Ex Parte Raver

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 22, 2007

10631440 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 22, 2007)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BERNARD J. RAVER
____________

Appeal 2007-0147
Application 10/631,440
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: October 22, 2007
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and
CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-4, 6-12, and
14-30. Claims 1 and 17 are illustrative:
1. A method for generating electricity from a turbofan engine
comprising the steps of:

depositing a plurality of alternating portions of an N-type material and
a P-type material in series on a turbofan engine component; and

Appeal 2007-0147
Application 10/631,440

2
providing an electrically conductive material between each of two
adjoining portions of said N-type material and said P-type material to form a
circuit.

17. A turbofan engine comprising:

at least one turbofan engine component comprising a plurality of
alternating portions of an N-type material and a P-type material connected in
series on said turbofan engine component via an electrically conductive
material to form a circuit.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Alsing 3,054,840 Sep. 18, 1962
Cummings 4,148,192 Apr. 10, 1979
Nash 4,312,185 Jan. 26, 1982
Morimoto (as translated) JP 2-40075 A Feb. 8, 1990
Coffinberry 5,918,458 Jul. 6, 1999
Parise 5,968,456 Oct. 19, 1999
Hamedani 5,996,336 Dec. 7, 1999

Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a turbofan engine and a
method of generating electricity therefrom. The engine comprises a
component that includes a plurality of alternating portions of an N-type
material and a P-type material connected in series by an electrically
conductive material which forms the circuit. The turbofan engine generates
heat during its operation that is absorbed by the N-type and P-type materials
which then produces electricity that is released through the conductor
material to generate the electric current. Hence, it can be seen that the
component comprising the N-type, P-type and conductive material uses the
heat generated by the turbofan to produce electricity.

Appeal 2007-0147
Application 10/631,440

3
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as follows:
(a) claims 1-3, 6-11, and 14-27 over Parise in view of Cummings,
Coffinberry and Hamedani,
(b) claims 4 and 12 over the stated combination of references further
in view of Morimoto and Nash, and
(c) claims 28-30 over the combination of references stated in (a)
above further in view of Alsing.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant's arguments for
patentability. However, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the
Examiner's reasoned analysis and application of the prior art, as well as his
cogent and through disposition of the arguments raised by Appellant.
Accordingly, we will adopt the Examiner's reasoning as our own in
sustaining the rejections of record, and we add the following for emphasis
only.
There is no dispute that Parise, like Appellant, discloses a method for
generating electricity from an engine comprising the recited steps of
"depositing a plurality of alternating portions of an N-type material and a
P-type material in series" in proximity to an engine component and
"providing an electrically conductive material between each of two
adjoining portions of said N-type material and said P-type material to form a
circuit" (Appealed claim 1). The principal argument advanced by Appellant
is that Parise does not disclose that the thermoelectric generator, the device
comprising the presently claimed alternating portions of N-type and P-type
material joined by conductive material, is in association with a turbofan
engine. Appellant maintains that Parise is directed to utilizing the heat
generated by an internal combustion engine of an automobile and "absent
Appeal 2007-0147
Application 10/631,440

4
from the entire disclosure of Parise is any teaching directed to applying such
technology to gas turbine engines or turbofan engines for aircraft" (Principal
Br. 7, last para.).
At the outset, we note that Appellant's argument is not germane to the
claimed subject matter on appeal. None of the claims on appeal recite or
require a gas turbine engine or any turbine engine for aircraft. Furthermore,
the presence of such limitations in the appealed claims would not render the
appealed claims nonobvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the
applied prior art. We fully concur with the Examiner that Cummings
evidences the obviousness of mounting the thermoelectric generator of
Parise on the outer walls of the internal combustion engine, and that the
internal combustion engine can be a gas turbine. Also, Coffinberry provides
the teaching that the gas turbine engine of Cummings may be a turbofan
engine. Inasmuch as Cummings further teaches that the waste heat of a gas
turbine engine can be recovered by thermoelectric semiconductors (35), we
are convinced that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in
the art to employ the thermoelectric generator of Parise to recover he heat
generated from a turbofan engine to produce electricity.
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have readily understood that the disclosure of Parise is
applicable to the recovery of heat generated by any engine, not only the
internal combustion engine of an automobile. While the Examiner properly
cites Hamedani for the use of a catalytic converter with a turbofan engine, it
is our view that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art over the Parise disclosure alone. We are satisfied
that one of ordinary skill in the art, cognizant of Parise's teaching of
Appeal 2007-0147
Application 10/631,440

5
employing a thermoelectric generator for transforming the heat energy of an
internal combustion engine into electrical energy, would have found it
obvious to utilize the thermoelectric generator of Parise with any heat-
generating engine to produce electrical energy and maximize efficiency of
the system by avoiding waste. Appellant has presented no argument that
there is something peculiar about a turbofan engine that would not have
made it amenable for use with a thermoelectric generator of the type
disclosed by Parise. Appellant has presented no argument that indicates why
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been dissuaded from using a
known thermoelectric generator with a turbofan engine. Hence, the prima
facie case of obviousness established by the Examiner stands unrebutted.
As a final point, we note that Appellant bases no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would outweigh the evidence of obviousness presented by the Examiner.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner's decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(vi)(effective Sept.
13, 2004).
AFFIRMED

cam

Appeal 2007-0147
Application 10/631,440

6

BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C.
900 CHAPEL STREET
SUITE 1201
NEW HAVEN, CT 06510