Sungho Yoon et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 6, 2019

14556452 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2019)

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.
14/556,452 12/01/2014 Sungho Yoon 275892-1 8000
6147 7590 08/06/2019
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GLOBAL RESEARCH
1 RESEARCH CIRCLE
K1 - 3A59
Niskayuna, NY 12309
EXAMINER
THOMAS, KYLE ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/06/2019 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):
GRCLegal.mail@ge.com
preisman@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SUNGHO YOON, JOHN DAVID STAMPFLI,
RAMAKRISHNA VENKATA MALLINA, VITTORIO MICHELASSI,
GIRIDHAR JOTHIPRASAD, AJAY KESHAVA RAO,
RUDOLF KONRAD SELMEIER, DAVIDE GIACCHÉ, and
IVAN MALCEVIC
____________

Appeal 2018-008096
Application 14/556,452
Technology Center 3700
_______________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.

GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2018-008096
Application 14/556,452

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 3–20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 13, and 18 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below (emphasis and line breaks added), is exemplary of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A compressor comprising:
a compressor endwall defining a generally cylindrical flow
passage, the compressor endwall comprising a compressor
casing and a compressor hub disposed about and coaxially along
a longitudinal centerline axis;
at least one set of rotor blades, each of the at least one set
of rotor blades comprising a plurality of rotor blades coupled to
the compressor hub and extending between the compressor hub
and the compressor casing and defining a blade passage there
between each of the rotor blades, the compressor casing
circumscribing the at least one set of rotor blades to define an
annular gap between the compressor casing and a plurality of
rotor blade tips of the plurality of rotor blades;
at least one set of stator blades, each of the at least one set
of stator blades comprising a plurality of stator blades coupled to
the compressor casing and extending between the compressor
casing and the compressor hub and defining a blade passage there
between each of the stator blades, the plurality of stator blades

1 General Electric Company, the applicant as provided for under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.46, is also identified as the real party in interest. Br. 2.
2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated November 30, 2017, as
supplemented by the Advisory Action dated February 21, 2018. Claim 2 has
been cancelled. See Amendment 9 (dated January 24, 2018).
Appeal 2018-008096
Application 14/556,452

3
disposed relative to the compressor hub to define an annular gap
between the compressor hub and a plurality of stator blade tips
of the plurality of stator blades; and
a plurality of discrete axial slots
defined circumferentially about at least one of the
compressor hub or the compressor casing,
each of the plurality of discrete axial slots having a
radial height formed in an interior surface of at least one
of the casing or the hub and
an extension of each of the plurality of discrete axial
slots in an axial flow direction being larger as compared to
an extension of each of the plurality of discrete axial slots
in a circumferential direction, and
wherein each of the plurality of discrete axial slots
extend in the circumferential direction less than a
dimension of a respective blade passage,
the plurality of discrete axial slots configured to
extract a portion of a compressed air that passes
downstream about at least one of the plurality of rotor
blade tips or the plurality of stator blade tips as an
extracted flow, strengthen the extracted flow within the
plurality of discrete axial slots, and reinject the
strengthened flow adjacent at least one of the plurality of
rotor blade tips or the plurality of stator blade tips to the
cylindrical flow passage upstream of a point of extraction
of the extracted flow,
each of the plurality of discrete axial slots defining
a front wall including a first axial lean angle
α1 defined between a first defined line and the
longitudinal centerline axis,
a rear wall including a second axial lean angle
α2 defined between a second defined line and the
longitudinal centerline axis,
an outer wall extending between the front
wall and the rear wall,
an axial overhang extending upstream to
overhang at least one of the at least one set of rotor
blades or the at least one set of stator blades,
Appeal 2018-008096
Application 14/556,452

4
an axial overlap extending downstream to
overlap at least one of the at least one set of rotor
blades or the at least one set of stator blade,
a first tangential lean angle β1 defined
between a third defined line and a circumferential
surface of the compressor endwall and a second
tangential lean angle.

THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1 and 3–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as
failing to comply with the written description requirement.
II. Claims 1 and 3–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
indefinite.
III. Claims 1, 3, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Brignole (US 2010/0329852 A1; published Dec. 30, 2010).
IV. Claims 4–6 and 8–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Brignole.
V. Claims 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Brignole and Bagnall (US 7,200,999 B2; issued Apr. 10,
2007).

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Regarding independent claims 1, 13, and 18, the Examiner finds that
the claim limitation strengthen the extracted flow within the plurality of
discrete axial slots lacks written description support in the Specification.
Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner determines that “the subject matter is not
described in the [S]pecification in such a way that one of ordinary skill in
Appeal 2018-008096
Application 14/556,452

5
the art would be able to understand how to recreate the claimed limitation”
and that “[as] there are many ways in which a flow may be considered to be
strengthened, i.e. increased flow velocity, increased mass flow, increased
vortex, it is not clear in what way the flow is being strengthened.” Id. (citing
Spec. ¶¶ 36, 52).3
Appellant submits that the Specification describes that
discrete axial slots provide for a reduction in the blockage,
as illustrated below in FIG. B, with an increased axial
momentum and reduced pressure through three steps: (i)
initially extracting the low momentum fluids from the
flow; (ii) next, accelerating the flow by the curvilinear
shape of the slot; and (iii) finally, injecting the flow in the
axial direction.
Br. 9 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 38, 44, 48). Appellant provides Figures A and B,
reproduced below, “to illustrate how Appellant’s novel axial slots perform to
strengthen the flow 50, in relation to a typical compressor with no slots.” Id.

3 See Adv. Act. 2 (wherein the Examiner does not enter proposed
amendments to independent claims 1, 13, and 18 reciting: “accelerate the
flow in response to the curvilinear shape of the plurality of discrete axial
slots to generate a strengthe[ne]d flow”).
Appeal 2018-008096
Application 14/556,452

6
Figure A, representing the prior art, depicts a “[r]egion of blockage (low
axial momentum) (high pressure)” in an annular gap between the
compressor casing and a rotor blade. See id.

Figure B, representing the claimed invention, depicts, inter alia, a
“[c]ontour” of an axial slot that “accelerates flow,” and in particular, that
results in “increased axial momentum” of the flow. Id. at 10.
The Examiner responds that the Specification’s description of
“geometrical properties” of the axial slots “to minimize ‘mixing loss’ and
extract low momentum fluids . . . appear[s] to contradict an accepted
definition of ‘strengthen’ of ‘to make stronger.’” Ans. 2–3. The Examiner
also finds that “the [S]pecification does not describe such effects [(as a
reduction in the blockage with an increased axial momentum and reduced
pressure, or by the curvilinear shape)] “nor does the [S]pecification link the
described effects to ‘strengthening’ the extracted flow.’” Id. at 3.
To satisfy the written description requirement, the Specification must
describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art
can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed
subject matter as of the filing date. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d
1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The issue of whether the written
Appeal 2018-008096
Application 14/556,452

7
description requirement has been satisfied is a question of fact. Wang Labs,
Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 865 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Specification discloses, with reference to Figure 4, that
discrete slots 96[] assist in delaying rotor stall by initially
extracting weak tip flow through an aft segment 100 of a
portion 58 of flow 50, also referred to herein as leakage
flow, that is exposed to the rotor blade tip 81. The portion
58 of flow 50 is then recirculated and strengthened within
each of the slots 96, and injected back into the main flow
50 ahead of the rotor blade 80 through the forward
segment as a rejected flow 59.
Spec. ¶ 36 (emphasis added). The Specification also discsloses that slots 96
facilitate “the conversion of the uselessness of leakage flows into useful
flows to increase the stall margin.” Id. ¶ 35. Thus, the Specification
satisfies the written description requirement, because the Specification
describes the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art
can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claim
limitation strengthen the extracted [compressed air] flow within the plurality
of discrete axial slots.4
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1
and 3–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written
description requirement.

4 “[T]he written description requirement is separate from the enablement
requirement.” AbbVie Deutschland GmbH v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759
F.3d 1285, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Notably, even if a claim appears verbatim
in the disclosure of the original application, and, thus, in this case provides
adequate written description support, the claim could lack enablement if a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time would not know how to make
or use the device.
Appeal 2018-008096
Application 14/556,452

8
Rejection II
The Examiner determines that the claim term “strengthen” is “not
defined by the claims, the [S]pecification does not provide a standard for
ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would
not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.” Final Act. 6.
More particularly, the Examiner determines that “the term ‘strengthen’ is a
relative term which may have numerous definitions to one of ordinary skill
in the in the context of ‘strengthening a flow’, i.e., increased flow velocity
increased flow density, creation of a vortex within the flow, etc.” Ans. 3.
The Examiner concludes that “[w]ithout a proper definition of . . . the term
‘strengthen’, the term may have multiple definitions, therefore rendering the
scope of the claim indefinite.” Id.
Appellant relies on the arguments presented supra with respect to
Rejection I as support that the claims particularly point out and distinctly
claim the invention. Br. 9–10.
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, that the discrete axial slots are
configured to extract a portion of a compressed air as an extracted flow,
strengthen the extracted flow within such slots, and reinject the strengthened
flow adjacent a rotor blade tip. Thus, in the context of the claims, we
understand the claim term “strengthen” means that the extracted flow is
greater relative to the portion of the compressed air that is initially
extracted.5 However, the Examiner’s determination is, more specifically,

5 An ordinary definition of the term “strengthen” is “to make stronger.”
https://www.merriam-webster .com/dictionary/strengthen (last visited July
29, 2019). An ordinary definition of the claim term “flow” is “to issue or
move in a stream.” Id.
Appeal 2018-008096
Application 14/556,452

9
that it is unclear which parameter of the flow (i.e., velocity) is strengthened
(or greater). Cf. Spec. ¶ 5 (“[t]he operating range of an axial compressor is
generally limited due to weak flow in rotor tips”). Although Appellant
argues supra that the parameter of flow that is strengthened is the “axial
momentum,”6 we agree with the Examiner that the Specification does not
identify a particular parameter of the flow that is strengthened.
Notwithstanding, we determine that claim 1 reads on strengthening any
parameter of the flow. However, breadth is not indefiniteness. See In re
Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (CCPA 1970).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1
and 3–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as indefinite.
Rejection III
Appellant argues claims 1, 3, and 7 as a group. Br. 10–12. We select
claim 1 as representative, with claims 3 and 7 standing or falling with claim
1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that
Brignole discloses a compressor comprising discrete axial slots (i.e.,
chambers 27) configured to extract a portion of compressed air to create a
recirculating flow, as claimed. Final Act. 8 (citing Brignole ¶ 7); see also
Brignole ¶ 21.
Appellant argues that

6 An ordinary definition of the term “momentum” is “a property . . . of a
moving body that the body has by virtue of its mass . . . and motion and that
is equal to the product of the body's mass and velocity.”
https://www.merriam-webster .com/dictionary/strengthen (last visited July
29, 2019).
Appeal 2018-008096
Application 14/556,452

10
[a] portion of an extracted flow of Brignole is recirculated
within the chambers that are traversed in an axial direction
and another portion of the extracted flow of Brignole is
recirculated within the one or more annular chambers that
are traversed in the circumferential direction. Brignole
does not provide for recirculation of the complete
extracted flow within the chambers that [are] traversed in
an axial direction.
Br. 11 (emphasis added).
The Examiner correctly responds that Appellant is arguing a
limitation that is not recited in the claims. Ans. 4. In other words, claim 1
requires the axial slots to be configured to extract a portion of a compressed
air as an extracted flow, strengthen the extracted flow within the slots, and
reinject the strengthened flow. Brignole discloses that “chambers 27 that
can be traversed in the axial direction are configured as slots or axial
grooves and are not connected to one another in the circumferential
direction;” in other words, and a fact undisputed by Appellant, Brignole’s
chambers 27 are discrete axial slots. Brignole ¶ 21. Brignole also discloses
that “discharge openings 30 of the chambers 27 that can be traversed in the
axial direction in the main flow channel 22 are spaced apart axially or
separated axially from a connection or discharge opening 31 of the annular
chamber 26.” Id. ¶ 25, Fig. 2. Brignole further discloses that “a thrusting7
out of the chambers 27 . . . may be realized hereby upstream of an entrance
edge of the rotor blades 23.” Id. ¶ 29, Fig. 2. Thus, Brignole discloses that a
portion of a compressed air is extracted into a chamber 27, the extracted air
is strengthened (i.e., thrusted out), and the complete extracted air reinjected

7 An ordinary definition of the term “thrust” is “to push or drive with force.”
https://www.merriam-webster .com/dictionary/thrust (last visited July 29,
2019).
Appeal 2018-008096
Application 14/556,452

11
(again, thrust out) of chamber 27, as claimed. In sum, Appellant’s argument
does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings, which are supported
by a preponderance of evidence by Brignole.
Appellant also argues that the claims “do[] not require cooperating
axial and circumferential configured slots . . . whereby the extracted flow is
recirculated in both the axial and circumferential slots,” and that the claimed
flow is “completely recirculated by the axial slots, resulting in a circulation
structure that is simplified from that of Brignole and provid[es] for the
complete extracted flow to be recirculated upstream of the point of
extraction of the axial slots.” Br. 12; see also id. (arguing that “Brignole’s
inclusion of both axially oriented annular chambers and circumferentially
oriented annular chambers . . . is more complex, reduces aerodynamics of
the compressor and is at an increased manufacturing cost to produce than
[the claimed invention]”).
Again, the Examiner correctly responds that the claims “do not
prohibit the inclusion of a circumferential chamber,” as disclosed in
Brignole, nor do the claims require complete recirculation of the entire flow
by axial slots. Ans. 4. Notably, claim 1 includes the open-ended transitional
phrase “comprising,” which means that claim 1 does not exclude additional,
unrecited elements such as the circumferential chamber of Brignole. See
Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics Int’l, Inc., 246
F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Furthermore, unclaimed features cannot
impart patentability to claims. In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 1998). Arguments must be commensurate in scope with the actual
claim language. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
Appeal 2018-008096
Application 14/556,452

12
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Brignole, and claims 2
and 7 fall therewith.
Rejections IV–V
Appellant presents only the same arguments for the patentability of
independent claims 13 and 18 as presented for claim 1 supra. Br. 12–16
(arguing that Brignole discloses a circulation structure that requires the
inclusion of both axial slots 27 and circumferential slots 26, which is not
required by the claims, and does not provide for recirculation of the
complete extracted flow within the chambers that traverse in an axial
direction). Additionally, Appellant does not present separate arguments for
dependent claims 4–6, 8–12, 14–17, 19, and 20. Br. 12–16.
Accordingly, for essentially the same reasons presented supra with
respect to claim 1, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 4–6 and 8–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Brignole.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) is REVERSED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) is REVERSED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, and 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 4–6 and 8–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 are AFFIRMED.
Appeal 2018-008096
Application 14/556,452

13
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