Ex Parte HaugenDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 15, 200911174391 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 15, 2009) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte DAVID JAMES HAUGEN ____________ Appeal 2009-001573 Application 11/174,391 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Decided: September 15, 2009 ____________ Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and MICHAEL W. O'NEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE David James Haugen (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 13, 14, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27-29, 32, and 33. Claims 5-12, 15-18, 21, 22, 25, 26, 30, and 31 are withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). Appeal 2009-001573 Application 11/174,391 2 SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM-IN-PART. THE INVENTION The Appellant’s claimed invention is a multi-stage turbocharging system for an internal combustion engine. Spec. 1:10-11. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An internal combustion engine system, comprising: an internal combustion engine, producing pressurized exhaust gas with a first exhaust energy level; an exhaust manifold coupled to said internal combustion engine, for directing flow of the pressurized exhaust gas toward an exhaust line; a first, higher pressure stage turbine, coupled to the exhaust line, having an inlet and an outlet fluidly coupled with the exhaust line, for extraction of work from the pressurized exhaust gas, and passing on the pressurized exhaust gas through its outlet at a second, lower exhaust energy level; at least one lower pressure stage turbine, having at least one inlet fluidly coupled to the outlet of the first turbine, for further extraction of work from the pressurized exhaust gas with the second, lower exhaust energy level; a bypass means for bypassing a portion of the flow of the pressurized exhaust gas with the first exhaust energy level around the first turbine, from upstream of the first turbine to at least one inlet of at least one lower pressure stage turbine; and Appeal 2009-001573 Application 11/174,391 3 nozzle means positioned to receive the bypassed flow of exhaust gas while still substantially near the first exhaust energy level, and for converting a portion of the exhaust energy in the bypassed flow of exhaust gas to kinetic energy, in the form of acceleration of the bypassed exhaust gas flow, said nozzle means placed sufficiently nearby turbine wheel blades of at least one lower pressure stage turbine for conversion of the kinetic energy to mechanical work in the lower pressure stage turbine before substantial dissipation of said bypassed exhaust gas flow acceleration. THE EVIDENCE The Examiner relies upon the following evidence: Kanesaka US 4,930,315 Jun. 5, 1990 Sumser US 6,378,305 B1 Apr. 30, 2002 Gladden US 6,422,014 B1 Jul. 23, 2002 Hiemesch EP 1275832 A2 Jan. 15, 2003 Vogiatzis US 6,948,907 B2 Sep. 27, 2005 Weiss DE 195 14 572 A1 Oct. 24, 1996 THE REJECTIONS The Appellant seeks our review of the following decisions by the Examiner: 1. Rejection of claims 14 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Weiss. Appeal 2009-001573 Application 11/174,391 4 2. Rejection of claims 1-4, 19, 20, 27-29, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Weiss, and either Hiemesch, Sumser, or Vogiatzis. 3. Rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Weiss, Hiemesch, and Kaneska. 4. Rejection of claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Weiss, Gladden, and either Hiemesch, Sumser, or Vogiatzis. ISSUES The Examiner found that Weiss anticipates claims 14 and 32 based in part on the finding that valve 12 of the reversing device 13 of Weiss increases the velocity of the exhaust gas flow by creating a reduced cross- sectional flow area when pivoting 90 degrees from the two-stage position to the one-stage position. Ans. 4, 13-15. The Appellant contends that Weiss does not disclose utilizing converted kinetic energy to impart increased momentum to a low pressure turbocharger. App. Br. 9-101; Reply Br. 4. The issue before us is: Has the Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding that valve 12 of Weiss increases the velocity of the exhaust gas flow such that the system of Weiss utilizes converted kinetic energy to impart increased momentum to a low pressure turbocharger? 1 The abbreviation App. Br. refers to the Appeal Brief filed on August 14, 2007, not the Response to Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief filed on October 9, 2007 (which add only a corrected Status of Claims section, and a Summary of Claimed Subject Matter section). Appeal 2009-001573 Application 11/174,391 5 The Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness for claims 1-4, 13, and 27- 29 is based in part on the underlying finding of fact that Weiss discloses bypassing a portion of the exhaust gas flow at a first energy level around the first turbine to a nozzle means while the exhaust gas is still substantially near the first energy level. Ans. 5. More specifically, the Examiner found that Weiss discloses nozzle means (reversing device 13) positioned to receive exhaust gas (from port 21) that is still substantially near the first energy level. Ans. 5. The Appellant argues that Weiss does not disclose a nozzle means positioned to receive the bypassed flow of exhaust gas while the bypassed exhaust gas is still substantially near the first energy level. App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 3-4. The issue before us is: Has the Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding that Weiss discloses a nozzle means positioned to receive the bypassed flow of exhaust gas while the bypassed exhaust gas is still substantially near the first energy level? The Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness for claim 33 is based in part on the finding that Weiss discloses a nozzle means, valve 12 of the reversing device 13, that accelerates the exhaust gas, and is positioned so that the exhaust gas reaches the lower pressure stage turbine before substantial dissipation of that acceleration. Ans. 5-6. The Appellant argues that claim 33 requires the nozzle that accelerates the exhaust gas flow must be located in the bypass channel, and Weiss’s nozzle is not. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 5. Appeal 2009-001573 Application 11/174,391 6 The issue before us is: Has the Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding that Weiss discloses a nozzle that accelerates the exhaust gas flow located in the bypass channel? The Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness for claims 19, 20, 23 and 24 is based in part on the finding that Weiss discloses means for bypassing exhaust flow without expansion of the bypassed exhaust flow before delivery to the inlet of the second turbine, to preserve the bypassed exhaust gas energy. Ans. 4-6, 7-9. The Appellant argues that “Weiss does not show a means for bypassing exhaust flow without expansion of the bypassed exhaust flow before delivery to the inlet of the second turbine, to preserve the bypassed exhaust gas energy.” App. Br. 11. More specifically, the Appellant argues that in Weiss’s device the exhaust would expand (and lose energy): at intervening valves 12 and 17, upon mixing with flow from connector 21, and in the area of 22b and exhaust line 14. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 5; Declaration of David Haugen 2:¶3 The issue before us is: Has the Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding that Weiss discloses means for bypassing exhaust flow without expansion of the bypassed exhaust flow before delivery to the inlet of the second turbine, to preserve the bypassed exhaust gas energy? FINDINGS OF FACT We find that the following enumerated facts are supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, Appeal 2009-001573 Application 11/174,391 7 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office). 1. Weiss discloses a supercharged internal combustion engine capable of single-stage or two-stage operation, comprised of: an internal combustion engine 1, a high pressure stage 4, and a low pressure stage 5. The high pressure stage is comprised of high pressure turbine 6 that drives high pressure compressor 7. The low pressure stage 5 is comprised of a low pressure turbine 8 that drives low pressure compressor 9. Weiss, 2:1-2; 4:5-10; fig. 1.2 2. Two-stage operation occurs in the range of 40 to 50 percent of the nominal revolutions per minute (rpm) of the internal combustion engine 1. Exhaust gas exits the internal combustion engine 1 through exhaust branch 2, and enters reversing device 13 through port 20a, where the horizontal position 25 of butterfly valve 12 directs the exhaust gas through port 20b to exhaust gas branch 3 and on to the high pressure turbine 6. From the high pressure turbine 6, the exhaust gas returns to reversing device 13 at connector 21, where butterfly valve 12 directs the flow to ports 22a, 22b. From this point, the exhaust gas passes through exhaust gas lines 14 and 15, to the low pressure turbine 8. Weiss, 4:14-21; 6:10-22; figs. 1, 2. 3. Two-stage operation includes permitting a portion of the exhaust gas to go from internal combustion engine 1 to the low pressure turbine 8 without passing through the high pressure turbine 6. 2 Our citations to Weiss refer to the Official USPTO Translation of Weiss (PTO 06-0558), translated by FLS, Inc., and dated November 2006. Appeal 2009-001573 Application 11/174,391 8 Relief valve 17 remains closed until the internal combustion engine 1 reaches 40 percent of the nominal rpm (start of two-stage operation), then opens, permitting a portion of exhaust gas from exhaust gas branch 2 to pass through bypass line 16 to connector 23 of the reversing device 13. Reversing device 13 has butterfly valve 12 in horizontal position 25, so that ports 22a and 22b are open to each other, permitting exhaust gas from the high pressure turbine 6 entering at connector 21 to mix with exhaust gas entering from exhaust branch 2 at connector 23. The mixed exhaust gas then exits reversing device 13 via ports 22a and 22b to exhaust gas lines 14 and 15, and on to the low pressure turbine 8. Weiss, 5:11- 24; 6:10-22; figs 1, 2. 4. Single-stage operation occurs in the range of 50 to 60 percent of the nominal rpm of internal combustion engine 1. At the start of single-stage operation, relief valve 17 closes, and valve 12 pivots 90 degrees from the two-stage horizontal position 25 to a vertical position. In this configuration, exhaust gas exits the internal combustion engine 1 through dual exhaust branches 2 and 3, and enters reversing device 13 at ports 20a and 20b, where valve 12 directs the exhaust gas through ports 22a and 22b to exhaust gas lines 14 and 15, and on to the low pressure turbine 8. During single-stage operation, the high pressure turbine 6 is completely bypassed so that all the exhaust gas enthalpy is available to the low pressure turbine 8. Weiss, 4:25 to 5:6, 5:22-23; 6:23-26; figs. 1, 2. 5. Weiss does not describe valve 12 as creating an increase or decrease of the velocity of the exhaust gas during the pivoting Appeal 2009-001573 Application 11/174,391 9 movement from horizontal position 25 (two-stage operation) to the vertical position (single-stage operation). Weiss, 6:23-26; passim; figs. 1, 2. 6. Weiss does not disclose the period of time necessary for valve 12 to move from horizontal position 25 (two-stage operation) to the vertical position (single-stage operation). Weiss, passim. 7. Weiss does not expressly disclose that relief valve 17, port 22b, or exhaust gas line 14 either reduce or expand the cross-sectional flow area. Weiss does not expressly disclose that relief valve 17, port 22b, or exhaust gas line 14 create an increase or decrease in the velocity of the exhaust gas. Weiss, passim. PRINCIPLES OF LAW “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented 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 to which said subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called Appeal 2009-001573 Application 11/174,391 10 secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 550 U.S. at 407 (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that controls.”) ANALYSIS Rejection of claims 14 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Weiss Independent claim 14 and its dependent claim 32 contain the limitation of “converting a portion of the exhaust energy of the bypassed pressurized exhaust gas flow to kinetic energy…and utilizing the converted kinetic energy in the bypassed exhaust gas flow to impart an increased momentum to turbine blades of the turbine in the low pressure turbocharger.” The Appellant’s Specification describes converting a portion of the exhaust gas energy to kinetic energy by passing the exhaust gas through a reduced cross-sectional area flow path (e.g. a nozzle), increasing the velocity of the exhaust gas. Spec. 8:21-9:9. We construe claims 14 and 32 to require increasing the velocity of the exhaust gas to impart greater momentum to the low pressure turbocharger. Weiss does not support the Examiner’s finding that valve 12 of Weiss increases the velocity of the exhaust gas flow by creating a reduced cross- sectional flow area when pivoting 90 degrees from the two-stage position to the one-stage position. Ans. 4, 13-15. Weiss discloses a supercharged internal combustion engine capable of single-stage and two-stage operation (Fact 1). Weiss discloses that valve 12 has a first horizontal position to direct exhaust gas flow in two-stage operation, and a second vertical position Appeal 2009-001573 Application 11/174,391 11 to direct exhaust gas flow during single-stage operation (Facts 2-4). Even if valve 12 creates a reduced cross-sectional area flow path while transitioning from the first to the second position, that momentary reduced cross-sectional area flow path does not necessitate the conclusion that valve 12 increases the velocity of the exhaust gas. Weiss does not expressly disclose that valve 12 increases the velocity of the exhaust gas (Fact 5). As such, the Examiner’s finding that a momentary reduced cross-sectional area flow path created as the valve 12 passes from a first position to a second position results in imparting increased momentum to the low pressure turbocharger is based on speculation and is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Appellant has demonstrated the Examiner erred in the rejection of claims 14 and 32. Rejection of claims 1-4, 27-29, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Weiss and either Hiemesch, Sumser, or Vogiatzis Claims 1-4 and 27-29 Independent claims 1 and 27 each contain the requirement that a portion of the exhaust gas at a first energy level bypasses the first turbine and reaches a means for converting the exhaust gas energy to kinetic energy (e.g. a nozzle), while the bypassed exhaust gas is still substantially near the first energy level. The Appellant’s Specification defines the exhaust gas leaving the combustion chamber as at a first energy level, and exhaust gas that passes through a turbine as being expanded to a second, lower energy level. Spec. 7:4-6; 8:1-3. We agree with the Appellant that the Examiner incorrectly found that Weiss discloses bypassing a portion of the exhaust gas at a first energy level Appeal 2009-001573 Application 11/174,391 12 around the first turbine to a nozzle means while the exhaust gas is still substantially near the first energy level. App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 3-4. Weiss discloses that during two-stage operation, exhaust gas passes through high pressure turbine 6 and enters reversing device 13 at connector 21, where butterfly valve 12 directs the flow to ports 22a and 22b (Fact 2). Contrary to the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 5), the exhaust gas entering port 21 has expanded through high pressure turbine 6 to a second, lower energy level, and is no longer at the first energy level required by claims 1 and 27. Based on this, the Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in the rejection of claims 1 and 27. Further, the rejection of claims 2-4, 28, and 29 are also in error by virtue of their dependency from claims 1 and 27. Claim 33 As the Appellant correctly points out, claim 33 requires the nozzle that accelerates the exhaust gas flow to be “located in the bypass channel.” App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 5. As we concluded in the analysis of claim 14, supra, valve 12 of Weiss does not accelerate the exhaust gas flow. Thus, the Examiner’s finding that valve 12 is a nozzle that accelerates exhaust gas flow located in the bypass channel is incorrect. Ans. 5-6. The Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in the rejection of claim 33. Rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Weiss, Hiemesch, and Kaneska The Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness for claim 13 relies on the erroneous finding of fact that Weiss discloses a bypass of exhaust gas that enters reversing device 13 at port 21 while still at a first energy level. Ans. 6-7. As we concluded in the analysis of claim 1 supra, Weiss discloses that Appeal 2009-001573 Application 11/174,391 13 the exhaust gas entering port 21 has expanded through high pressure turbine 6 to a second, lower energy level, and is no longer at the claimed first energy level. Further, the Examiner does not propose a modification that would remedy this deficiency in Weiss. Ans. 6-7. As such, the Appellant has demonstrated the Examiner erred in the rejection of claim 13. Rejection of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Weiss and either Hiemesch, Sumser, or Vogiatzis and rejection of claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Weiss, Gladden, and either Hiemesch, Sumser, or Vogiatzis Independent claim 19 and its dependent claim 20, and independent claim 23 and its dependent claim 24 contain the limitation of means for bypassing exhaust flow around the high pressure turbine to an inlet of the second low pressure turbine without expansion of the bypassed exhaust flow before delivery to the inlet of the second low pressure turbine, to preserve the bypassed exhaust gas energy. The Appellant’s assertion that relief valve 17, valve 12, port 22b, exhaust line 14, and connector 21 would cause the exhaust gas to expand and lose energy prior to reaching the inlet of the second low pressure turbine is not supported by Weiss. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 5, Haugen Decl. 2:¶3. During single-stage operation, relief valve 17 is closed, and there is no flow from connector 21 because the high pressure turbine is completely bypassed (Fact 4). Given this, relief valve 17 and connector 21 could not cause expansion of the exhaust gas. Exhaust gas does flow through the other portions of the device that the Appellant alleges cause expansion (port 22b, valve 12, and exhaust line 14). During single-stage operation, exhaust gas Appeal 2009-001573 Application 11/174,391 14 passes from exhaust gas branch 3 through port 20b, and is directed by valve 12 (in position 25) to port 22b, through exhaust gas line 14, and to the low pressure turbine (Fact 4). Weiss does not expressly disclose that valve 12, port 22b, or exhaust line 14 have an increased cross-sectional flow area, or otherwise cause expansion of exhaust gas (Facts 5, 7). Further, directly contrary to the Appellant’s assertion, Weiss expressly discloses that in this process “all exhaust gas enthalpy is available to the low pressure turbine” (Fact 4). The Appeal Brief, the Reply Brief, and the Declaration all fail to address this disclosure by Weiss (App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 5; Haugen Decl. 2:¶3). Thus, we find that Weiss discloses bypassing exhaust flow to the inlet of the low pressure turbine without expansion, and with the exhaust gas energy preserved. The Appellant has failed to demonstrate the Examiner erred in the rejections of claims 19, 20, 23, and 24. CONCLUSIONS The Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in finding that valve 12 of Weiss increases the velocity of the exhaust gas flow such that the system of Weiss utilizes converted kinetic energy to impart increased momentum to a low pressure turbocharger. The Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in finding that Weiss discloses a nozzle means positioned to receive the bypassed flow of exhaust gas while the bypassed exhaust gas is still substantially near the first energy level. The Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in finding that Weiss discloses a nozzle located in the bypass channel that accelerates the exhaust gas flow. Appeal 2009-001573 Application 11/174,391 15 The Appellant has failed to show the Examiner erred in finding that Weiss discloses means for bypassing exhaust flow without expansion of the bypassed exhaust flow before delivery to the inlet of the second turbine, to preserve the bypassed exhaust gas energy. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 14 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We REVERSE the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-4, 13, 27- 29, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision to reject claims 19, 20, 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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)(1)(iv) (2007). AFFIRMED-IN-PART mls DAVID READ NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY 2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD ANN ARBOR, MI 48105 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation