Ex Parte Nenmeni et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 22, 2017

13075026 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2017)

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.
13/075,026 03/29/2011 Vijay Anand Raghavendran Nenmeni 247608-1
(GETH:0098)SWA
1879
82438 7590
GE Power & Water
Fletcher Yoder PC
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
IBRONI, STEFAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/22/2017 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 VIJAY ANAND RAGHAVENDRAN NENMENI,
MICHAEL JOSEPH ALEXANDER, PAUL WILLIAM PLUMMER, and
TIMOTHY LEE JANSSEN
Appeal 2016-0023 821
Application 13/075,0262
Technology Center 3700
Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Our Decision references Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed Mar. 29,
2011), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed July 29, 2015), and Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.,” filed Dec. 21, 2015), as well as the Examiner’s Final Office
Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Nov. 12, 2014) and Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
Oct. 20, 2015).
2 Appellants identify General Electric Company as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-002382
Application 13/075,026
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—5 and 8—20.3 We have jurisdiction
under § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
SUBJECT MATTER ON APPEAL
The invention “relates to air extraction from gas turbine engines, and
more specifically to regulating the pressure of extracted air from a
combination of gas turbine engines.” Spec. 11. Claims 1, 12, and 18 are
the independent claims on appeal. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter and is reproduced below with the disputed limitation
italicized:
1. A system comprising:
an extraction air header configured to receive a first
extraction air flow from a first compressor of a first gas turbine
engine and a second extraction air flow from a second
compressor of a second gas turbine engine;
an extraction air controller configured to maintain the first
and second extraction air flows to the extraction air header during
operational conditions in which the first and second gas turbine
engines are symmetrically loaded and during operational
conditions in which the first and second gas turbine engines are
asymmetrically loaded; and
a flow regulation device communicatively coupled to the
extraction air controller and disposed downstream of the
3 Appellants canceled claims 6 and 7 in response to a prior Non-Final Office
Action. Amendment filed Oct. 31, 2014. After the Final Office Action,
Appellants filed an Amendment canceling claim 21 (Amendment filed
Jan. 12, 2015) and a subsequent Amendment canceling claim 22
(Amendment filed Feb. 10, 2015), and the Examiner has entered both of
these Amendments (Ans. 2). Accordingly, claims 1—5 and 8—20 are before
us on appeal.
2
Appeal 2016-002382
Application 13/075,026
extraction air header, wherein the flow regulation device is
configured to enable a pressure drop downstream of the
extraction air header to cause a reduction of a header pressure
of the extraction air header.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Traupel US 2,665,548 Jan. 12, 1954
Yeung US 6,494,047 B2 Dec. 17, 2002
Saunders et al. (“Saunders”) US 7,036,319 B2 May 2, 2006
Monteiro et al. (“Monteiro”) US 2009/0193811 Al Aug. 6, 2009
Thatcher et al. (“Thatcher”) US 7,784,288 B2 Aug. 31,2010
REJECTIONS4
The following rejections are before us on appeal:
I. Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite;
II. Claims 1—4, 8, 9, 12—15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Monteiro and Yeung;
III. Claims 5, 11, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Monteiro, Yeung, and Thatcher;
IV. Claims 10 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Monteiro, Yeung, and Saunders;
4 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claims 21 and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs. Ans. 2-4. Also, in light of the
cancelation of claims 21 and 22, the rejections of claims 21 and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are moot.
3
Appeal 2016-002382
Application 13/075,026
V. Claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Monteiro,
Yeung, and Traupel; and
VI. Claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Monteiro, Yeung, Traupel, and Thatcher.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I— Claim 3
Appellants do not argue the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. We therefore summarily
sustain the rejection.
Rejection II— Claims 1—4, 8, 9, 12—15 and 17
In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Monteiro
discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for the flow
regulation device. Final Act. 7. The Examiner further finds that Yeung’s
downstream equipment 21 teaches the claimed flow regulation device. Id. at
7—8. The Examiner then determines it would have been obvious to combine
the teachings of Monteiro and Yeung “to take advantage of Yeung’s ability
to balance more than two air flows.” Id. at 8 (citing Yeung 1:34—56).
Appellants argue that Yeung’s downstream equipment 21 does not
teach the claimed flow regulation device. Appeal Br. 13—16. We agree.
Independent claim 1 recites:
a flow regulation device communicatively coupled to the
extraction air controller and disposed downstream of the
extraction air header, wherein the flow regulation device is
configured to enable a pressure drop downstream of the
extraction air header to cause a reduction of a header pressure of
the extraction air header.
4
Appeal 2016-002382
Application 13/075,026
As such, independent claim 1 requires that the flow regulation device be:
(1) communicatively coupled to the extraction air controller; (2) disposed
downstream of the extraction air header; and (3) configured to enable a
pressure drop downstream of the extraction air header to cause a reduction
of a header pressure of the extraction air header.
Yeung’s downstream equipment 21 may be communicatively coupled
to the pressure sensing manifold 33, i.e., extraction air controller, and
disposed downstream of the extraction air header, but the Examiner does not
explain, and we fail to see, how downstream equipment 21 is configured to
enable a pressure drop downstream of the extraction air header to cause a
reduction of a header pressure of the extraction air header. Yeung does not
teach any functionality associated with downstream equipment 21, other
than receiving common air flow from manifold 33. Yeung 3:5—7, 14—18,
55—57. Furthermore, although Yeung teaches regulating the pressure of
multiple-engine bleed air sources 11, 13, 15, 17, Yeung teaches that
controllers 59, 61, 63, 65 and valves 27, 41, 43, 45 regulate the pressure.
Id. at 3:14—18, 47—55. Accordingly, there is insufficient support for the
Examiner’s finding that Yeung’s downstream equipment 21 teaches the
claimed flow regulation device.
In the Answer, the Examiner further finds that Yeung’s valves 27, 41,
43, 45 teach the claimed flow regulation device. Ans. 5. According to the
Examiner, valves 27, 41, 43, 45 are controlled by controllers 59, 61, 63, 65
to balance airflow. Id.
Even if we agree with the Examiner that Yeung’s valves 27, 41, 43,
45 are communicatively coupled with controllers 59, 61, 63, 65, i.e.,
extraction air controllers, and are configured to enable a pressure drop, we
5
Appeal 2016-002382
Application 13/075,026
agree with Appellants that Yeung’s valves 27, 41, 43, 45 are not disposed
downstream of the extraction air header, as independent claim 1 requires.
Reply Br. 3. Rather, Yeung’s valves 27, 41, 43, 45 are disposed on
individual bleed air lines and therefore are disposed upstream from an
extraction air header that receives air from the individual bleed air lines.
Yeung, Fig. 2, 3:14—22. Furthermore, Yeung teaches that valves 27, 41, 43,
45 equalize the pressure-drop characteristics of the individual bleed air lines,
but does not teach that the valves are configured to enable a pressure drop
downstream of the extraction header to cause a reduction of header pressure
of the extraction air header.
Although Yeung does not teach that valves 27, 41, 43, 45 are disposed
downstream of the extraction air header and enable a pressure drop
downstream of the header, we appreciate that the Examiner’s rejection is
based on the combined teachings of Monteiro and Yeung. The Examiner,
however, has not sufficiently explained why a person of ordinary skill in the
art would modify the teachings of Monteiro to include Yeung’s flow
regulation devices, i.e., valves 27, 41, 43, 45, disposed downstream of the
extraction header. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill
would have combined the teachings of Monteiro and Yeung “to take
advantage of Yeung’s ability to balance more than two air flows.”
Final Act. 8 (citing Yeung 1:34—56). Yet, as set forth above, Yeung teaches
balancing air flows by using valves 27, 41, 43, 45 disposed on individual
bleed air lines upstream of the header to control the pressure of the
individual lines. Accordingly, the Examiner has not sufficiently shown that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined teachings of
6
Appeal 2016-002382
Application 13/075,026
Monteiro and Yeung to provide the flow regulation device of independent
claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 1 and claims 2-4, 8, and 9
depending therefrom. Independent claim 12 includes a similar limitation as
the limitation discussed above in regard to independent claim 1, and the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 12 suffers from the same
deficiency as the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1.
Final Act. 10—11; Ans. 4—5. Accordingly, we similarly do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 12 and claims 13—15 and 17
depending therefrom.
Rejection V— Claim 18
The Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 18 suffers from the
same deficiency regarding the combination of Monteiro and Yeung as the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and the Examiner does not rely
on Traupel in any way to cure this deficiency. Final Act. 16—18; Ans. 4—5.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of independent claim 18 for the reasons discussed above in regard
to independent claim 1.
Rejections III, IV, and VI— Claims 5, 10, 11, 16, 19, and 20
Each of claims 5, 10, 11, 16, 19, and 20 depends from one of
independent claims 1, 12, and 20. The Examiner does not rely on Thatcher
or Saunders in any way to cure the deficiency in the rejection of the
respective independent claim. Final Act. 13—16, 18—19. Accordingly, we do
7
Appeal 2016-002382
Application 13/075,026
not sustain the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of these
claims for the same reasons as the independent claims.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—5 and 8—20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8