Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 16, 2018

13366597 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/366,597 02/06/2012 Cheng-Zhang Wang
54549 7590 03/20/2018
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.
58424US01;
67097-1624US1
CONFIRMATION NO.
8585
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, ANDREW H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2018 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 CHENG-ZHANG WANG, THOMAS G. PHILLIPS,
DAVID F. CLOUD, and PETER M. MUNSELL
Appeal2017-002709
Application 13/366,597
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
7, 9-11, 13, 15-18, and 20. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 In an Amendment filed July 30, 2015, Appellants canceled claims 2, 3, 6,
8, 12, and 22. In an Amendment filed December 31, 2015, Appellants
additionally canceled claims 1, 4 and 5. Accordingly, only claims 7, 9-11,
13, 15-20 remain pending, with claims 19 and 21 being allowed.
Appeal2017-002709
Application 13/366,597
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 7 and 20 are independent and subject to this Appeal. Claim 7,
reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter:
7. A gas turbine engine comprising:
a compressor delivering air into a combustion section, and
said combustion section and said compressor being housed in a
housing, an air supply system communicating through said
housing to deliver air from a location between an upstream end
of said compressor, and an upstream end of said combustor;
said air supply system having a duct with an inlet end and
extending to an outlet end, said duct being provided with a
central insert at an upstream end, said insert ending within said
duct upstream of said outlet end;
said central insert providing a venturi effect by reducing a
cross-sectional flow area between the insert and an inner wall of
the duct at the upstream end, and said insert and duct providing
increased cross-sectional flow areas at downstream locations;
and
a plurality of insert holders center said insert within said
duct.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Samuel
Walker
Koch
Kaminske
Martens son
Tatebayashi
Kirby
us 5,211,003
us 5,351,478
us 5,581,996
US 6,327,844 Bl
US 2010/0031627 Al
US 2009/0000307 Al
US 2010/0115963 Al
REJECTIONS
May 18, 1993
Oct. 4, 1994
Dec. 10, 1996
Dec. 11, 2001
Feb. 11, 2010
Jan. 1,2009
May 13, 2010
I. Claims 7, 17, and 18 stand rejected under U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kirby and Kaminske.
2
Appeal2017-002709
Application 13/366,597
II. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kirby, Kaminske, and Martensson.
III. Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kirby, Kaminske, and Tatebayashi or
Walker.
IV. Claims 13, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Kirby, Kaminske, Samuel, and Koch.
V. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kirby and Tatebayashi or Walker.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I: Obviousness of Claims 7, 17, and 18
Based on Kirby and Kaminske
Appellants argue claims 7, 17, and 18 together. Appeal Br. 3. We
select claim 7 as the representative claim, and claims 1 7 and 18 stand or fall
with claim 7. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds Kirby discloses all of the limitations of claim 7,
including an insert 34, except for "a plurality of insert holders mounting and
centering the insert within the duct." Final Act. 6. The Examiner further
finds that Kaminske shows that "it was well known in the art to mount an
element inside a duct using a plurality of insert holders." Id. Based on these
findings the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious "to use a
plurality of insert holders to mount and center the insert within [Kirby's]
duct, as taught by Kaminske." Id. In support of this conclusion, the
Examiner explains that "[i]t has been held that combining or simple
substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield
predictable results renders the limitation obvious" (citing MPEP § 2141) and
3
Appeal2017-002709
Application 13/366,597
finds that "using a plurality of insert holders to mount and center the insert
within the duct yields predictable results." Final Act. 6.
Noting that Kirby's element 34 is a valve, Appellants contend that
"[a] valve must move. As an example, the valve 34 must be capable of
moving to an open position as set forth in paragraph 24 of Kirby." Appeal
Br. 3; see also Reply Br. 1. In support of this contention, Appellants argue
that "[i]f the valve 34 of Kirby were fixed by the structure shown in
Kaminske, it could not function as a valve." Id.
Responding to this argument, the Examiner finds that "it was well
known in the art that valves may be comprised of separate parts, some of
which are static and some of which are moveable (i.e. flaps, rotating discs,
opening/closing holes, etc)." Ans. 2. Appellants do not contest the
Examiner's assertion. See generally, Reply Br.
In addition, the Examiner notes that Kirby shows "a valve which is
centered in the bleed duct and which has flanges which extend through the
wall of the duct." Id. As shown in Kirby's Figures 2--4, bleed valve 34
includes flanges that hold bleed valve 34 between inlet 32 and duct 36.
Kirby Figs. 2--4. Thus, the Examiner has the better position. Given the
presence of the flanges on Kirby's valve 34, we agree that one skilled in the
art would understand that an internal component of Kirby's bleed valve 34,
rather than the entire valve, opens and closes (i.e. moves) to perform the
function of bleeding air. Accordingly, Appellants' argument is
unconvmcmg.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim
7, and claims 17 and 18, which fall therewith.
4
Appeal2017-002709
Application 13/366,597
Rejection II: Obviousness of Claim 9
Based on Kirby, Kaminske, and Martensson
The Examiner determines that Kirby is "silent as to the insert having
rounded axial ends." Final Act. 8. The Examiner finds that Martensson
illustrates that "it was well known in the art that using rounded features may
be used in order to provide aerodynamic continuity." Id. (citing Martensson
,-i,-i 37, 42, 52-55). Based on this finding, the Examiner reasons that it would
have been obvious "to make the axial ends of Kirby's insert rounded in order
to provide aerodynamic continuity in the bleed flow, as taught by
Martensson." Id.
Appellants contend that "there would be no reason to round the valve
34 of Kirby, particularly at its downstream end." Appeal Br. 3--4. However,
Appellants do not address the Examiner's finding and reasoning. See id.
Appellants attempt to correct this oversight in the Reply Brief. See Reply
Br. 1. However, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.4l(b)(2), lacking a
showing of good cause, we do not consider the arguments raised in the
Reply Brief, which are not responsive to an argument raised in the Answer.
We sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 9.
Rejection III: Obviousness of Claims 10 and 11
Based on Kriby, Kaminske, and Tatebayashi or Walker
The Examiner determines that "Kirby is silent as to a plurality of
ducts having inlet ends at locations spaced by at least 90 degrees about a
cross sectional center axis, wherein the inlet ends are spaced by 180
degrees." Final Act. 8. The Examiner finds that both Tatebayshi and
Walker illustrate that "it was well known in the art to provide multiple bleed
ducts spaced by 180 degrees about the center axis of the engine." Id. (citing
5
Appeal2017-002709
Application 13/366,597
Tatebayshi Fig. 2; Walker, Fig. 2). Based on these findings the Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious "to provide a plurality of bleed
ducts (each having an insert as taught by Kirby) spaced by 180 degrees
about the center axis of the engine, as taught by Tatebayashi or Walker." Id.
In support of this determination, the Examiner again relies upon a simple
substitution rationale. See id. at 8-9.
Appellants contend that "[ n ]either Tatebayashi nor Walker disclose
their spaced taps are recombined into a common conduit." Appeal Br. 4; see
also Reply Br. 2. In support of this contention, Appellants argue that "when
bleed taps combine downstream into a common conduit, as required by the
claims, and to be delivered to a use, they have been positioned much closer
together." Appeal Br. 4.
Responding to this argument, the Examiner explains "neither
Tatebayashi nor Walker was cited as teaching recombining into a common
conduit. All of the bleed taps of Kirby are fed into a common conduit - the
annular bypass duct 22 and exhaust nozzle 23 - and the bleed taps are
arranged in an annular array." Ans. 3. Rather, the Examiner explains "[t]he
only limitations not taught by Kirby are the specific angles of spacing (90 or
180 degrees). The combination of Kirby in view of Tatebayashi or Walker
simply provides circumferential spacing between bleed ports." Id.
Appellants' arguments do not address the combined teachings of
Kirby and Tatebayashi or Walker, thus Appellants do not apprise us of error.
See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures).
6
Appeal2017-002709
Application 13/366,597
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims
10 and 11.
Rejection IV: Obviousness of Claims 13, 15, and 16
Based on Kirby, Kaminske, Samuel, and Koch
Appellants do not present separate arguments for the patentability of
claims 13, 15, and 16. Rather, Appellants argue that "[n]either Samu[e]l nor
Koch overcome the deficiencies set forth above." Appeal Br. 4. For the
reasons discussed above, we are not apprised of any such deficiencies.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 13,
15, and 16.
Rejection V: Obviousness of Claim 20
Based on Kirby and Tatebayashi or Walker
Appellants do not independently contest the rejection of claim 20.
Rather, Appellants refer to the arguments presented for claims 7, 10, and 11.
See Appeal Br. 10-11, see also Reply Br. 2. Those arguments do not
apprise us of error for the reasons discussed supra.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 20.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 7, 9-11, 13, 15-18, and 20 are
AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ l.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7