Ex Parte Komor et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 10, 2017

13498661 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 10, 2017)

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.
13/498,661 03/28/2012 Jean-Paul Komor 2009P13306WOUS 2233
22116 7590 10/12/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
WHITE, ALEXANDER A
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/12/2017 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):
IPDadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEAN-PAUL KOMOR and
THEODOR WALLMANN
Appeal 2016-000995
Application 13/498,661
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES P. CALVE, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jean-Paul Komor and Theodor Wallmann (“Appellants”) appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 6, 8,
and 9.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants submit the real party in interest is Siemens Aktiengesellschaft.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-000995
Application 13/498,661
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 6, reproduced below, is the only independent claim and is
representative of the claimed subject matter.
6. A radial compressor stage comprising:
a radial diffuser, and
a discharge volute casing arranged downstream of the
radial diffuser,
wherein the radial diffuser comprises a flow passage,
which extends radially outwards, and radially on the inside has a
cylindrically encompassing inlet cross section on a first radius,
and radially on the outside has a cylindrically encompassing exit
cross section,
wherein the flow passage is configured to decelerate a gas
flow, which discharges from a radial compressor impeller
arranged directly upstream of the radial diffuser and enters the
flow passage through the inlet cross section, for discharging into
the discharge volute casing through the exit cross section,
wherein in a region of the exit cross section provision is
made in the flow passage for radial diffuser exit blading which
has an effect that a discharge angle of the gas flow into the
discharge volute casing, which is pronounced by the radial
diffuser exit blading, is virtually unaffected by an operating state
of the radial compressor impeller, and that the radial extent of the
blading towards the inside ends on a third radius,
wherein the ratio of the third radius to the first radius is at
least 1.2, and
wherein the radial diffuser exit blading has a plurality of
guide blades arranged over a circumference, wherein each guide
blade has only one leading edge, wherein the leading edges of
the plurality of guide blades are arranged in an encompassing
manner on the third radius.
2
Appeal 2016-000995
Application 13/498,661
REJECTION
Claims 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Lundquist (US 2,681,760, issued June 22, 1954).
DISCUSSION
Appellants first contend that Lundquist does not anticipate claim 6
because Lundquist’s “diffuser rotate[s] with the impeller” and “according to
the claims, a clear distinction between the impeller rotating and the diffuser
stationary exists.” Br. 6. Appellants also note that the claimed diffuser is
configured to decelerate gas flow received from the upstream impeller. Id.
The Examiner finds that Lundquist discloses a radial diffuser 22 with a
radial compressor impeller 12 arranged directly upstream therefrom. Final
Act. 3. In response to Appellants’ contention, the Examiner explains that
claim 6 does not require the diffuser to “be stationary, nor that it must be a
separate and distinct physical entity from the impeller. They simply state the
diffuser must be located downstream of the impeller.” Ans. 3. In addition,
the Examiner finds that Lundquist’s diffuser 22 decelerates the flow from
the impeller. Id. at 3^4 (citing Lundquist, 3:55—71). Appellants’ contention
is not persuasive for the following reasons.
Lundquist discloses a chamber 22 located at the exit of impeller
blades 18. Lundquist, Fig. 1, 4:1—2. Lundquist also discloses that “the
absolute velocity V) of the compressor fluid as it leaves the impeller blades
and enters chamber 22 is approximately 40% greater than its absolute
velocity V2 at the discharge end or outer periphery of said chamber.” Id. at
3:75 4:4. As correctly noted by the Examiner, claim 6 does not require the
diffuser to be stationary nor that the diffuser be a separate entity from the
3
Appeal 2016-000995
Application 13/498,661
impeller. We also note that claim 6 does not affirmatively recite an impeller.
The Examiner’s finding that Lundquist’s chamber 22 corresponds to the
diffuser recited in claim 1 is supported by the requisite preponderance of the
evidence.
Appellants next contend that “[t]he leading edges of the guide vanes
diffuser are quite close to the exit diameter of the impeller in Lundquist”
while in Appellants’ invention, “there is a significant distance between the
exit diameter of the impeller and the leading edges of the diffuser guide
vanes.” Br. 7. We are not persuaded by this contention because claim 6
does not require a significant distance between the exit diameter of the
impeller and the leading edges of the diffuser guide vanes.
Appellants next contend that Lundquist does not define “the radius of
the leading edge” of the guide vanes and therefore does not meet the claim
limitation “the ratio of the third radius to the first radius is as least 1.2.” Br.
8. The Examiner responds that “Lundquist teaches the radius of the
downstream end of the diffuser section to be 40% greater than the inner edge
of diffuser section” and “the diffuser guide vanes ... are downstream of the
end of the diffuser section.” Ans. 4 (citing Lundquist, 3:60-4:4, Tig. 1).
from this disclosure the Examiner determines that “the diffuser guide vanes
are at least at a radial distance 1.4 times greater than the radial distance of
the inner edge of the diffuser section” thus meeting the limitation of “at least
1.2.” Id.
Appellants’ Specification describes that “the ratio of the third radius
to the first radius is at least 1.2.” Spec. 5,11. 3^4. The Specification further
describes that this ratio is determined from “the radius 16 at the inlet of the
radial diffuser exit blading 15 and the radius 10 at the radial diffuser inlet 9.”
4
Appeal 2016-000995
Application 13/498,661
Id. at 7,11. 20—23.2 Lundquist discloses a radial distance ri from the center
of the shaft to the inlet of chamber 22. Lundquist, Fig. 1. Lundquist
discloses a second radial distance r2 from the center of the shaft to outlet of
chamber 22. Id. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand from
Lundquist’s Figure 2 that the inlet to guide vanes 28 is approximately
aligned with the outlet of chamber 22. Id. Fig. 2. Lundquist also discloses
that r2 “is approximately 40% greater than the radius ri.” Id. at 3:72—74.
While we appreciate Appellants’ statement that Lundquist does not
specifically define the leading edge of the guide vanes, the Examiner’s
determination that Lundquist’s radii r2 and ri correspond to the recited third
radius and first radius is supported by Figures 1 and 2 of Lundquist. The
drawings in a prior art reference, are “evaluate[d]... on the basis of what
they reasonably disclose and suggest to one skilled in the art.” In re
Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914 (CCPA 1979) (citation omitted); In re Mraz,
455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972). Therefore, the Examiner’s finding that
Lundquist discloses the claimed ratio of “at least 1.2” is supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and are not apprised
of Examiner error. We, thus, sustain the rejection of claim 6. Appellants do
not offer separate arguments for the patentability of dependent claims 8 and
9. Br. 8. We sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 9 for the same reasons as
claim 6.
2 Radii 16 and 10 are illustrated in Appellants’ Figure 1 and correspond to
the claimed third radius and first radius respectively.
5
Appeal 2016-000995
Application 13/498,661
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6, 8, and 9 is affirmed.
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6