Ex Parte Beuning et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 24, 2019

14219424 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/219,424 03/19/2014 118925 7590 01/28/2019 Erise IP, P.A. 7015 College Blvd., Ste 700 Overland Park, KS 66211 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Charles Beuning 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 2616-64.02 6142 EXAMINER NGUYEN, VIET P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2831 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/28/2019 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): patents@eriseip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHARLES BEUNING, NATHAN ROY EBERSOLE, JOHN W. GALLMAN, NATHANIEL DAVID DIEDRICH, and VERNON WENG-YEW CHANG Appeal2018-002494 Application 14/219,424 Technology Center 2800 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-16 and 19-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 Appellant is the applicant, Textron Innovations, Inc., which, according to the Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2018-002494 Application 12/219,424 The claims are directed to a system for an aircraft (see, e.g., claim 1 ), an integrated auxiliary power unit (APU), starter-generator-motor (SGM) apparatus, and a vapor cycle cooling system (VCCS) for an aircraft (see, e.g., claim 11 ), and a method of operating an energy-conversion device, such as an SGM, in a starter mode, in a motor mode, and in a generator mode (see, e.g., claim 19). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A system for an aircraft, comprising: a refrigerant compressor for a vapor cycle cooling system (VCCS) for providing air conditioning using a phase-changing fluid; an auxiliary power unit (APU) for mechanically driving the compressor; and an energy-conversion device operable in any of a starter mode, a generator mode and a motor mode, the energy-conversion device comprising: (i) a first coupling element for selectively coupling and uncoupling the energy-conversion device to the APU such that, in the starter mode, the energy-conversion device is used in driving the APU, (ii) a second coupling element for coupling and uncoupling the energy-conversion device to the compressor such that, in the motor mode, the energy- conversion device mechanically drives the compressor, and (iii) electrical power terminals output element at which, in the generator mode, the energy-conversion device provides electrical output power for powering an aircraft electrical system and, in the starter mode or motor mode, the energy-conversion device receives electrical input power from an external electrical power source. Appeal Br. 20 ( claims appendix) ( emphasis added). 2 Appeal2018-002494 Application 12/219,424 The Examiner rejects all the claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). All the rejections rely on Williams2 as the primary reference. Our Decision will focus on the Examiner's error in applying Williams. OPINION Claims 1 and 11 require an auxiliary power unit (APU). These claims also require an energy-conversion device (starter-generator-motor (SGM) in claim 11) with a first coupling element for selectively coupling and uncoupling the energy-conversion device to the APU such that, in a starter mode, the energy-conversion device is used in driving the APU. The method of claim 19 requires operating the energy-conversion device in a starter mode to start the APU. The Examiner finds that William's air turbine 42 (Fig. 1) is an auxiliary power unit (APU) as required by claims 1 and 11. Final 3. But a preponderance of the evidence indicates that, as argued by Appellant (Appeal Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 3--4), air turbine 42 is not an APU as that term was used in the aircraft art. Williams provides evidence that APU s were engines such as gas turbine engines. See Williams, col. 1, 11. 13-16 ("Currently, gas turbine auxiliary power units ( APU) are being used to start the thrust engines, and to power the air conditioning and environmental control systems while the aircraft is on the ground." (Emphasis added)). Williams differentiates the air turbine of their inventive apparatus from an APU. See Williams, col. 1, 11. 29-35 (describing Williams' 2 Williams, US 5,899,085, issued May 4, 1999. 3 Appeal2018-002494 Application 12/219,424 invention as using an air turbine); col. 2, 11. 45--48 ( describing the inventive system as not having an auxiliary power unit). The evidence supports Appellant's argument that an APU is a power- generating unit like a piston engine or gas turbine engine that generates power using an internal combustion engine. Such engines must be started, such as by using battery power to generate a spark to begin combustion in the engine. The air turbine of Williams is not a gas turbine engine and does not need to be started in the same manner as an engine. The air turbine converts the energy in the bleed air from the gas turbine engine of the aircraft (the main engine) to rotational energy that turns shaft 116. It does not itself generate power using an engine such as a gas turbine engine. It is, therefore, not an auxiliary power unit (APU). Nor does Williams teach starting an APU using an energy-conversion device. To support a finding that Williams teaches operating an energy- conversion device in a starter mode to start an auxiliary power unit, the Examiner cites to column 8, lines 1--4 of Williams. Final 14. But this portion of Williams describes using pneumatic ground power to drive the air turbine. The energy-conversion device (motor/generator 104) does not start the air turbine 42. The Examiner applies various further prior art references to meet further limitations in the claims, but the Examiner's use of those references does not cure the deficiencies discussed above. CONCLUSION We do not sustain any of the Examiner's rejections. 4 Appeal2018-002494 Application 12/219,424 DECISION The Examiner's decision is reversed. REVERSED 5