Ex Parte Munsell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2016

13362499 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/362,499 0113112012 Peter M. Munsell
54549 7590 06/03/2016
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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.
67097-1719PUS 1 ;59593US01 8273
EXAMINER
SUNG, GERALD LUTHER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/03/2016 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER M. MUNSELL and PHILIP S. STRIPINIS
Appeal2014-004722
Application 13/362,499
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Peter M. Munsell and Philip S. Stripinis ("Appellants") 1 appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-10 and
16-22, which are all the pending claims. See Br. 1. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
According to Appellants, the real party in interest is United
Technologies Corporation. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-004722
Application 13/362,499
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' disclosed invention "relates to buffer system for a gas
turbine engine." Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1 and 16 are independent. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A buffer system for a gas turbine engine comprising:
a heat exchanger having a first inlet and outlet and a
second inlet and outlet, the first outlet configured to provide a
cooled pressurized fluid;
first and second air sources selectively fluidly coupled to
the first inlet;
a third air source fluidly coupled to the second inlet; and
multiple fluid-supplied areas located remotely from one
another and fluidly coupled to the first outlet, the multiple fluid-
supplied areas including multiple bearing compartments.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Hemsworth us 3,527,054 Sept. 8, 1970
Ho van us 4,542,623 Sept. 24, 1985
Liu us 6,035,627 Mar. 14, 2000
Lui US 6,305,156 Bl Oct. 23, 2001
Seda US 6, 732,502 B2 May 11, 2004
Moniz US 7 ,334,392 B2 Feb.26,2008
Jain US 2008/0310956 Al Dec. 18, 2008
2
Appeal2014-004722
Application 13/362,499
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. Claims 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite. Final Act. 2.
II. Claims 1-10, 16, and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lui, either Hovan or
Hemsworth, and Liu. Id. at 3-10.
III. Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lui, either Hovan or Hemsworth, Liu,
Seda, and Moniz. Id. at 11-12.
IV. Claims 17 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lui, either Hovan or Hemsworth, Liu,
and Jain. Id. at 12-13.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I - Claims 17-19 as indefinite
Claim 17 recites "a bypass ratio of greater than about six (6)," claim
18 recites "a low Fan Pressure Ratio of less than about 1.45," and claim 19
recites "a pressure ratio that is greater than about 5." Br., Claims App.
(emphasis added). The Examiner found that "the limitation 'about' renders
the claims indefinite because it is unclear what the degree of tolerance
'about' is intended to require" and that "[t]he specification merely nominally
recites the term ... without any meaningful explanation as to what the
degree of tolerance is." Final Act. 2. The Examiner explains in the Answer
that "Appellant[s] provide[] no specific meaning as to what values 'about'
3
Appeal2014-004722
Application 13/362,499
would cover and the Examiner finds no instance in the prior art that gives an
indication as to an accepted standard of tolerance." Ans. 14.
Appellants argue that the term "about" does not render the claims
indefinite. See Br. 3-5. In particular, Appellants assert that variable claim
terms are not necessarily indefinite and that, "[ f]or example, it is
conventional in engineering to have an implied tolerance based upon the
number of decimal places used." Id. at 3 (citing MPEP § 2173.0S(b )). This
argument is not persuasive of error in the Examiner's rejection. Although
we agree with Appellants that the term "about" is not necessarily always
indefinite, Appellants offer no evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to
explain what tolerances are implied by the term "about" as recited in the
present claims. Moreover, with respect to Appellants' stated example,
claims 17 and 19 recite whole number values with no decimal places,
whereas claim 18 recites a value having two decimal places. See id., Claims
App. As such, the term "about" recited in claims 17 and 19 could have a
different meaning than the same term recited in claim 18, thereby creating
confusion regarding the scope of the term intended by Appellants.
Appellants argue that "[t]he law does not require ... Appellant[s] to
define the exact tolerance when using the term 'about' in association with a
value," and that the term is entitled to its ordinary meaning. Id. at 3--4.
These assertions, albeit accurate in the abstract, are not persuasive of error in
the Examiner's rejection here because the ordinary meaning of the term
4
Appeal2014-004722
Application 13/362,499
"about" does not lend any more clarity to the scope of the term as recited in
Appellants' claims. 2
Appellants argue that the open-ended ranges recited in the claims are
not indefinite because "[a] worker of ordinary skill in the art ... would
recognize [that] there is a limit that would be practical in any given engine
design" (Br. 5) and that "there would be some upper boundary on all of the
quantities" recited in the claims (id. at 4). These assertions are misplaced
because they are not responsive to the rejection articulated by the Examiner.
We understand the Examiner's indefiniteness rejection to be based on a lack
of clarity regarding the scope of the term "about" rather than the open-ended
ranges recited in the claims. See Final Act. 2.
Appellants also argue that "[t]he term 'about' is well within a skilled
worker's understanding." Br. 5. This argument does not persuade us of
error because the assertion amounts to mere attorney argument unsupported
by objective evidence. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA
197 4 ). Appellants offer no evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to
support the argument that the scope of the term "about" as recited in claims
would be objectively understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
We agree with the Examiner that, considering the lack of evidence in the
record, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not readily discern
what range of tolerance from the recited values Appellants intend by the
term "about." See Ans. 14--15. In particular, the Examiner correctly notes
that "the current record would provide little guidance to the public as to how
2 We note that an ordinary meaning of "about" is simply "reasonably
close to," which offers no clarifying precision to the present claims. See
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2003).
5
Appeal2014-004722
Application 13/362,499
close to the claimed range the public may approach [to] avoid infringement."
Id. at 15.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 17-19 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Rejection II - Claims 1-10, 16, and 20--22 as unpatentable over
Lui, either Hovan or Hemsworth, and Liu
Appellants present arguments against the rejection of claims 1-10, 16,
and 20-22 as a group. See Br. 5-7. We select claim 1 as the representative
claim to decide the appeal of the rejection of these claims, with claims 2-10,
16, and 20-22 standing or falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner found that "Lui discloses [a] 'frequently used design in
the art that provides air to an environmental control system and air to start an
engine,' see column 3, lines 10-15, herein interpreted as a buffer system for
a gas turbine engine." Final Act. 3. The Examiner also found that Lui
discloses "multiple fluid-supplied areas 13, 14 located remotely from one
another and fluidly coupled to the first outlet via valves 28, 29" but "does
not disclose that the multiple fluid-supplied areas include multiple bearing
compartments or expressly teach the use of compressed air to cool bearing
systems." Id. at 4. However, the Examiner found that "Hovan teaches an air
cooler assembly for providing buffer air to bearing compartments 128, 130,
see fig. 3, where high pressure compressed air is first routed to ... heat
exchanger 48 via pipe 52 and to ... bearing compartments 54 for cooling ...
compartments 128, 130." Id.; see Hovan, col. 2, 1. 65-col. 3, 1. 11.
Alternatively, the Examiner found that "Hemsworth teaches that it is known
in the art at the time of the invention to provide pressurized air to multiple
6
Appeal2014-004722
Application 13/362,499
bearing compartments 48, 50, 64 located remotely of each other." Final
Act. 4; see Hemsworth, col. 3, 11. 45--48. The Examiner also found that "Liu
teaches a heat exchanger 36 cooled by a fan flow 42 that supplies high
pressure bleed air 38 to a bearing compartment 32 and other components
such as the low pressure turbine for cooling thereof." Final Act. 5; see Liu,
col. 3, 1. 13 - col. 4, 1. 8.
The Examiner concluded that, given the teachings of the prior art:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to include a plurality of bearing
compartments that are supplied cooled pressurized air from the
heat exchanger 17 of the engine of Lui, as taught by either Hovan
or Hemsworth, in order to either cool the bearings and other rotor
components without damaging the integrity of the seals of the
bearing components (Hovan, at column 1, lines 57-end; column
2, lines 1-23) or to provide sufficiently pressurized air but
adequately cool air to ensure pressurization of the bearing seals
(Hemsworth, at column 3, lines 11-15; lines 45-end) and to
provide the high pressure air flow from heat exchanger 1 7 of the
apparatus of Lui to a bearing component as taught by Liu in order
to cool the bearing compartment. (Liu at column 3, lines 13-end;
column 4, lines 1-8).
Final Act. 5.
Appellants argue that "[t]he Examiner is incorrect when interpreting
the ECS [of Lui] as a buffer system." Br. 5. In particular, Appellants assert
that "Lui ... discloses a bleed air system for an ACS 14, or air cycle system,
used for an environmental control system (ECS)" and that "[a]n
environmental control system is a system used to condition the air supplied
to a cabin of an aircraft, as explained by the attached Wikipedia document
(see Appendix), and in no way relates to buffer systems." Id. at 5---6.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. Regardless of any
confusion that may have originated from the Examiner's initial statement as
7
Appeal2014-004722
Application 13/362,499
to part of Lui' s system being "interpreted as a buffer system" (Final Act. 3 ),
the Examiner resolves any uncertainty by clarifying that "the combination as
a whole may be properly interpreted as a buffer system" (Ans. 16). The
Examiner found that Lui discloses a bleed air system that supplies cooled air
from heat exchanger 17 to multiple areas including auxiliary power unit
(APU) 13 and ACS 14, but not multiple bearing compartments. See Final
Act. 3--4; Lui, col. 3, 11. 10-15, 49-54. The Examiner relied on Hovan or
Hemsworth for teaching multiple turbine engine bearing compartments that
are supplied cooling air. See Final Act. 4--5. The rejection proposes to
modify the system of Lui to supply cooled air from the heat exchanger to
multiple bearing compartments as taught by Hovan or Hemsworth. See id.
at 5. In view of Appellants' Specification, which describes a buffer system
as providing regulated air from a turbine engine compressor to a cooler and a
bearing compartment (see Spec. i-f 2), we agree with the Examiner that the
proposed modification of Lui's bleed air system to include supplying
cooling air to bearing compartments "may be properly interpreted as a buffer
system." Ans. 16. Appellants' argument does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner's finding that Lui, as modified by Hovan or Hemsworth, discloses
a buffer system, which is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Appellants argue that "Hovan does not disclose multiple bearing
compartments," because the reference only "discloses a single bearing 68,
which defines a single bearing compartment." Br. 6 (citing Hovan, col. 5,
11. 26-27). This argument is not persuasive of error because Appellants do
not address the Examiner's finding that "the inclusion of multiple bearing
compartments appears to be a mere duplication of the bearing compartments
of Hovan that produces no new or unexpected results." Final Act. 5 (citing
8
Appeal2014-004722
Application 13/362,499
Jn re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960)). "It is well settled that the mere
duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and
unexpected result is produced." Harza, 274 F.2d at 671. We additionally
note that Appellants do not contest the Examiner's alternative finding that
Hemsworth discloses multiple bearing compartments that are supplied cool
pressurized air. See Final Act. 4--5; Br. passim.
Appellants also argue that "there is no reason for a skilled worker to
modify the base reference Lui ... to replace the ACS 14 with the claimed
multiple bearing compartments," and, "[c]onversely, there is no reason to
modify Hovan, Hemsworth[,] and Liu ... with [the] cooling arrangement of
Lui." Br. 7. These arguments do not apprise us of error because they are not
responsive to the rejection articulated by the Examiner. The rejection does
not propose to replace the ACS of Lui with multiple bearing compartments,
or to modify the systems of Hovan, Hemsworth, or Liu with the teachings of
Lui. Rather, the Examiner determined that, based on the teachings of either
Hovan or Hemsworth, in combination with the teachings of Liu, it would
have been obvious to modify the bleed air system of Lui to include multiple
bearing compartments supplied with cooled air from heat exchanger 17 in
order to cool the engine bearings. See Final Act. 5. Appellants do not
allege, nor do we discern, any error with respect to the Examiner's reasoning
articulated in support of the conclusion of obviousness.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2-10,
16, and 20-22 falling therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lui, either Hovan or Hemsworth, and Liu.
9
Appeal2014-004722
Application 13/362,499
Rejections III and IV - Claims 17-19 as unpatentable over
Lui, either Hovan or Hemsworth, Liu, and
one or more of Seda, Moniz, and Jain
With respect to the rejections of claims 17-19, Appellants do not set
forth any additional substantive arguments separate from the arguments
discussed supra; instead adding only that each of Moniz, Seda, and Jain does
not cure the asserted deficiencies of Lui, Hovan, Hemsworth, and Liu, and
otherwise relying on dependency from independent claim 16. See Br. 7.
Accordingly, for the same reasons that Appellants' arguments do not apprise
us of error in Rejection II, Appellants also do not apprise us of error in
Rejections III or IV. We likewise sustain the rejections of claims 17-19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lui, either Hovan or
Hemsworth, Liu, and one or more of Seda, Moniz, and Jain.
DECISION
We AFFIRivI the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 17-19 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-10, 16, and
20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lui, either
Hovan or Hemsworth, and Liu.
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 17 and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lui, either Hovan or
Hemsworth, Liu, Seda, and Moniz.
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 17 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lui, either Hovan or
Hemsworth, Liu, and Jain.
10
Appeal2014-004722
Application 13/362,499
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
Ssc
11