Ex Parte Kovasity et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 27, 201310793065 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 10/793,065 03/04/2004 Joseph J. Kovasity TDI-02 6120 7590 06/27/2013 PAUL S. RULON 121 Oostagala Dr. London, TN 37774-6901 EXAMINER NGUYEN, ANDREW H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/27/2013 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 JOSEPH J. KOVASITY and VERN E. BROOKS ____________________ Appeal 2011-005833 Application 10/793,065 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: JAMES P. CALVE, NEIL T. POWELL, and BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges. POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-005833 Application 10/793,065 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claim 17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Independent claim 17 is reproduced below. 17. A gas turbine engine comprising: an annular housing; a shaft having an axis; a bearing assembly mounting the shaft for rotation and non-axial movement in the housing about the axis; an annular combustor disposed in the annular housing means concentric to the shaft; a compressor affixed to the shaft; a diffuser for directing compressor discharge air from the compressor to the annular combustor; a turbine nozzle axially spaced from the diffuser with the combustor axially disposed there- between; a turbine affixed to the shaft and axially spaced from the compressor; the improvement comprising: an electric generator having a stator mounted axially between the diffuser and the nozzle, radially inward of the annular combustor and concentric to the shaft, and a rotor affixed to the shaft radially inward of the stator. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Rice US 4,543,781 Oct. 1, 1985 Appeal 2011-005833 Application 10/793,065 3 Kenworthy US 4,852,355 Aug. 1, 1989 Tanigawa US 6,263,664 B1 July 24, 2001 REJECTION Appellants seek our review of the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tanigawa, Kenworthy, and Rice. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Tanigawa discloses a gas turbine engine that includes an electric generator with a stator radially inward of a combustor, and which otherwise meets most of the limitations of claim 17. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner also finds that Tanigawa’s combustor is not an “annular combustor,” as required by claim 17, but has multiple cans with heat exchangers for steam generation. Id. at 4, 5. Citing Kenworthy, the Examiner further finds that “can,” “can-annular,” and “annular” combustors constitute well-known alternatives used in axial flow gas turbine engines. Id. at 4. In view of these findings, the Examiner concludes that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to replace Tanigawa’s multiple-can combustor with an annular combustor, thereby meeting all of the limitations of claim 17. Id. at 4. Appellants argue that “mounting of an electric generator in the donut hole of an annular combustor provides a compact engine and generator assembly that is believed to be a significant advancement in the art.” App. Br. 2. Absent their disclosure, Appellants argue, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have thought it obvious to install Tanigawa’s electric generator “in the very limited space surrounded by an annular combustor.” Id. Appellants further argue that none of the cited references nor any of a Appeal 2011-005833 Application 10/793,065 4 number of other references by inventors with more than ordinary skill in the art discloses placing an electric generator radially inward of an annular combustor, or even a need for or benefit to doing so. Id. at 2, 5-8. Appellants argue that mere disclosure in the prior art of an electric generator mounted between an axially spaced compressor and turbine does not render obvious the claimed invention. Id. at 5. The Examiner responds that Tanigawa does not merely disclose mounting an electric generator axially between a compressor and turbine, but discloses mounting an electric generator radially inward of a combustor where the electric generator is already surrounded by a combustor. Ans. 5-6, 7. Regarding Appellants’ characterization of the annular space inside an annular combustor as a “very limited space” or a “donut hole,” the Examiner notes that claim 17 does not include such limitations. Ans. 6. The Examiner also notes that electric generators can be small, and that claim 17 does not recite a particular amount of space for the generator. Id. The Examiner’s findings provide rational underpinnings for the conclusion of obviousness. Appellants do not dispute that Tanigawa discloses locating an electric generator within an annular space radially inward of a combustor. Nor do Appellants dispute that those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention recognized an annular combustor as an interchangeable alternative to the combustor disclosed in Tanigawa. These facts support the conclusion that it would have been obvious to replace Tanigawa’s combustor with an annular combustor, which seemingly could accommodate an electric generator in its annular internal space in substantially the same manner Tanigawa’s does. Appeal 2011-005833 Application 10/793,065 5 Appellants’ attorney argument related to the size of the annular space inside an annular combustor does not apprise us of error in this conclusion. Appellants’ characterizations of the annular space inside an annular combustor as a “very limited space” and a “donut hole” are unavailing for a number of reasons. See App. Br. 2, 3, 5-8. First, we agree with the Examiner that claim 17 does not specify any particular size for the annular space inside the annular combustor. Ans. 6. Accordingly, each argument regarding the purportedly “very limited space” of the “donut hole” is not commensurate in scope with the claim language. Furthermore, Appellants do not provide evidence or explanation convincing us that the annular space inside an annular combustor necessarily differs in size from the annular space inside Tanigawa’s heat exchanger. Nor do Appellants provide any other specific reason that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have thought it significantly different to house an electric generator within the annular space of an annular combustor instead of the annular space inside Tanigawa’s combustor, particularly when Tanigawa positions the generator (M) immediately around the inner axle (U), thereby maximizing the annular space around the generator (M). See Tanigawa, fig. 10. Appellants’ arguments that no single prior art reference discloses a need or benefit for combining the exact components recited in claim 17 also fail to negate the rational underpinnings of the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. See App. Br. 2, 5-8. An obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Appeal 2011-005833 Application 10/793,065 6 Appellants further argue that the Examiner’s proposed combination of the references would not have been obvious because Tanigawa provides only schematic drawings and the proposed modification would require “major structural changes” to the engine of Tanigawa. App. Br. 2, 5. In response, the Examiner notes that Tanigawa provides sufficient detail to allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the arrangements of components shown in its schematic drawings. Ans. 7. The Examiner also points out that Kenworthy’s disclosure of can, can-annular, and annular combustors as interchangeable alternatives demonstrates that those of ordinary skill in the art had knowledge sufficient to render obvious any structural modifications necessary to change from Tanigawa’s combustor to an annular type combustor. Id. at 6. Absent convincing evidence or explanation of some specific, unobvious structural change or changes required by the proposed modification, we believe the Examiner has sound basis for finding that the proposed changes would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981 (test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of references would have suggested to a skilled artisan and not whether features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of a primary reference); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (it is not necessary that inventions of references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review). Appellants also argue that the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention because each of a number of prior art references identified by Appellants fails to disclose exactly the same combination of components recited in claim 17. App. Br. 5-8. We cannot agree with this contention Appeal 2011-005833 Application 10/793,065 7 because Appellants do not identify any teaching within any of the references relied upon by the Examiner or these additional references that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages use of the claimed invention, or explain how the additional references teach away from combining the references relied upon by the Examiner to render obvious the claimed subject matter. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants further argue that the current rejection of claim 17 has less merit than a previous rejection that the Examiner withdrew. App. Br. 5. This does not apprise us of error in the current rejection because Appellants’ bare, conclusory opinion regarding the relative merits of a previous rejection provides no objective basis for evaluating the merits of the current rejection. Appellants also argue that the rejection resorts to improper hindsight and piecemeal reconstruction of the claimed invention based on Appellants’ disclosure. App. Br. 5, 6. We do not agree because, as discussed above, the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness has rational underpinnings based on the disclosures in the cited references. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 17. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation