General Electric Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 10, 2022

2021002481 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2022)

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. 15/875,167 01/19/2018 Jonathan Atef Tawfik 21339-151684-US 2223 75248 7590 01/10/2022 FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP 120 SOUTH LASALLE STREET SUITE 2100 CHICAGO, IL 60603-3406 EXAMINER REITZ, MICHAEL K. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/10/2022 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 JONATHAN ATEF TAWFIK and JEFFREY MILES MCMILLEN PRESCOTT Appeal 2021-002481 Application 15/875,167 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3-17, 19, and 20, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as General Electric Company. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-002481 Application 15/875,167 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention is directed to “air bleed structure in compressors.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A compressor bleed port apparatus, comprising: a compressor shroud which defines a boundary between a primary flowpath and a plenum; a bleed port including one or more apertures passing through the compressor shroud, each of the one or more apertures having an inlet communicating with the primary flowpath and an outlet communicating with the plenum, and extending along a respective centerline; wherein each of the one or more apertures is bounded by sidewalls, and includes a diffuser section in which the sidewalls diverge from each other in a downstream direction; and wherein a diffusing angle between the sidewalls varies over the length of the diffuser section and the diffusing angle has a maximum value at an upstream end of the diffuser section, and a lower value towards a downstream end of the diffuser section. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Baughman US 5,231,825 Aug. 3, 1993 Ress, Jr. (Ress) US 2014/0255181 A1 Sept. 11, 2014 Wilshaw US 2017/0108006 A1 Apr. 20, 2017 Gage US 2017/0211586 A1 July 27, 2017 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3-7, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gage and Wilshaw. Appeal 2021-002481 Application 15/875,167 3 Claims 9, 10, 12-16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gage, Wilshaw, and Baughman. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gage, Wilshaw, and Ress. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gage, Wilshaw, Baughman, and Ress.2 OPINION Obviousness-Gage and Wilshaw The Examiner finds that Gage discloses a compressor bleed port apparatus substantially as recited in independent claim 1, except that “Gage does not clearly teach wherein the diffusing angle has a maximum value at an upstream end of the diffuser section, and a lower value towards a downstream end of the diffuser section.”3 Final Act. 3-4. The Examiner finds that Wilshaw teaches bleed ports “wherein the diffusing angle has a maximum value at an upstream end of the diffuser section (Figure 3 shows near the inlet (50) the diffusion angle is clearly greater than at the outlet (52)) and a lower value towards a downstream end of the diffuser section.” Id. at 4 (citing Wilshaw ¶¶ 49-50). According to the Examiner, “Figure 3 2 Although the Examiner does not expressly include Baughman in the statement of the rejection, it is clear from the Examiner’s use of “as applied to claims 9-10, 12-16, and 19-20 above” that the rejection is based on a combination of Gage, Wilshaw, and Baughman, and further in view of Ress. Final Act. 11. 3 Appellant’s Specification defines “diffusion angle α” as “the angle between lines tangent to the sidewalls and intersecting the cutting plane 67 [taken perpendicular to the centerline 62].” Spec. ¶ 36 (referencing Figure 2). We interpret “diffusing angle” as used in claims 1 and 12 as corresponding to the “diffusion angle” described in Appellant’s Specification. Appeal 2021-002481 Application 15/875,167 4 [of Wilshaw] shows that the outlet (52) has a diffusion angle of almost zero degrees.” Id. The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to modify the diffuser section of Gage’s bleed port to “have a maximum value at an upstream end and a lower value at a downstream end of the diffuser section . . . in order to remove swirl from the bleed flow.” Id. (citing Wilshaw ¶ 53). Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding that Wilshaw’s Figure 3 clearly shows bleed port 30 has a diffusing angle having a maximum value at the upstream end and a lower value toward the downstream end. Appeal Br. 10-11. “Appellant submits that one skilled in the art would not interpret FIG. 3 [of Wilshaw] to show that the diffusion angle is ‘clearly greater’ near the inlet (50) than at the outlet (52)” and that “[i]nterpretation of the subject angles in FIG. 3 is inherently subjective” because Wilshaw lacks “sufficient reference points” to permit “one skilled in the art to determine the relative angles near the inlet (50).” Id. at 10. According to Appellant, “simple visual interpretation of the figures [of Wilshaw] alone is at best subjective and cannot be relied on without support from the specification for determination of specific relationship of angles at the inlet (50) and at the outlet (52).” Id. at 11. Appellant contends that a difficulty in ascertaining the diffusion angles stems “from the fact that the centerline is not easily determined from the figures in the prior art, neither is any line derived from each point along the centerline which includes” a line tangent to the centerline, a line perpendicular to the centerline, and a line tangent to the sidewall, which Appellant submits would be needed to determine whether the diffusion angle varies along the centerline in either an increasing manner or a decreasing manner. Id. Appeal 2021-002481 Application 15/875,167 5 Appellant further submits that “Gage is silent as to the angle between the sidewalls” and “contains no textual disclosure or teaching that an angle between the sidewalls or diffusion rate is variable along the length of the individual passage.” Appeal Br. 10. The dispositive issue presented in this appeal is whether the Examiner errs in finding that Wilshaw’s Figure 3 clearly shows that bleed port 30 has a diffusing angle between the sidewalls with a maximum value at an upstream end and a lower value toward a downstream end. The Examiner’s finding that Wilshaw teaches the claimed relationship of diffusing angles at the upstream and downstream ends of the bleed port is based solely on the illustration in Figure 3; the Examiner does not cite any portion of Wilshaw’s specification as expressly teaching that the diffusing angle at the upstream end has a maximum value at the upstream end and a lower value toward the downstream end.4 See Ans. 4. It is not improper for the Examiner to rely solely on drawings to show the claimed relationship. Description via drawings and pictures can be relied upon alone as well as by words to disclose claimed subject matter if they clearly show the structure claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972). Although, in the case of patent drawings not indicated as drawn to scale, it is improper to rely “on ‘a greatly enlarged section of a 4 In discussing Wilshaw’s teachings, the Examiner cites paragraphs 49-50. Final Act. 4. Paragraph 49 discloses that each bleed port 30 curves in a radial direction from inlet 50 to outlet 52, and that bleed ports 30 may be circular or oval in cross section at any point; paragraph 50 discloses that bleed ports 30 are arranged to diffuse flow therethrough, and, thus, inlet 50 is smaller than outlet 52. However, neither of these paragraphs discusses relative diffusing angles, as defined in Appellant’s Specification (Spec. ¶ 36), at inlet 50 or along various points toward outlet 52. Appeal 2021-002481 Application 15/875,167 6 small drawing obviously never intended to show the dimensions of anything,’” that does “not mean that things patent drawings show clearly are to be disregarded.” Id. (quoting In re Wilson, 312 F.2d 449, 454 (CCPA 1963)). In this case, however, we do not agree with the Examiner that Wilshaw’s Figure 3 clearly shows that the diffusing angle (the angle between lines tangent to the sidewalls and intersecting the cutting plane taken perpendicular to the centerline) has a maximum value at the upstream end (inlet 50) of bleed port 30 and a lower value towards a downstream end of bleed port 30. We appreciate the Examiner’s point that the relationship claimed is not a narrowly precise one, and, indeed, encompasses half of all possibilities (see Ans. 4)5 for a bleed port described as having an inlet smaller than its outlet and being arranged to diffuse flow therethrough (see Wilshaw ¶ 50). Nevertheless, for many of the reasons set forth by Appellant on pages 10-11 of the Appeal Brief, Figure 3 of Wilshaw does not clearly show such a relationship. Although one might perceive from an initial glimpse of Wilshaw’s Figure 3 that the sidewalls of bleed ports 30 diverge at a greater angle at/near inlet 50 than at outlet 52, this perception is due largely to the forward/downstream sweeping or curving of the bleed ports in the radial direction near the inlet. Closer review reveals that the sidewalls diverge from one another near both the inlet and the outlet. Further, as 5 The Examiner does not set forth either a design choice or obvious to try rationale to support the conclusion of obviousness. See Final Act. 4 (proposing to modify Gage to have the claimed diffusing angle relationship “in order to remove swirl from the bleed flow” in view of Wilshaw); Ans. 3- 5 (relying on a teaching by Wilshaw of the claimed relationship to support the conclusion of obviousness). Appeal 2021-002481 Application 15/875,167 7 Appellant points out (Appeal Br. 11), Wilshaw illustrates neither the centerlines nor the lines tangent to the centerlines or sidewalls in Figure 3, making any comparison of the diffusing angles at the inlet and elsewhere along the bleed ports speculative at best. It is not clear that Wilshaw’s Figure 3 was intended to show the sidewalls of bleed ports 30 diverging at a maximum diffusing angle at inlet 50. In response to Appellant’s argument that Gage is silent as to the angle between the sidewalls (Appeal Br. 10), the Examiner highlights Gage’s reference to “optimized diffusion rates” (plural) in paragraph 33 as indicating that the diffusion rate is variable and, thus, the diffusion angle between the sidewalls must also vary along the length of Gage’s diffusion section. Ans. 3. The Examiner’s inference in this regard is speculative. Gage discloses that “the respective geometries of MIB flow passages 54” may “be tailored in three dimensions in a manner providing highly efficient (low pressure loss) extraction of bleed air from the impeller, while also providing optimized diffusion rates and/or deswirling of the bleed air prior to injection into plenum 56.” Gage ¶ 33. Gage goes on to explain that each MIB flow passage includes an inlet, an enlarged lead-in portion or “throat,” an intermediate section, and an outlet. Id. Gage discloses that the throat portions help provide controlled transitions between the inlets and the intermediate sections, and can be shaped and dimensioned to control the flow area of the MIB flow passages. Id. Although it is possible that Gage’s reference to “optimized diffusion rates” (plural) is intended to be a reference to different, or varying, diffusion rates/diffusing angles along the length of each MIB flow passage, it is also possible that Gage’s reference to plural diffusion rates merely reflects the fact that there are plural MIB flow Appeal 2021-002481 Application 15/875,167 8 passages, each of which has a diffusion rate. Moreover, even accepting the Examiner’s position that Gage’s reference to plural diffusion rates indicates varying diffusing angles of the sidewalls along the diffuser section (intermediate section 98) of each MIB flow passage 54, this would not make up for the deficiency discussed above in the Examiner’s finding that Wilshaw’s Figure 3 shows that bleed port 30 has a diffusing angle between the sidewalls with a maximum value at an upstream end and a lower value toward a downstream end, which underpins the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or of claims 3-7 and 11, which depend from claim 1, as being unpatentable over Gage and Wilshaw. Obviousness-Gage and Wilshaw, in view of one or more of Baughman and Ress Independent claim 12, like independent claim 1, recites that “the diffusing angle has a maximum value at an upstream end of the diffuser section, and a lower value towards a downstream end of the diffuser section.” Appeal Br. 15-16 (Claims App.). In rejecting claims 8-10, which depend from claim 1, independent claim 12, and claims 13-17, 19, and 20, which depend from claim 12, the Examiner’s application of Baughman and Ress does not remedy the deficiency, discussed above, in the combination of Gage and Wilshaw. See Final Act. 6-12; id. at 9-10 (relying on Wilshaw for a teaching of a maximum diffusing angle at the upstream end of the diffuser section and a lower value towards the outlet in rejecting claim 12). Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 9, 10, 12-16, 19, and 20 as being unpatentable over Gage, Wilshaw, and Baughman; the rejection Appeal 2021-002481 Application 15/875,167 9 of claim 8 as being unpatentable over Gage, Wilshaw, and Ress; or the rejection of claim 17 as being unpatentable over Gage, Wilshaw, Baughman, and Ress. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are REVERSED. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3-7, 11 103 Gage, Wilshaw 1, 3-7, 11 9, 10, 12- 16, 19, 20 103 Gage, Wilshaw, Baughman 9, 10, 12- 16, 19, 20 8 103 Gage, Wilshaw, Ress 8 17 103 Gage, Wilshaw, Baughman, Ress 17 Overall Outcome 1, 3-17, 19, 20 REVERSED