Ex Parte Gons

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2018

14627030 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/627,030 02/20/2015 William M. Gons
54549 7590 11/01/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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.
30252USAA;
67097-2868PUS1
7065
EXAMINER
CHAU,ALAIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2018 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM M. GONS
Appeal 2018-003661 1
Application 14/627,0302
Technology Center 3700
Before KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Our Decision references Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Oct 5,
2017) andReplyBrief("ReplyBr.," filed Feb. 21, 2018), and the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Jan. 24, 2018) and Final Office Action
("Final Act.," mailed July 11, 2017).
2 Appellant identifies United Technologies Corp. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-003661
Application 14/627 ,030
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant's claimed invention "relates to rotor bore cooling for a gas
powered turbine, and more specifically[,] to a bore basket for facilitating the
same." Spec. ,r 3.
Claims 1, 3, 17, and 20 are the independent claims on appeal. Claims
1 and 3, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A gas turbine comprising:
a compressor section;
a combustor fluidly connected to the compressor;
a turbine section fluidly connected to the combustor;
a rotor bore opening disposed radially inward of a
plurality of rotors in one of said compressor section and said
turbine section, wherein the rotor bore opening is defined by a
forward hub structure, a bore basket and a connection between
said bore basket and an aft most rotor bore in said rotor bore
openmg;
said bore basket defines a cylinder having an axis, and
wherein said bore basket comprises;
a radially outward first cylinder having at least one
radially aligned opening on a first end of said bore
basket;
a radially inward second cylinder having a radially
aligned opening on a second end of said bore basket
opposite said first end, and being disposed within said
radially outward first cylinder;
an axially aligned gap defined by said radially
outward first cylinder and said radially inward second
cylinder; and
a first cooling fluid flowpath defined between said first
cylinder and said second cylinder;
a second cooling flowpath defined radially inward of the
second cylinder; and
wherein the first cooling flowpath and the second cooling
flowpath merge at the radially aligned opening on the second
end of the bore basket.
2
Appeal2018-003661
Application 14/627 ,030
3. A gas turbine comprising:
a compressor section;
a combustor fluidly connected to the compressor;
a turbine section fluidly connected to the combustor;
a rotor bore opening disposed radially inward of a
plurality of rotors in one of said compressor section and said
turbine section, wherein the rotor bore opening is defined by a
forward hub structure, a bore basket and a connection between
said bore basket and an aft most rotor bore in said rotor bore
openmg;
said bore basket defines a cylinder having an axis, and
wherein said bore basket comprises;
a radially outward first cylinder having at least one
radially aligned opening on a first end of said bore
basket;
a radially inward second cylinder having a radially
aligned opening on a second end of said bore basket
opposite said first end, and being disposed within said
radially outward first cylinder;
an axially aligned gap defined by said radially
outward first cylinder and said radially inward second
cylinder; and
wherein said radially outward first cylinder contacts said
radially inward second cylinder at a radial protrusion on said
second end of said bore basket, and contacts said radially
inward second cylinder at a retaining structure on said first end
of said bore basket.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter that Appellant regards as the invention.
II. Claims 1---6, 9-11, 17, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(a)(l) as anticipated by Shockley (US 6,582,187 Bl, iss. June 24,
2003).
3
Appeal2018-003661
Application 14/627 ,030
III. Claims 3, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as
anticipated by McGreehan (US 5,271,711, iss. Dec. 21, 1993).
IV. Claims 12, 14--16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Shockley.
V. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Shockley and Dolida (US 2,883,151, iss. Apr. 21, 1959).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
In rejecting the pending claims under § 112(b ), the Examiner takes the
position that the term "originates," as used in dependent claim 22, renders
the claim indefinite. Final Act. 5. Specifically, the Examiner maintains that
"the flowpaths are defined as structural features," and it is unclear "[h]ow a
structural feature can 'originate' at one end instead of another end." Id. The
Examiner concludes that "the claim language should be revised to refer to
the cooling fluid/air rather than the flowpaths themselves." Id.
The test for definiteness is whether "those skilled in the art would
understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the
[S]pecification." Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d
1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, we agree with Appellant that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would understand, in light of the Specification, that
the origination of a fluid flowpath is "the upstream end of the flowpath,
relative to the fluid that is flowing through the flowpath." App. Br. 10. See
also, e.g., Spec. ,r,r 43--46 (describing exemplary air flow through bore
basket), Fig. 2.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 22
and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b ).
4
Appeal2018-003661
Application 14/627 ,030
Rejection II
Independent Claims 1 and 17
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claims 1 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l), because
Shockley does not disclose
a first cooling fluid flowpath defined between said first
cylinder and said second cylinder;
a second cooling flowpath defined radially inward of the
second cylinder; and
wherein the first cooling flowpath and the second cooling
flowpath merge at the radially aligned opening on the second end
of the bore basket,
as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 17. App. Br. 5-6;
see also Reply Br. 2-3. The Examiner finds that Shockley's gap 130
teaches the claimed first cooling fluid flowpath, and that the "first
cooling flowpath becomes the second cooling flowpath at the opening
62." Final Act. 7 ( emphasis omitted). Put differently, the Examiner
takes the position that different portions of a single flowpath teaches
the claimed first cooling fluid flowpath and second cooling flowpath,
as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 17. See Ans. 3
("the claim language of [ c ]laims 1 and 17 do not require the first and
second flowpaths contain distinct flows").
However, we agree with Appellant that one of ordinary skill would
understand, in light of the Specification, that the phrase "the first cooling
flowpath and the second cooling flowpath merge at the radially aligned
opening," as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 17, requires
two distinct flowpaths to combine at the radially aligned opening. App.
Br. 5. As noted by Appellant, the term "merge" is generally understood to
5
Appeal2018-003661
Application 14/627 ,030
mean "to cause to combine or coalesce." Id. ( citation omitted). 3 The
Specification indicates that the term "merge," as recited in claims 1 and 17,
is used consistent with its ordinary meaning. For example, Appellant directs
us to paragraph 46 of the Specification as describing that the claimed
merging. See App. Br. 3 ( claim 1 ), 4 ( claim 17). Paragraph 46 of the
Specification discloses, with reference to Figure 2, that cold air flow 150
passes along fluid passageway 133 and through radially aligned opening 138
at second end 104 of radially inward cylinder 130, where it "joins with the
hot air flow 180" and forms a combined airflow. In other words, two
airflows merge (i.e., combine or coalesce) at the radially aligned opening.
The Examiner finds that Shockley's cooling air passes through a gap
130, and then turns direction at an opening 62, causing some cooling air to
travel along a second cooling flowpath. Yet, Shockley's redirection of
airflow at opening 62 fails to teach two flowpaths merging at opening 62, as
required by claims 1 and 17. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) of independent claims 1 and 17, and
claims 2, 9-11, 19, and 21-23, which depend therefrom.
Independent Claim 20
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) because Shockley does not
disclose "directing said cool air to an aft end of said rotor bore opening
along an exterior surface of a bore basket," as recited in claim 20. App.
3 See also MERRIAM-WEBSTER, https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/merge (last visited October 24, 2018) (defining
"merge" as "to cause to combine, unite, or coalesce," "to become combined
into one," and "to blend or come together without abrupt change.").
6
Appeal2018-003661
Application 14/627 ,030
Br. 6-7; see also Reply Br. 3--4. We find nothing in the portions of
Shockley relied upon by the Examiner that teaches the argued limitations.
See Final Act. 13 ( citing Shockley, Fig. 2, col. 3, 11. 60-68).
Shockley describes bearing isolation system 40 includes isolation
shaft 110 disposed between bearing assembly 94 and rotor shaft 26.
Shockley, col. 3, 11. 24--26. Bearing assembly 94 secures shaft to engine 10
adjacent casing 98. Id. at col. 3, 11. 17-19. Pilots 120, 122 connect isolation
shaft 110 to rotor shaft 26. Id. at col. 3, 11. 38-39. During operation, cooling
air is extracted from impeller 50, cooled, and channeled aftward inside
casing 98. Id. at col. 3, 11. 60-61. After flowing along oil seals (not shown),
the cooling air is channeled through openings disposed within pilot 122 into
gap 130, which is disposed between isolation shaft 110 and rotor shaft 26.
Id. at col. 3, 11. 61---65.
The Examiner takes the position that at least some portion of air is
directed inside casing 98 "to flow along an exterior surface of the bore
basket [bearing isolation system 40] in order to enter the flowpath 130 at the
location where the pilots 122 are depicted." Ans. 6; see also Final Act. 13.
But to establish inherency, more than speculation is required. In particular,
the Examiner must provide evidence and/or technical reasoning that makes
"clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing
described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of
ordinary skill." Continental Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d
1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991). "Inherency ... may not be established by
probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result
from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient." Id. at 1269 ( quoting In
re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578,581 (CCPA 1981)).
7
Appeal2018-003661
Application 14/627 ,030
The Examiner speculates here that the cooling air is directed from a
fore end of a rotor bore opening, along an exterior surface of a bore basket,
to an aft end of the rotor bore opening, as required by claim 20. But the
Examiner presents no evidence or technical reasoning to support an
inherency finding. Shockley describes channeling cooling air from an
impeller aftward inside casing 98, but the cooling air inside casing 98 need
not flow along the path specified by the claim language. Shockley's Figure
2, for example, shows bearing assembly 94 (i.e., inner race 96, upstream side
124, and downstream side 128) appearing to obstruct an exterior surface of
isolation shaft 110 (i.e., the exterior surface of bearing isolation system 40).
Figure 2 also does not depict various structures within casing 98 that may
obstruct the exterior surface and does not otherwise indicate how cooling air
flows within casing 98.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(l) of independent claim 20.
Independent Claim 3
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) because Shockley
does not disclose that a "radially outward first cylinder contacts said radially
inward second cylinder at a radial protrusion on said second end of said bore
basket, and contacts said radially inward second cylinder at a retaining
structure on said first end of said bore basket," as recited in claim 3. App.
Br. 7. Appellant contends that numeral 120 cannot contact the inner
cylinder because such contact would block the flow of cooling air 140. Id.
Appellant's argument is not persuasive, because Shockley discloses
that pilots 120 and 122 "connect isolation shaft 110 to rotor shaft 26"
8
Appeal2018-003661
Application 14/627 ,030
(Shockley, col. 3, 11. 38-39) ( emphasis omitted), and "include a plurality of
openings (not shown) to permit cooling air to flow through pilots 120 and
122 into a gap 130" (id. at col. 3, 11. 45--47) (emphasis omitted).
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of independent claim 3, and dependent claims 4---6.
Re} ection III
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l), because McGreehan does not
describe "a radially inward second cylinder having a radially aligned
opening on a second end of said bore basket opposite said first end," as
recited in independent claim 3. The Examiner finds that McGreehan' s
element 44 is the claimed second cylinder having a radially aligned opening
70 on a second end. Final Act. 14. Yet, McGreehan's drawing shows that
the opening 70 is not on element 44, and element 44 appears to have no
openings at all.
The Examiner takes the position that claim 3 does not require the
opening to be in the second cylinder, but instead requires the opening to be
on a second end of the bore basket. Ans. 8. But the Examiner's
interpretation is inconsistent with the claim language that requires "a radially
inward second cylinder having a radially aligned opening."
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 ( a )(1) of independent claim 3 and dependent claims 7 and 8.
Rejections IV and V
Claims 12-16 depend from claim 1, and claim 18 depends from claim
17. The Examiner's rejection of claims 12-16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
does not cure the Examiner's deficiency in the rejection of the independent
9
Appeal2018-003661
Application 14/627 ,030
claims. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103 of dependent claims 12-16 and 18 for the same reasons set
forth above with respect to claims 1 and 17.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 9-11, 17, and 19-23 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Shockley is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l)
as anticipated by Shockley is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(l) as anticipated by McGreehan is reversed.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 12-16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 are reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10