Ex Parte Hipsky

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 17, 2018

13743373 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/743,373 01/17/2013
26096 7590 04/19/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Harold W. Hipsky
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.
64774US01;
67010-473PUS 1
1639
EXAMINER
ARANT, HARRY E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/19/2018 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
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HAROLD W. HIPSKY 1
Appeal2017-006159
Application 13/743,373
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFERD. BAHR, JAMES P. CALVE, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Action
rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11, and 12. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation is identified as the real party in interest
and also is the applicant pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.46. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-006159
Application 13/743,373
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 5, and 9 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A fan and bypass combination comprising:
a selectively driven fan and a bypass flow passage for
bypassing said fan, said bypass flow passage communicating with a
first check valve selectively movable to a bypass position to allow air
to flow from said bypass flow passage to a downstream location;
a second check valve movable to a return position for allowing
air driven by said fan to pass into a return passage, and return to an
inlet of said fan in the event that a discharge pressure from said fan
overcomes a spring force associated with said second check valve;
and
wherein said return passage is said bypass flow passage.
Appeal Br. 6 (Claims App'x).
REJECTION
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Zywiak (US 7,334,422 B2, iss. Feb. 26, 2008), Milne
(GB 8658, pub. Aug. 29, 1912), and Uhl (DE 4304649 Al, pub. Sept. 1,
1994).
ANALYSIS
Resolution of this appeal turns on whether the Examiner has explained
sufficiently why it would have been obvious to modify the system of Zywiak
to include a second check valve to return air driven by fan 52 to a return
passage that is a bypass flow passage as claimed. The Examiner relies on
Zywiak to teach a fan and bypass combination as fan 52 and a bypass flow
passage through check valve 54, but Zywiak lacks a second check valve to
allow air driven by fan 52 to pass into a return passage and return to an inlet
of fan 52 if the discharge pressure from fan 52 overcomes a spring force
associated with the second check valve, as claimed. Final Act. 2-3.
2
Appeal2017-006159
Application 13/743,373
The Examiner relies on Milne to teach the use of a second check valve
"C" with a compressor to allow air driven by the compressor to pass into a
return passage and return to an inlet "A" of the compressor if the discharge
pressure of the compressor increases enough to open second check valve C.
Id. at 3. The Examiner relies on Milne's teaching that such a second check
valve maintains a constant outlet pressure from the compressor regardless of
variations in the speed of the compressor, thus increasing the reliability of
the system. Id. (citing Milne, 1 :39-42). The Examiner reasons that Zywiak
is silent on the outlet pressure of its fan, but "a person of ordinary skill in the
art would recognize maintaining appropriate operating pressure as a known
possible issue with an aircraft cooling system" and "Milne teaches a valve
for maintaining a constant outlet pressure, which a person of ordinary skill in
the art would recognize as applicable to the system of Zywiak." Ans. 3.
Appellant argues that Milne teaches a pressure responsive valve that
maintains constant pressure and eliminates pressure fluctuations on a rotary
compressor, but there is no showing of a problem with the variation of the
speed of Zywiak's fan 52. Appeal Br. 2; Reply Br. 1. Appellant also argues
that constant pressure likely would not be expected by Zywiak because,
when the fan is not operating during flight, there is no indication that
pressure would be constant at all. Appeal Br. 2-3; Reply Br. 1-2.
It is well-settled that "rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be
sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)) (emphasis
added).
3
Appeal2017-006159
Application 13/743,373
We agree with the Examiner that Milne teaches a second check valve
(pressure relief valve C) that causes the outlet pressure of a compressor to
remain constant despite fluctuations of the compressor's speed by allowing
excess gas to pass from outlet port D1 to inlet port D of the compressor. See
Milne, 1: 10-14. 2 Milne teaches the desirability of this feature for operating
a rotary compressor that compresses gas, air, and the like. Id. at 1 :5-10.
However, the Examiner has not provided sufficient scientific evidence or
technical reasoning that a skilled artisan would have recognized a second
check valve and maintaining constant outlet pressure "as a known possible
issue with an aircraft cooling system" or as otherwise applicable or
beneficial for the heat exchange system of Zywiak. Ans. 3.
Zywiak discloses its "invention" as using a single cooling air ram to
cool multiple heat exchangers 64, 66, 68 of an aircraft (e.g., for cabin air
conditioning, cooling electronics). Zywiak, 1:7-10; 2:15-35. Zywiak also
discloses fan 52 "associated with" check valve 54. Id. at 2:20-21. Zywiak
provides no other description of the operation of check valve 54 and fan 52.
Appellant discloses first check valve 50 that allows ram air to bypass
fan 46 when an aircraft is in flight and fan capacity is limited. Spec. i-f 16.
Appellant also discloses a second valve plate 60 that opens when a "surge"
condition causes high pressure at the outlet of fan 46. Opening second valve
plate 60 allows the high pressure air to return via bypass passage 149 to the
inlet of fan 46 and offset the diminished air flow through fan 46 caused by
the surge. Spec. i-fi-1 5, 20, 21.
2 We also find that Milne teaches that check valve "C" allows air driven by
the rotary gas compressor to return to inlet "D" of the compressor by a
passage A, A 1 that also serves as a bypass passage for air at inlet "D" to
bypass the compressor via first check valve "H". Milne, 1 :35--42, 2: 1-5.
4
Appeal2017-006159
Application 13/743,373
The Examiner has not explained sufficiently why providing a second
valve in Zywiak to maintain a constant outlet pressure at Zywiak's fan 52
would have been viewed as desirable or advantageous by a skilled artisan.
Nor has the Examiner provided sufficient evidence or technical reasons why
maintaining a constant outlet pressure at fan 52 of Zywiak is a problem to be
solved or a known issue in the art. 3 Nor do we have evidence that a skilled
artisan would have recognized Milne's teaching of providing constant outlet
pressure at a rotary air compressor as beneficial in Zywiak's heat exchanger
system and impeller fan 52. Thus, on the record before us, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11, and 12.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11, and 12.
REVERSED
3 The Examiner's reliance on Uhl's teaching of a valve flap configuration
providing a return wherein the return passage is the bypass passage is
unavailing in this regard. See Final Act. 3--4.
5