Ex Parte BaralonDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 21, 201410908970 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/908,970 06/02/2005 Stephane BARALON 7589.173.NPUS01 5970 65858 7590 01/21/2014 NOVAK DRUCE AND QUIGG LLP (Volvo) 1000 LOUISIANA STREET FIFTY-THIRD FLOOR HOUSTON, TX 77002 EXAMINER VERDIER, CHRISTOPHER M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/21/2014 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 STEPHANE BARALON ____________ Appeal 2011-012967 Application 10/908,970 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, EDWARD A. BROWN, and FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2011-012967 Application 10/908,970 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal, and recites: 1. A gas turbine compression system, comprising: a gas channel, a low pressure compressor section and a high pressure compressor section for compression of gas in the channel, the low pressure compressor section comprising an alternating series of rotating rotor blades and stationary stator blades with the last blades in the series being rotor blades, and a compressor structure arranged between the low pressure compressor section and the high pressure compressor section, wherein the compressor structure is designed to conduct a gas flow in the gas channel and comprises a plurality of radial struts for transmission of load, with the struts being spaced by a distance downstream from the last low-pressure-compressor rotor blades in the series with no intervening stator blades therebetween, wherein at least one of said struts is hollow for housing service components, and wherein the compressor structure is designed for substantially turning a swirling gas flow from the last low- pressure-compressor rotor blades in the series by virtue of a plurality of said struts having a cambered shape. App. Br., Claims App’x (emphasis added). REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1-4, 6, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Orlando (US 6,681,558 B2, iss. Jan. 27, 2004), Munroe (US 5,224,341, iss. Jul. 6, 1993), and Conrad (US 3,652,184, iss. Mar. 28, 1972). Appeal 2011-012967 Application 10/908,970 3 2. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Orlando, Munroe, Conrad, and Kreitmeier (US 5,102,298, iss. Apr. 7, 1992). 3. Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Orlando, Munroe, Conrad, and Pinsley (US 2,870,958, iss. Jan. 27, 1959). 4. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Orlando, Munroe, Conrad, and Crall (US 6,439,838 B1, iss. Aug. 27, 2002). Appellant also relies on the Declaration of Dr. Jonas Larson, filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 on October, 15, 2010 (“Larson Declaration”). App. Br. 10. ANALYSIS1 Rejection of claims 1-4, 6, and 13 as unpatentable over Orlando, Munroe, and Conrad Independent claim 1 recites, among other features, a “compressor structure is designed for substantially turning a swirling gas flow from the last low-pressure-compressor rotor blades in the series by virtue of a plurality of said struts having a cambered shape.” App. Br., Claims App’x. The Examiner found that Orlando teaches the recited gas turbine compression system except for “at least one of the struts is hollow” and “the 1 Appellant indicates that “the ground of rejection to be reviewed on appeal is the obviousness rejection that has been lodged against claims 1-4, 6, and 13, since all other rejections build on that rejection.” App. Br. 4. As such, we treat Appellant’s arguments for Rejection 1 as additionally presented for Rejections 2-4. Appeal 2011-012967 Application 10/908,970 4 plurality of the struts having a cambered shape.” Ans. 8. The Examiner further found that Munroe teaches a plurality of hollow struts and that Conrad teaches a cambered strut in the afterguide blading arrangement 15 located directly downstream of a rotor 12. Id. at 9-10. For the combination of Orlando and Conrad, the Examiner further determined that Conrad’s elements 15 are “load bearing, because they support outer wall 17 and inner wall 18 of housing 11.” Id. at 15. Moreover, the Examiner added that “[e]ven assuming arguendo that elements 15 in Conrad are not struts…elements 15 of Conrad are functionally similar to the struts of Orlando, in that both guide working fluid….” Id. at 16. Appellant argues that a skilled artisan would not modify the Orlando struts to have Conrad’s cambered shape because Conrad’s afterguide blading 15, 19 and Orlando’s struts have different functions. In particular, Appellant contends that the afterguide blading 15 are actually just the final stator blades in the compressor; that one of skill in the art would have understood the claim-recited struts to be the far “beefier” structural elements that carry the major radial loads in the device (on the order of thousands of pounds); and that one of skill in the art would have understood the difference between such claim-recited struts and Conrad's vanes. Appellant has supported this with Dr. Larson's Rule 132 Declaration, filed October 15, 2010. App. Br. 6. Looking to the referenced declaration, Dr. Larson states that [o]ne having skill in jet engine design would not have read the Conrad reference and, in light of it, made the connection or mental “leap” to modify the shape of the struts…so that they function as flow-guiding elements as well as carrying the sizable radial loads to which they are subjected. Larson Decl. at ¶ 8. Thus, Appellant essentially argues that the Examiner has failed to provide an adequate reasoning with rational underpinning to Appeal 2011-012967 Application 10/908,970 5 modify the Orlando strut with Conrad’s blading shape because the Conrad blading is not load-bearing and the Orlando strut does not guide working fluid. See App. Br. 6; see also Larson Decl. ¶ 8. We are persuaded by Appellant’s position. On the record before us, we do not find the Examiner has provided adequate reasoning for modifying Orlando’s strut shape based on the asserted functional equivalence between Orlando’s strut and Conrad’s afterguide blading 15, 19. First, the Examiner has not established that the Conrad afterguide blading 15 and guide blades 19 are functionally equivalent to struts with “load bearing, because they support outer wall 17 and inner wall 18.” See Ans. 15. As Appellant points out, Conrad “shows… that the guide blades 19 [of element 15] extend between the outer and inner walls 17, 18 of the flow passageway...,” but does not disclose “any other structural details as to what lies behind the walls 17, 18 of the flow passageway and from which one might be able to assess any load-bearing capability of the guide blades 19.” App. Br. 8-9. Indeed, Conrad teaches that the “afterguide blading 15 adjoins the rotor 12 which is arranged in the annular channel 16 between an outer wall 17 and an inner wall 18 of the housing 11,” (Conrad, col. 2, ll. 10-12), but does not describe the blading 15, 19 as supporting the housing walls 17, 18 “for transmission of load,” as claimed. Second, the Examiner has also not established by evidence or technical reasoning that “elements 15 of Conrad are functionally similar to the struts of Orlando, in that both guide working fluid….” See Ans. 16. Although the Examiner explains that Conrad teaches an “after-guide blading arrangement 15…for the purpose of providing strong deflection and deceleration of working fluid,” the Examiner does not further explain where Appeal 2011-012967 Application 10/908,970 6 Orlando teaches that the disclosed struts guide working fluid. Id. Rather, the Examiner appears to rely on the location of the Orlando struts “downstream from the low pressure compressor section” to show flow guiding by the struts. Ans. 15. However, Orlando’s description is largely silent on the struts and, on the facts before us, one of ordinary skill in the art could only speculate as to whether Orlando’s struts actually “guide” working fluid. Such speculation, however, is insufficient to support this rejection. Without a persuasive articulated reasoning based on rational underpinnings for modifying the reference as proposed, the Examiner's rejection appears to be the result of hindsight analysis. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds [require] some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”) (cited with approval in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). We note that the addition of Monroe’s teaching found by the Examiner does not remedy the deficiencies of the Examiner’s combination of Orlando and Conrad. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 6, and 13 as unpatentable over Orlando, Conrad, and Munroe. Rejection of claim 5 as unpatentable over Orlando, Munroe, Conrad, and Kreitmeier Claim 5 depends from independent claim 1. The addition of Kreitmeier’s teachings found by the Examiner does not remedy the deficiencies of the Examiner’s proposed combination of Orlando and Conrad discussed supra for claim 1. Appeal 2011-012967 Application 10/908,970 7 Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 5 for the same reasons as claim 1. Rejection of claims 7-10 as unpatentable over Orlando, Munroe, Conrad, and Pinsley Claims 7-10 depend from independent claim 1. The addition of Pinsley’s teachings found by the Examiner does not remedy the deficiencies of the Examiner’s proposed combination of Orlando and Conrad discussed supra for claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 7-10 for the same reasons as claim 1. Rejection of claims 11 and 12 as unpatentable over Orlando, Munroe, Conrad, and Crall Claims 11 and 12 depend from independent claim 1. The addition of Crall’s teachings found by the Examiner does not remedy the deficiencies of the Examiner’s proposed combination of Orlando and Conrad discussed supra for claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 12 for the same reasons as claim 1. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-13. REVERSED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation