General Electric Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 14, 2022

2021000806 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 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. 15/689,460 08/29/2017 Daniel Edward Mollmann 319108-US-1/GECV-586 8623 122218 7590 01/14/2022 Dority & Manning, P.A. and GEC-Aviation Post Office Box 1449 Greenville, SC 29602-1449 EXAMINER NG, HENRY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/14/2022 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): oc.prosecution@ge.com usdocketing@dority-manning.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DANIEL EDWARD MOLLMANN ____________ Appeal 2021-000806 Application 15/689,460 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-9, 11-19, and 21-23.2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies General Electric Company as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claims 2, 10, and 20 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 39-40, 43 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-000806 Application 15/689,460 2 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 13, and 18 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A method for operating a gas turbine engine comprising: receiving data indicative of an operational vibration within a section of the gas turbine engine; and providing electrical power to a shaker mechanically coupled to one or more components of the section of the gas turbine engine to generate a canceling vibration to reduce or minimize the operational vibration within the section of the gas turbine engine; wherein the section of the gas turbine engine is the combustion section of the gas turbine engine, wherein the combustion section of the gas turbine engine includes an outer combustor case, and wherein the shaker is mechanically coupled to the outer combustor case. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Guardiani US 5,397,949 Mar. 14, 1995 He US 7,853,433 B2 Dec. 14, 2010 Slobodyanskiy US 2011/0048021 A1 Mar. 3, 2011 Borufka US 2012/0102701 A1 May 3, 2012 Smith US 2013/0291552 A1 Nov. 7, 2013 Crothers US 2014/0238033 A1 Aug. 28, 2014 THE REJECTIONS I. Claims 1 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Smith. Final Act. 2-3. II. Claims 1, 5-9, 11, 12, and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Smith and Guardiani. Id. at 4-10. Appeal 2021-000806 Application 15/689,460 3 III. Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Smith, Guardiani, and He. Id. at 10-12. IV. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Smith and Crothers. Id. at 12-13. V. Claims 13, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Smith, Guardiani, and Crothers. Id. at 14-16. VI. Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Smith, Guardiani, Crothers, and He. Id. at 16-18. VII. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Smith, Slobodyanskiy, and Borufka. Id. at 18-19. VIII. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Smith, Slobodyanskiy, Borufka, and He. Id. at 20. OPINION Rejection I The Examiner finds that Smith discloses all of the limitations of independent claim 1, including, among other things, “providing electrical power to a shaker mechanically coupled to [an outer combustor case of the combustion section of a gas turbine engine] to generate a canceling vibration to reduce or minimize the operational vibration within the [combustion] section of the gas turbine engine.” Appeal Br. 39 (Claims App.); Final Act. 2-3. More specifically, as to the disclosure of a “shaker” in Smith, the Examiner finds that Smith’s controller 18 provides electrical power to microwave source 16 so as “to modulate the heat release of the flame out of Appeal 2021-000806 Application 15/689,460 4 phase with, and at the same frequency as the detected dynamic instabilities” and “[b]y modulating the heat release out of phase with, and at the same frequency as the detected oscillations, the combustion oscillations are dampened.” Final Act. 3 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Smith ¶ 14). The Examiner further explains in the Answer that: Smith teaches that the microwave source 16 propagates microwaves to interact with the ions in the flame, causing “molecular motion” (i.e. vibration) “which adds heat to the flame” (p. [0013], ll. 6-8 and 11-13). Smith further teaches (p. [0013], ll. 14-19) “By modulating the microwave heat, input acoustic waves can be directly created, or local temperature fluctuations can be provided that, through the strong temperature-dependence of reaction rates, can modulate the local combustion heat release to counteract the effects of the dynamic instabilities” . . . Therefore, Smith’s microwave source is a shaker in the sense that it generates vibrational waves to the ions in the flame for the purpose of counteracting the effects of dynamic instabilities, thereby satisfying the claim 1 limitation. Ans. 3. As to the shaker being mechanically coupled to the combustor case, the Examiner finds microwave source 16 to be mechanically coupled to the outer combustor case because “element 16 is coupled to the combustor case via waveguide 20 and antenna 22.” Final Act. 3 (citing Smith Fig. 1A). Appellant argues that: a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider a microwave source 16 to be a shaker that generates a canceling vibration to reduce or minimize the operational vibration within the section of the gas turbine engine, as a microwave source 16 does not shake in the manner the term “shaker” requires. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant further argues that “the Examiner appears to be redefining ‘shaker’ as anything that ‘generates vibrational waves’” and states Appeal 2021-000806 Application 15/689,460 5 that “[t]his definition for ‘shaker’ is unreasonable.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant continues that “[t]he microwave source 16 of Smith does not create vibrations by shaking and, as such, cannot reasonably be considered a shaker.” Id. Although Appellant appears to suggest a construction for “shaker” that requires the shaker itself to shake in order to create vibrations (Reply Br. 3), Appellant does not clearly identify a particular construction for the term “shaker” or point to any particular disclosure in the Specification or to any extrinsic evidence in support of any particular construction of the term “shaker.” In our independent review, we note that Appellant’s Specification states “the term ‘shaker,’ as used herein, refers generally to a machine that is capable of creating a vibration at a determined amplitude, frequency, and/or phase in response to receiving electrical power.” Spec. ¶ 66. We consider this statement in the Specification to provide a construction for the term “shaker” that is consistent with the Specification. The Examiner has pointed out how Smith teaches that, in response to controller 18 determining (i) if any acoustic or combustion oscillations are present in combustion chamber 12 and (ii) if dynamic instabilities are present, the controller operates microwave source 16 to propagate microwaves to affect the flame’s heat release rate (i.e., the microwaves interact with ions in the flame to cause molecular motion which adds heat to the flame), with such modulation of the microwave heat creating input acoustic waves and such modulation of the heat release of the flame being out of phase with, and at the same frequency as the detected dynamic instabilities so as to damp combustion oscillations and acoustic oscillations. Ans. 3 (citing Smith ¶ 13); see also Smith ¶ 14. Consequently, a Appeal 2021-000806 Application 15/689,460 6 preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that Smith’s microwave source 16 is a “shaker” in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of this term consistent with the Specification-i.e., a machine that is capable of creating a vibration at a determined amplitude, frequency, and/or phase in response to receiving electrical power.3 Appellant also argues that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider a waveguide 20 to which the microwave source 16 is coupled to be a combustor case” and “[i]nstead, the waveguide 20 is coupled to the combustor case via an antenna.” Appeal Br. 13 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner responds that microwave source 16 “is coupled to the combustor case via waveguide 20 and antenna 22” and “[t]his would still read on the claim 1 limitation ‘the shaker is mechanically coupled to the outer combustor case’ since claim 1 does not require the shaker to be directly coupled to the outer combustor case.” Ans. 4. Appellant replies that: [a] person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “mechanically coupled” requires proximity of the structures being mechanically coupled and, as such, would not consider the combustion chamber 12 of Smith as being mechanically 3 We have also considered Appellant’s argument that “the Examiner’s equating of ‘molecular motion’ to ‘vibration’ is unreasonable” because “[n]ot all motion is vibration” and “Smith does not disclose the ‘molecular motion’ caused by interaction of the ions with microwaves being periodic motion about an equilibrium and, as such, cannot be considered a canceling vibration that reduces or minimize[s] the operational vibration within the combustion section.” Reply Br. 3-4. In our view, the Examiner is not exclusively relying on such molecular motion as the vibration, but on the “input acoustic waves . . . directly created” “[b]y modulating the microwave heat” “to counteract the effects of the dynamic instabilities.” Ans. 3 (emphasis omitted). Appellant does not explain adequately how such disclosure by Smith fails to teach a vibration that reduces or minimizes operational vibration with the combustion section. Appeal 2021-000806 Application 15/689,460 7 coupled to the microwave source 16, as the waveguide 20 and antenna 22 make the connection therebetween too remote to be considered “mechanically coupled.” Reply Br. 4-5. The Examiner’s position appears to be based on an indirect coupling of microwave source 16 to the combustor case via waveguide 20 and antenna 22. Appellant does not explain adequately how the Examiner’s position is in error. Appellant’s arguments that a mechanical coupling requires “proximity” of the structures being coupled and/or precludes a connection that is “too remote” (Reply Br. 4-5) are not persuasive. Merely because two objects are not proximate and/or are remote from each other does not preclude a mechanical coupling. Even a distant object may be mechanically coupled to another object (e.g., a ship’s anchor that is mechanically coupled to a ship even if the distance between the ship and the anchor is great). Appellant has not pointed to any particular disclosure in the Specification or to any extrinsic evidence in support of a particular construction of the term “mechanically coupled” that would require a certain proximity between the objects being coupled. In our independent review, Appellant’s Specification does not provide a lexicographical definition for the term “mechanically coupled” or otherwise suggest that a certain proximity is required in order to be considered “mechanically coupled.” On the record before us, Appellant does not explain adequately how the Examiner’s finding regarding an indirect coupling of microwave source 16 to combustor case via waveguide 20 and antenna 22 (Ans. 4) is in error. For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s determination that Smith anticipates claim 1. Appellant relies on the same arguments in connection with dependent claim 22. Appeal 2021-000806 Application 15/689,460 8 Appeal Br. 15. We sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Smith. Rejection II In this rejection, the Examiner takes the position that Smith is not a “shaker” “in the sense of a device that is used to excite a structure for endurance testing or modal testing.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner turns to Guardiani, finding that it “teaches (Figure 1) electromagnetic shakers (62) that are attached to a motor/pump housing (4) and controlled by the cancellation signal generator (55) to oscillate in phase or out of phase (Col. 6, lines 16-22).” Id. The Examiner also points out Guardiani’s teaching that “[t]ranslational vibrations are cancelled by operating the shakers 62 on opposite sides of the housing 44 in phase with one another and out of phase with the translational vibration to be cancelled.” Id. (quoting Guardiani 6:24-27). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to modify Smith by replacing the microwave source with a shaker, because it has been known to cancel rotational vibrations by attaching to the vibrating element an electromagnetic shaker having a movable mass (i.e., a mass apart from the rotor or the like), and electromagnetically vibrating the mass, as taught by Guardiani.” Id. (citing Guardiani 2:19-23). The Examiner explains further that “[b]oth Smith and Guardiani’s inventions share the same intended purpose of counteracting vibration” and “it would have been obvious to substitute Guardiani’s shaker for Smith’s microwave source to achieve predictable results, which is to cancel vibrations.” Ans. 5. Appellant argues that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would not replace the microwave source 16 of Smith with a shaker 62 of Guardiani because doing so would render Smith inoperable for its intended purpose Appeal 2021-000806 Application 15/689,460 9 and change the principle of operation of Smith.” Appeal Br. 17. Appellant takes the position that Smith’s intended purpose is “electrical modulation of combustion in gas turbine engines,” not the more broad purpose of simply “counteracting vibration” as asserted by the Examiner. Reply Br. 6-7 (quoting Smith ¶ 1). Appellant continues that “[r]eplacing the microwave source 16 with a shaker 62, which is the Examiner’s proposed modification, would result in a device that cannot modulate the heat release of the flame out of phase with, and at the same frequency as the detected dynamic instabilities, so that the combustion oscillations would not be damped.” Id. at 7 (emphasis omitted). Although we agree with the Examiner that “Smith states in the ‘SUMMARY’ section, ‘such that the dynamic instabilities in the combustion chamber are counteracted’ (p. [0004], ll. 8-9)” and “Guardiani states in the ‘SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION’ section, ‘It is an object of the invention to cancel vibration’ (Col. 3, l. 15)” (Ans. 5), we are not persuaded that the intended purpose of each reference is quite so broad. Smith is concerned with “electrical control of combustion” to combat dynamic instabilities in order to eliminate the time delay associated with mechanical fuel actuation (i.e., “in which fuel provided to the combustion zone is oscillated out of phase with the naturally occurring acoustic oscillations in order to counteract them”) already known to be used to combat dynamic instabilities. Smith ¶¶ 1, 3, 13. Guardiani is concerned with “cancellation of vibration in electrically powered devices” that “vibrate due to imbalances such as eccentricities in rotating elements and translation of movable elements, and also due to periodic displacement of elements that normally are regarded as being stationary.” Guardiani 1:7-8, 15-19. That is, Appeal 2021-000806 Application 15/689,460 10 Guardiani is concerned with “minimizing or cancelling vibration induced by electromagnetic forces at an AC power line frequency” and “is particularly applicable to large rotating machines.” Id. at 3:29-31, 54-55. Guardiani states that: Whereas cancelling rotational frequency vibrations may require sensors and the like that penetrate the housing of the machine and require access to the rotating shaft and/or impeller, cancelling the AC line frequency vibrations can be accomplished using sensors and electromagnetic shakers that are simply attached to the outside of the machine housing 44. Id. at 7:15-22. Modification of Smith’s combustion chamber so as to replace microwave source 16 with Guardiani’s electromagnetic shaker will alter how Smith’s combustion chamber operates. Without its microwave source, Smith can no longer electrically modulate combustion at the flame to combat the effects of dynamic instability. Instead, modified Smith would rely on electromagnetic vibration of a movable mass that is part of an electromagnetic shaker to cancel vibrations related to the combustion chamber. The Examiner states that “by coupling Guardian’s shaker 62 to Smith’s waveguide 20, the vibrations from Guardiani’s shaker would be transmitted to Smith’s waveguide 20, which then transmits the vibrations to Smith’s combustor case.” Adv. Act. (Mar. 31, 2020), 2. A change in the method or principle of operation of the primary reference can, in some circumstances, render a modification nonobvious. For example, in In re Ratti, the modification suggested by the Examiner changed the basic principle of sealing from attaining sealing through a rigid, press-fit, interface between the components, to attaining sealing by providing a resilient interface between the components. 270 F.2d 810, Appeal 2021-000806 Application 15/689,460 11 811-813 (CCPA 1959) (“This suggested combination of references would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in [the primary reference] as well as a change in the basic principles under which the [primary reference] construction was designed to operate.” (emphasis added)). The modification in Ratti fundamentally changed the technical basis of how a seal performed its sealing function and how a sealed interface was attained. Such is the case here. The Examiner’s proposed modification fundamentally changes the technical basis of how a desirable vibration is generated and how undesirable vibrations are countered. The Examiner’s proposed modification of Smith based on the teachings of Guardiani so changes the basic operating principle of Smith as to prevent a person of ordinary skill in the art from combining the references, and thus lacks rational underpinnings. In addition, Appellant argues that Smith’s “waveguide 20 would absorb the vibration of the shaker 62, such that the combustion chamber 12 would not benefit from the vibrations of the shaker 62.” Appeal Br. 19. Appellant states that “the combination of the shaker and waveguide suggested by the Examiner does not make sense on a fundamental level.” Id. Appellant further states that although “a waveguide 20 can transmit microwaves through the inside of the tube (i.e., the core), if the entire waveguide 20 structure is shaken by a shaker, which the Examiner’s suggested combination would require, the thin tube of the waveguide 20 would dampen the vibration of the shaker.” Id. at 20; see also Reply Br. 8 (“[When] [s]haking the entire waveguide with a shaker . . . , the entire waveguide would vibrate, which is not how a waveguide is intended to operate.”). The Examiner’s position is that “Smith’s waveguide 20 is Appeal 2021-000806 Application 15/689,460 12 presented as a generic waveguide,” and “[w]aveguides are known to transmit vibrations, not dampen them.” Ans. 5. In our view, Appellant has the better position here. We are not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to replace Smith’s microwave source 16 with Guardiani’s electromagnetic shaker and couple Guardiani’s electromagnetic shaker 62 to Smith’s waveguide 20 so as to transmit vibrations from shaker 62 to waveguide 20 so as to, in turn, transmit the vibrations to Smith’s combustor case. Adv. Act. (Mar. 31, 2020), 2. The Examiner does not adequately support that Smith’s waveguide 20 would transmit vibrations to Smith’s combustor case when being used in a manner outside of its normal operation. See Reply Br. 8 (“[Although] a waveguide is intended to transmit waves through its core, a waveguide is not intended to be shaken to transmit vibrations.”). For this additional reason, the Examiner’s reasoning for the modification lacks rational underpinnings. For the foregoing reasons, Appellant apprises us of error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or claims 5-9, 11, 12, and 21-23 depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Smith and Guardiani. Rejection III Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Smith, Guardiani, and He. Final Act. 10-12. Claims 3 and 4 depend from independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 39 (Claims App.). The rejection of these claims relies on the same erroneous reasoning with respect to claim 1. Final Act. 10-12. The Examiner does not explain how He might cure this Appeal 2021-000806 Application 15/689,460 13 underlying deficiency. Id. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Smith, Guardiani, and He. Rejection IV Independent claim 13 is similar to independent claim 1, reciting “a shaker configured to be mechanically coupled to the combustion section of the gas turbine engine when installed in the gas turbine engine” and “providing electrical power to the shaker to generate a canceling vibration to reduce or minimize the operational vibration within the combustion section of the gas turbine engine.” Appeal Br. 41 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on the same teachings of Smith as in connection with Rejection I, turning to Crothers only for its teaching of memory and processors in association with controllers. Final Act. 12-13. Appellant’s arguments in support of the patentability of independent claim 13 are identical to those presented in support of the patentability of independent claim 1 in Rejection I. Appeal Br. 22-24. For the same reasons as in Rejection I, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 in Rejection IV. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Smith and Crothers. Rejection V The Examiner relies on the same combination of Smith and Guardiani as in connection with Rejection II, turning to Crothers only for its teaching of memory and processors in connection with controllers. Final Act. 14-16. Because the rejection relies on the same erroneous reasoning as explained in connection with Rejection II, and the Examiner does not explain how Appeal 2021-000806 Application 15/689,460 14 Crothers might cure this underlying deficiency, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 13, or claims 16 and 17 depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Smith, Guardiani, and Crothers. Rejection VI The Examiner relies on the same combination of Smith and Guardiani as in connection with Rejection II, turning to Crothers only for its teaching of memory and processors in connection with controllers and to He only for its teaching of accelerometers from which to receive data within the combustion section of a gas turbine engine. Final Act. 16-18. Because the rejection relies on the same erroneous reasoning for the reasons explained in connection with Rejection II, and the Examiner does not explain how Crothers and He might cure this underlying deficiency, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Smith, Guardiani, Crothers, and He. Rejection VII Independent claim 18 recites a “shaker mechanically coupled to one or more components of the compressor section or the turbine section [of a gas turbine engine] to generate a canceling vibration to reduce or minimize the operational vibration within the compressor section or the turbine section of the gas turbine engine during operation.” Appeal Br. 43 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that “Smith does not teach a compressor section, a turbine section, and a combustion section disposed downstream of the compressor section and upstream of the turbine section.” Final Act. 18 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds that Slobodyanskiy teaches “a compressor section (26); a turbine section (20); a combustion section (16) disposed downstream of the compressor section (26) and upstream of the Appeal 2021-000806 Application 15/689,460 15 turbine section (20)” and concludes it would have been obvious to modify Smith to include various sections because “it was known in the art that gas turbine engines typically contain a compressor section, a turbine section, and a combustion section disposed downstream of the compressor section and upstream of the turbine section.” Id. at 18-19. The Examiner finds that “Smith, in view of Slobodyanskiy, does not explicitly teach a shaker attached to one or more components of the compressor section or the turbine section.” Final Act. 19. The Examiner finds that Borufka teaches “a shaker (active device 60) mechanically coupled to one or more components of the compressor section or the turbine section.” Id. (citing Smith Fig. 5, ¶¶ 18, 19, 30). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious: to modify Smith, in view of Slobodyanskiy, by mechanically coupling the shaker to one or more components of the compressor section or the turbine section, in order to reduce the vibration amplitude of a structure that is capable of vibrating- such structures being stator and rotor vanes of axial compressors or turbines, as taught by Borufka. Id. (citing Borufka ¶ 3). The Examiner takes the position that “Borufka’s ‘active devices’ are clearly shakers, since they vibrate to reduce the vibration of the structures to which they are attached.” Ans. 8 (emphasis omitted) (citing Borufka ¶ 18) (“A device for reducing the vibration of a structure that is capable of vibrating, which structure can be excited to vibration by an excitation force, comprises an active device for generating a counterforce such that the counterforce is directly predominantly opposite to the excitation force and particularly compensates at least partially for the excitation force, in order to reduce the excitation of a vibration.”). Appeal 2021-000806 Application 15/689,460 16 Appellant argues that Borufka’s “[p]ermanent magnets and electromagnets are clearly not shakers.” Id.; see also id. at 35 (“Because a shaker is required to shake, whether a device reduces vibrations of other elements is irrelevant if the device itself does not shake.”). As described above in connection with Rejection I, the broadest reasonable interpretation for the term “shaker” consistent with Appellant’s Specification does not require the shaker to itself shake, but only be “capable of creating a vibration at a determined amplitude, frequency, and/or phase in response to receiving electrical power.” Spec. ¶ 66. Appellant has not explained adequately how Borufka’s active devices 60 fail to comprise a machine that is capable of creating a vibration at a determined amplitude, frequency, and/or phase in response to receiving electrical power. Accordingly, we do not find this argument persuasive. Appellant also argues that “Fig. 5 of Borufka clearly shows the active devices 60 being spaced apart from the blades 10,” such that “even if the active devices 60 were to vibrate, the vibration would not reduce vibration of the blades 10.” Appeal Br. 34. Appellant continues that “active devices 60 create[] a magnetic force against the blades 10 in order to reduce vibrations thereof. This is different from and incompatible with a shaker, which must be mechanically coupled in order to reduce vibration.” Id. Appellant adds that “[b]ecause the active devices 60 are spaced apart from the blades 10, they do not turn with the blades 10 and are disposed on the outer casing around the blades 10” and that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that at least the outer casing, bearings, a shaft, and a body driven by the shaft on which the blades 10 are disposed must be disposed between the connection of the active devices 60 to the blades 10” and “[d]ue to this Appeal 2021-000806 Application 15/689,460 17 remote connection, even if the active devices 60 were to vibrate (which is not the case as explained above), the vibration would be absorbed by all of these elements therebetween and not reach the blades 10.” Id. at 36. Even assuming arguendo that Fig. 5 of Borufka shows active devices 60 spaced apart from blades 10, Figure 5 is but one “schematic illustration of a device for reducing a vibration.” Borufka ¶ 39. Borufka clearly discloses that “[t]he active device can be disposed either on the structure that is capable of vibrating or, for example, opposite thereof.” Id. ¶ 19 (emphasis added). Borufka also discloses that “[s]tructures that are capable of vibrating are particularly stator and rotor vanes of axial compressors or turbines, especially the blades thereof.” Id. at ¶ 3. Borufka also discloses that the active devices are “[a] device for reducing the vibration of a structure that is capable of vibrating, which structure can be excited to vibration by an excitation force” and are “for generating a counterforce such that the counterforce is directed predominantly opposite to the excitation force and particularly compensates at least partially for the excitation force, in order to reduce the excitation of a vibration.” Id. at ¶ 18; see also id. ¶ 21 (“[A] defined, first excitation with a certain first phase is at least partially compensated for by an additional, second excitation with an opposite second phase (phase difference between the first phase and the second phase equal to 180° or pi). The effective or remaining excitation is thereby reduced.”). We note that the claim merely requires the shaker to be mechanically coupled to one component of the compressor section or the turbine section, without any more specificity regarding the location. Consequently, Appellant has not apprised us of error in the Examiner’s position that a preponderance of the evidence supports that Borufka teaches a “shaker Appeal 2021-000806 Application 15/689,460 18 mechanically coupled to one or more components of the compressor section or the turbine section to generate a canceling vibration to reduce or minimize the operational vibration within the compressor section or the turbine section of the gas turbine engine during operation,” as required by independent claim 18. For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s determination that the combination of Smith, Slobodyanskiy, and Borufka render obvious the subject matter of independent claim 18. We sustain the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Smith, Slobodyanskiy, and Borufka. Rejection VIII Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Smith, Slobodyanskiy, Borufka, and He. Final Act. 20. Claim 19 depends from independent claim 18. Appeal Br. 43 (Claims App.). Appellant’s arguments in support of the patentability of dependent claim 19 relate to the perceived deficiencies in the combination of Smith, Slobodyanskiy, and Borufka in connection with independent claim 18. Id. at 37. Because we have found no such deficiencies in the combination of Smith, Slobodyanskiy, and Borufka with respect to independent claim 18, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 19. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Smith, Slobodyanskiy, Borufka, and He. Appeal 2021-000806 Application 15/689,460 19 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 22 102(a)(1) Smith 1, 22 1, 5-9, 11, 12, 21-23 103 Smith, Guardiani 1, 5-9, 11, 12, 21-23 3, 4 103 Smith, Guardiani, He 3, 4 13 103 Smith, Crothers 13 13, 16, 17 103 Smith, Guardiani, Crothers 13, 16, 17 14, 15 103 Smith, Guardiani, Crothers, He 14, 15 18 103 Smith, Slobodyanskiy, Borufka 18 19 103 Smith, Slobodyanskiy, Borufka, He 19 Overall Outcome 1, 13, 18, 19, 22 3-9, 11, 12, 14-17, 21, 23 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED IN PART