Ex Parte Nandagopal et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 27, 2019

14886171 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/886,171 10/19/2015
13077 7590 07/01/2019
Eversheds Sutherland GE
Suite 2300
999 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Pugalenthi Nandagopal
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.
19441-1112 (282994) 7566
EXAMINER
CHENG, STEPHANIE S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2019 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):
patentdocket@eversheds-sutherland.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PUGALENTHI NANDAGOP AL,
REX ALLEN MORGAN,
SENDIKUMARAN SOUNDIRAMOURTY, and
DEBABRATAMUKHOPADHYAY
Appeal2018-008822
Application 14/886, 171 1
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 4, 6-8, and 11-20. Claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, and 20 were
canceled during prosecution. See Ans. 2, Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the applicant and real part in interest is General
Electric Co. (Br. 1 ).
Appeal2018-008822
Application 14/886, 171
THE INVENTION
Appellants' claims are directed generally "to gas turbine engines and
more particularly relate to systems and methods for wheel space temperature
management using steam or water flows for cooling during hot ambient
conditions without a reduction in overall system performance and
efficiency." Spec. ,r 101. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A gas turbine engine, comprising:
a compressor;
the compressor comprising a compressor discharge
plenum at least partially defined by a compressor discharge case
with one or more bore holes therethrough;
a turbine;
the turbine comprising a turbine wheel space adjacent to a
plurality of rotor wheels, wherein the compressor discharge case
is disposed between and divides the compressor discharge
plenum and the turbine wheel space; and
a wheel space water cooling system in communication
with the turbine wheel space comprising a water line extending
through one of the one or more bore holes in whole or in part to
provide a flow of water thereto.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Sakamoto
Loebig
Stevens
Morgan
us 4,338,780
US 2002/0083713 Al
US 2002/0108376 Al
US 2010/0080685 Al
2
July 13, 1982
July 4, 2002
Aug. 15, 2002
Apr. 1, 2010
Appeal2018-008822
Application 14/886, 171
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections 2:
Claims 1, 7, 8, 11-14, and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Sakamoto. Final Act. 4.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Sakamoto, Stevens, and Loebig. Final Act. 9.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103 as being unpatentable
over Sakamoto and Stevens. Id.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Sakamoto and Morgan. Final Act. 10.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 15, and 16 are independent and Appellants argue them as a
group, noting that claims 15 and 16 contain similar limitations to claim 1.
Br. 4. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative and all claims stand
or fall with claim 1. No separate arguments are made for any of the
dependent claims.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has misconstrued several claim
terms and as such, Sakamoto fails to teach, for example, the claimed "wheel
space." According to Appellants, Sakamoto's "water cooling system 19
sprays water into a 'water spraying cavity 22,' not a turbine wheels space, as
recited in Appellant's claims." Br. 4. The Examiner identifies Sakamoto's
cavity 22 as the claimed wheel space. Ans. 4. Appellants take issue with
2 The Examiner also rejected claims 15-20 as indefinite in the Final Action,
but acknowledged in the Advisory action of April 2, 2018 that, if entered,
Appellants' proposed amendment would cure the indefinite issue. Because
the amendment was not entered and the rejection is technically still pending
and not addressed by Appellants, we summarily affirm the rejection.
3
Appeal2018-008822
Application 14/886, 171
the Examiner's finding that "the claims require only that the turbine wheel
space be 'adjacent to a plurality of rotor wheels' and separated from the
compressor discharge plenum by the compressor discharge case." See Br. 4
(citing Final Act. 13). Appellants allege that Sakamoto's cavity 35 is
actually the claimed wheel space. Br. 5.
The Examiner is correct that the claims essentially require only that
the wheel space be located as discussed above. As explained by the
Examiner, "Sakamoto's turbine wheel space: extends adjacent to, and
upstream from, the turbine rotors; is radially inward from the compressor
discharge plenum; is partially defined by the compressor discharge plenum;
and extends circumferentially about the longitudinal axis of the gas turbine."
Ans. 5. The Examiner then presents a marked up drawing showing the
analogous features between Sakamoto and Appellants' claimed invention.
sp&<;e
FlG, ·i
Applicant's fil~d 19 Oct 2015
The above drawing represents a side-by-side comparison of Sakamoto's Fig.
1 and Appellants' Fig. 1.
4
Appeal2018-008822
Application 14/886, 171
As can be seen in the comparison, Sakamoto' s "wheel space" is located very
similarly to Appellants' wheel space. It also meets the relative positioning
found in the claims.
Appellants assert that the Examiner's interpretation is divorced from
the Specification because cavity 22 is separate from what they identify as
Sakamoto's wheel space, cavity 35. Br. 5. The Examiner asserts that
Appellants give no special definition to the term "wheel space." Ans. 4. The
Specification merely states that "[a] wheel space is defined between the first
stage nozzle assembly and the compressor exit diffuser." Spec. ,r 103.
Tellingly, Appellants do not argue that Sakamoto's cavity is not similarly
situated, or that Sakamoto's cavity 22 is not subject to extremely high
temperatures as further described in Appellants' Specification when
discussing the wheel space.
Appellants further argue that "claim 1 clearly states that the turbine
includes the turbine wheel space" and that Sakamoto's "'water spraying
cavity 22' is separate from the turbine 16 and wheel space cavity 35." Br. 5.
Appellants do not, however, explain why we must designate cavity 35 as the
wheel space, nor how cavity 22 is separate from the turbine so as to fail to
meet the claim language. As noted by the Examiner, "Appellant's turbine
wheel space also communicates with the turbine rotor through apertures"
similar to that of Sakamoto's cavity 22. Ans. 6. Without further
explanation, we do not find Appellants' arguments on this point persuasive.
Lastly, Appellants argue that Sakamoto's water cooling system does
not pass through a bore hole in a compressor discharge casing and that wall
37 is part of combustor 14, not the compressor discharge casing. Br. 5. As
the Examiner correctly points out, however, "wall 37 is only described as
'an annular stationary wall."' Ans. 7 ( citing Sakamoto col. 3, 11. 9-10). The
5
Appeal2018-008822
Application 14/886, 171
Examiner is also correct "that wall 3 7 forms part of the boundary of a
compressor discharge plenum (receiving compressed air from the
compressor)." Id. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
arguments. As such, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and thus
that of all of the pending claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner's decision to reject
claims 1, 4, 6-8, and 11-19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6