Ex Parte Suciu et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 3, 2019

14695578 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/695,578 04/24/2015 Gabriel L. Suciu
54549 7590 05/07/2019
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.
81062US02;
67097-3188PUS1
4397
EXAMINER
BEEBE, JOSHUA R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/07/2019 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GABRIELL. SUCIU, JESSE M. CHANDLER,
JOSEPH BRENT STAUBACH, and BRIAND. MERRY
Appeal 2018-005114
Application 14/695,578
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2018-005114
Application 14/695,578
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 15 are independent. Claims 2-14 depend from claim 1
and claims 16-20 depend from claim 15. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A gas turbine engine comprising;
a main compressor section having a high pressure
compressor with a downstream discharge, and more upstream
locations;
a turbine section having a high pressure turbine; and
a tap tapping air from at least one of said more upstream
locations in said compressor section, passing said tapped air
through a heat exchanger and then to a cooling compressor, said
cooling compressor compressing air downstream of said
heat exchanger, and delivering air into said high pressure
turbine.
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Elovic (US 4,254,618, issued Mar. 10, 1981) and
Glickstein (US 5,452,573, issued Sept. 26, 1995).
2. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable
over Elovic, Glickstein, and "an engineering expedient."
3. Claims 5-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Elovic, Glickstein, and Bruno (US 2007 /0213917
Al, published Sept. 13, 2007).
4. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Elovic, Glickstein, Bruno, and Ress (US 2013/0199156
Al, published Aug. 8, 2013).
5. Claims 13, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Elovic, Glickstein, and Ress.
2
Appeal 2018-005114
Application 14/695,578
OPINION
Claims 1--4 and 15
The Examiner finds that Elovic teaches each limitation of claims 1
and 15, including "a tap tapping air from at least one of said more upstream
locations in said compressor section, passing said tapped air through a heat
exchanger" and "delivering air into said high pressure turbine," but does not
expressly teach passing the tapped air "to a cooling compressor ...
compressing air downstream of said heat exchanger" before delivering the
air to the high pressure turbine. Final Act. 3--4, 5---6. The Examiner finds
that Glickstein teaches use of a downstream compressor for cooling and
proposes supplementing Elovic's teachings accordingly, explaining that
[i]t would have been obvious ... to modify the heat exchange
flow cooling system of [Elovic] to include a downstream
compressor as taught by [Glickstein] for the purposes of
providing improved pressure of cooling from lower stage,
( colder) air, but still meeting the high pressure cooling needs of
the turbine.
Id. at 4; see also id. at 6 (providing same finding and rationale with respect
to claim 15). The Examiner supplements this finding and rationale, citing
Coffinberry 1, and particularly column 1, lines 20-31 and 55---65, "as
evidence in disclosing the low pressure of cooling air can be undesirable in
turbine cooling and using auxiliary air to raise the pressure of such
compressor bled cooling air can be desirable" and explaining that "[t]his can
be used especially to increase the capacity of the turbine to handle the
thermal extreme operation temperatures." Id. at 4, 6.
1 US 5,392,614, issued Feb. 28, 1995.
3
Appeal 2018-005114
Application 14/695,578
Appellant responds that although "the Examiner argues that Elovic
does disclose taking air from a more upstream location ... there is no
showing why it might be 'desirable' to do so." Appeal Br. 2. That
contention is not persuasive. There is no modification proposed to Elovic' s
teachings in this regard. Rather, as noted above, the Examiner relies on the
express teaching of this limitation in Elovic. Appellant does not dispute the
Examiner's finding that the "location other than the compressor discharge"
referenced at column 6, line 32 in Elovic must be a "more upstream
location[]" as recited in the claims. See, e.g., Final Act. 4 ("Col. 6, 11. 30-40
disclose extracting the cooling air [from] the compressor at locations other
than (therefore they must be upstream) of the discharge.").
Appellant also does not dispute the specific findings made by the
Examiner in connection with Glickstein, but contends that "Glickstein does
not supply air to cool a turbine" and "[t]he air tap at 101 in Glickstein
appears to be delivered to a compressor 60, but then to a heat exchanger."
Appeal Br. 3. Appellant explains that "[n]ot only does this not disclose
compressing air on the way to the turbine, it also does not meet the order of
the air encountering the heat exchanger and a cooling compressor as
required by claims 1 and 15." Id. The problem with this argument is that it
does not address the rejection presented by the Examiner. The Examiner
finds that Elovic teaches the recited air tap and supplying air to cool the
turbine. Final Act. 4, 5.
Appellant further contends that "[t]o find the proposed combination is
proper requires including an extra compressor into the system of Elovic in
view of Glickstein et al." Appeal Br. 3. Appellant reiterates that "the
Examiner proposes no reason why it 'might be desirable' to tap Elovic at a
4
Appeal 2018-005114
Application 14/695,578
location other than the discharge," which is unpersuasive as explained
above, and then concludes that "there is certainly no reason to include the
cost and complexity of an extra compressor as alleged[ly] suggested by
Glickstein." Id. Appellant, however, never addresses the rationale set forth
by the Examiner and, therefore, does not apprise us of error.
Moreover, Appellant's contentions support a determination that one
skilled in the art would have found it obvious to include an additional
compressor in Elovic' s system when extracting cooling air at a location
other than discharge (i.e., an upstream location). See Appeal Br. 2-3
Appellant explains that because "the air must pass into the high pressure
turbine, it would desirably be at a high pressure, and not at a lower
pressure." Id. Without a pressurizing mechanism for the cooling air, such
as an additional compressor, in Elovic's system, Appellant explains that "[i]t
is counterintuitive to tap the air from a lower pressure location." Id. at 3.
Appellant does not present separate arguments for the patentability of
claims 2--4, which depend from claim 1.
For at least the reasons set forth above, we are not apprised of error in
the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4 and 15.
Claims 5-10 and 18-20
Appellant argues claims 5-10 and 18-20 as a group. Appeal Br. 3--4.
We select claim 5 as representative. Claims 6-10 and 18-20 stand or fall
with claim 5. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Claim 5 depends from claim
1 and further recites "said turbine section driving a tower shaft, said tower
shaft further driving an impeller of said cooling compressor."
The Examiner finds that Bruno teaches the additional features recited
in claim 5 and proposes further modifying the teachings of Elovic
5
Appeal 2018-005114
Application 14/695,578
accordingly. Final Act. 7-8. The Examiner explains, for example, that such
a modification would provide "powering said pump with the advantage of
controllable power of the compressor." Id. at 8.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's findings or rationale
related to claim 5. Rather, Appellant alleges, generally, and without
meaningful explanation, that "[t]here is no reason why one would modify
Glickstein in view of Bruno to have a tower shaft drive" and "to do so would
complicate Glickstein et al. and provide no apparent benefit." App. Br. 3--4.
These general allegations do not apprise us of error in the specific findings
and rationale set out by the Examiner.
For at least these reasons, we are not apprised of error in the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 5-10 and 18-20.
Claims 11-14, 16, and 17
Appellant argues claims 11 and 12 as a group and claims 13, 14, 16,
and 17 as a group. Appeal Br. 4. We select claims 11 and 13 as
representative of the respective groups. Claim 12 stands or falls with claim
11, and claims 14, 16, and 17 stand or fall with claim 13. Claim 11 depends
from claim 1 via dependency from claim 5, and claim 13 depends from
claim 1. Claims 11 and 13 each further recite that "an auxiliary fan is
positioned upstream of the heat exchanger."
The Examiner finds that Ress teaches the additional features recited in
claims 11 and 13, and proposes further modifying the teachings of Elovic
accordingly. Final Act. 10, 11. Specifically, the Examiner reasons that "[i]t
would have been obvious ... to include an auxiliary fan downstream of the
primary fan and upstream of the bypass flow" to "improve[ e] the engine[]
transient operating conditions and its ability to operate in variable thrust and
6
Appeal 2018-005114
Application 14/695,578
bypass modes as desired." Id. at 10; see also id. at 11 (providing same
rationale for claim 13).
Again, Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's findings or
rationale in any meaningful way. Appellant simply alleges that "there is no
reason why Ress would suggest incorporating additional structure into
Elovic" and further alleges, without explanation, that "[t]his combination
appears to be driven solely by hindsight reconstruction." Appeal Br. 4.
For at least the reasons set forth above, we are not apprised of error in
the Examiner's decision to reject claims 11-14, 16, and 17.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20.
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
7