United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2022

2021004008 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 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. 15/187,155 06/20/2016 Gabriel L. Suciu 1213-93720 1091 11943 7590 03/02/2022 Getz Balich LLC 10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205 Farmington, CT 06032 EXAMINER GILLENWATERS, JACKSON N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2022 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): shenry@getzbalich.com uspto@getzbalich.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GABRIEL L. SUCIU and MICHAEL E. MCCUNE Appeal 2021-004008 Application 15/187,155 Technology Center 3700 Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-8 and 23-30. Claims 9-22 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a lubrication system for a turbine engine. Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1 and 23 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Raytheon Technologies Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-004008 Application 15/187,155 2 1. A system for a turbine engine, comprising: a first bearing and a second bearing; a first turbine rotor and a second turbine rotor; a first component rotatably supported by the first bearing and coupled to the first turbine rotor; a second component rotatably supported by the second bearing and coupled to the second turbine rotor; a first lubrication circuit comprising a first pump and the first bearing, the first pump driven by the first turbine rotor and configured to pump lubricant to the first bearing; a second lubrication circuit comprising a second pump and the second bearing, the second pump configured to pump lubricant to the second bearing, wherein the second lubrication circuit is configured discrete from the first lubrication circuit, and wherein the second pump is driven by the second turbine rotor; a compressor rotor, wherein the first component is a shaft connected between the compressor rotor and the first turbine rotor, and the first bearing is located axially aft of the compressor rotor along an axial centerline of the turbine engine; a gear system; and a fan rotor connected to the shaft through the gear system; wherein the gear system and the first bearing are located within a common bearing compartment of the turbine engine. Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.) (emphases added). REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz (WO 2014/123857 A1, published Aug. 14, 2014) in view of Parnin (US 8,230,974 B2, issued July 31, 2012) and Roberge (WO 2014/137692 A1, published Sept. 12, 2014). 2. Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 23-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the same combination of references as the first rejection, only with Roberge as the primary reference and Schwarz and Parnin as the teaching references. Appeal 2021-004008 Application 15/187,155 3 ANALYSIS A. The First Rejection (Claims 1 and 4) The Examiner rejects clams 1 and 4 as unpatentable over Schwarz in view of Parnin and Roberge. See Final Act. 4. We begin with claim 1. The Examiner finds that Schwarz discloses many of the claim elements, including “discrete” lubrication circuits, namely, first lubrication circuit 76 having first pump 182 (top half of Schwarz’s Fig. 9) and second lubrication circuit 78 having second pump 184 (bottom half of Schwarz’s Fig. 9). See id. at 4-6; see also Schwarz ¶ 53 (describing Fig. 9). The Examiner acknowledges, however, that Schwarz lacks (1) the first lubrication circuit having a first bearing; (2) first pump 182 being driven by a first turbine rotor; and (3) second pump 184 being driven by a second turbine rotor.2 See Final Act. 6. As for the first deficiency in Schwarz, the Examiner finds that, while Schwarz’s Figure 9 may not depict lubricated component 94 as including a bearing, Schwarz nonetheless discloses that a bearing may be an “additional” part of the component. Id. (citing Schwarz ¶ 58). Appellant does not contest this finding, and we discern no error in it. 2 The Examiner also acknowledges that Schwarz lacks the claim limitation of the gear system and the first bearing sharing a “common bearing compartment,” but concludes that one skilled in the art would have understood from Roberge’s teaching that Schwarz’s gear system and first bearing could be located within the same compartment. See Final Act. 8 (citing Roberge ¶¶ 31-32, Fig. 1). Appellant neither disputes nor otherwise addresses the Examiner’s findings and reasoning with respect to this aspect of the Examiner’s rejection. See Appeal Br. 8-13. Thus, we need not address it further. Appeal 2021-004008 Application 15/187,155 4 As for the second and third deficiencies, the Examiner finds that, while Schwarz may be silent as to the driving means for first and second pumps 182 and 184, Schwarz nonetheless discloses “another embodiment” where a pump-lubricant pump 74 as shown in Figure 4-is driven by one of the turbine engine’s rotors. Id. at 6 (citing Schwarz ¶ 36, Fig. 4). From there, the Examiner reasons that one skilled in the art would have looked to Schwarz’s Figure 4 embodiment “to find a recognized means” of driving the lubrication pumps in Schwarz’s Figure 9 embodiment. Id. at 6-7. Appreciating that Schwarz discloses that the dual pumps in the Figure 9 embodiment “may be driven by a common shaft,” the Examiner infers from Schwarz’s use of that phrase that “the pumps may not be driven by a common shaft.” Id. at 7 (citing Schwarz ¶¶ 36, 58). With that finding in mind, the Examiner surmises that one skilled in the art would view Schwarz’s Figure 4 embodiment as teaching that the dual pumps in the Figure 9 embodiment “may be individually driven” and “may each be powered [by] separate rotors.” Id. at 7. We see error in the Examiner’s logic. As described, the lubricant pump in Schwarz’s Figure 4 embodiment is driven by “one of the engine rotors 44-48” or “one of the shafts 34 and 36.” Schwarz ¶ 36. All that proves is that one of the engine rotors may be a suitable replacement for the common shaft in Schwarz’s Figure 9 embodiment. The Examiner errs by inferring more from Schwarz’s disclosure than what one skilled in the art would necessarily perceive. Schwarz’s use of the phrase “may be driven by a common shaft” to describe the drive means for the dual pumps does not entitle the Examiner to make speculative and unsupported inferences that Schwarz’s common means for driving the dual pumps somehow includes Appeal 2021-004008 Application 15/187,155 5 distinct means for driving each of the pumps separately. The Examiner’s finding in that regard is nothing short of speculation and hindsight. At best, one skilled in the art would understand Schwarz’s paragraphs 36 and 58 as together teaching that the dual pumps may be driven by either a common shaft or one of the engine’s rotors. See Schwarz ¶¶ 36, 58. We reject the notion that those paragraphs stand for anything more. That said, however, we find persuasive the Examiner’s alternative reason for why one skilled in the art would recognize that Schwarz’s lubrication pumps may be individually driven by distinct rotors of the turbine engine. More specifically, the Examiner finds that Parnin teaches a lubrication pump system for a turbine engine comprising dual pumps-main pump 66 and auxiliary pump 44. Final Act. 7 (citing Parnin, 1:31-34, 3:20- 22). As described, each pump is individually driven, with the main pump being driven by a high pressure rotor and the auxiliary pump being driven by a fan rotor. Parnin, 1:31-34, 2:46-50, 3:20-22. And like Schwarz, Parnin’s dual pump system is for lubricating bearings in the gear system of the turbine engine. Id. 1:66-2:5, Figs. 2, 3A, 3B. With that in mind, the Examiner reasons that one skilled in the art would have deemed it obvious for Schwarz’s lubricant pumps to “be driven by separate turbine rotors through separate shafts,” as taught by Parnin. Final Act. 8. Appellant responds that “Parnin teaches its system switches between these two pumps 44 and 46 . . . Thus even if the teachings of Schwarz were modified based on the teachings of Parnin, such a combination does not teach or suggest driving the Schwarz pump 182 with a first turbine rotor and driving the other Schwarz pump 184 with a second turbine rotor since neither of the pumps 182, 184 functions as a backup to the other as Appeal 2021-004008 Application 15/187,155 6 discussed in Parnin.” Appeal Br. 11-12 (emphasis added). We do not find this argument persuasive for the simple reason that Appellant is focusing on Parnin alone rather than the Examiner’s proposed combination of Schwarz as modified by Parnin. In that regard, the Examiner looks to Parnin simply for the recognition that lubrication pumps in a turbine engine are capable of being driven independently by separate rotors of the turbine engine. See Final Act. 7; Ans. 6. The fact that Parnin’s dual pumps are characterized as “main” and “auxiliary” does not negate Parnin’s clear and unambiguous teaching of separate and distinct drive means for each of the lubrication pumps- namely, high pressure shaft 26 for pump 66 and fan shaft 34 for pump 44. Parnin,, 2:45-3:24, Figs. 1 and 2. Aside from arguing that Parnin’s pumps are “two different pumps,” Appellant does not point us to any persuasive evidence for why one skilled in the art would be dissuaded or otherwise discouraged from viewing Parnin’s teaching of individualized drive means for a main/auxiliary pump arrangement as equally applicable to a main/main pump arrangement, especially where there appears to be no difference in their ability to provide lubricating fluid to the bearings and gears of a turbine engine. See Appeal Br. 11-13. Put simply, Appellant is arguing a distinction without a difference. Because Appellant does not persuade us of error by the Examiner, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as dependent claim 4, which is not argued separately. B. The Second Rejection (Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 23-30) The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 5-8, and 23-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the same combination of references as the first rejection, only this time leading off with Roberge as the primary reference Appeal 2021-004008 Application 15/187,155 7 rather than Schwarz while still relying on Parnin. See Final Act. 9-20. Appellant’s arguments against this rejection are substantively identical to those Appellant argues above against the first rejection, save for the fact that this rejection relies on Roberge as the primary reference rather than Schwarz. See Appeal Br. 13-23. We find Appellant’s arguments no more persuasive here than they were against the first rejection. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, and 23-30. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4 103 Schwarz, Parnin, Roberge 1, 4 1-3, 5-8, 23-30 103 Roberge, Schwarz, Parnin 1-3, 5-8, 23-30 Overall Outcome 1-8, 23-30 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED