsch teaches:
[I]t is conventional in the art of regulating the charging
pressure of a turbocharged engine, to utilize the valve (24, 25)
configured to increase a velocity of a stream of the gaseous
fluid passing therethrough, and focus the stream toward the
inlet of the turbine such that the increased velocity of the stream
of fluid is substantially preserved as it enters the turbine/means
for preserving a portion of energy potential released as pressure
of the gas flow drops in the bypass means (See Figures 1-3,
Page 1, lines 42-59); and the valve being a venturi-type valve
(24, 25) (See Figure 4).
Ans. 10-11. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to use the venturi-type valve of Dorsch “to
improve the efficiency of the Kanesaka turbocharged internal combustion
engine.” Ans. 11. The Examiner also determined that the method of claim
22 would be inherent during the normal use and operation of the modified
Kanesaka device. Id.
We disagree with the Examiner’s determination that Dorsch teaches
increasing a velocity of the bypass stream and focusing the stream toward
the inlet of a turbine such that the increased velocity of the stream of fluid is
Appeal 2010-012378
Application 11/173,920

9
substantially preserved as it enters the turbine. See App. Br. 32. As
discussed supra, Dorsch discloses increasing the velocity of the bypass
stream to entrain the exhaust gases coming from the outlet of the turbine so
as to reduce the pressure downstream of the turbine. Dorsch, p. 2, ll. 33-42.
Once the streams from the bypass and turbine exhaust are merged, Dorsch
teaches reducing the kinetic energy of the merged stream by using a diffuser
23 to assist the discharge of the exhaust gases to atmosphere. Dorsch, p. 2,
ll. 49-53. Thus, Dorsch does not relate to a multi-stage turbocharger, and
thus does not teach increasing the velocity of the bypass stream so as to
preserve the energy of the stream as it enters the inlet of a second turbine.
As such, the combined teachings of Kanesaka and Dorsch would not render
obvious the subject matter of independent claims 7, 21, 22, and 26, or their
dependent claims 8, 9, 11-13, 16-19, 23-25, 27, and 28. Accordingly, we
reverse the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Kanesaka and Dorsch.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 15 over Kanesaka, Dorsch,
and Mayer and of claim 20 over Kanesaka, Dorsch, and West
The Examiner does not rely on either Mayer or West to cure the
deficiencies in the underlying combination of Kanesaka and Dorsch,
discussed supra, as they pertain to independent claim 7, from which claims
15 and 20 depend. Ans. 12 (relying on Mayer to teach “utiliz[ing] the level
of fluid pressure being calculated based on operating values of an engine”
and relying on West to teach “utiliz[ing] the inlet of the second turbine being
coupled to an additional outlet (44) of the exhaust manifold”). Accordingly,
Appeal 2010-012378
Application 11/173,920

10
we reverse the rejections of claims 15 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
the same reasons discussed supra in our analysis of the rejection of
independent claim 7.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3, 5-
13, 15-28, 30, and 31.

REVERSED

mls