Ex Parte Roberge

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 30, 2019

14797264 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/797,264 07/13/2015 Gary D. Roberge
54549 7590 02/01/2019
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.
77292US02;
67097-2982PUS1
CONFIRMATION NO.
4265
EXAMINER
SUTHERLAND, STEVEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2019 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GARY D. ROBERGE
Appeal2018-005497 1
Application 14/797,2642
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of
claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Jan. 22,
2018), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed May 7, 2018), the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Mar. 7, 2018), and the Final Office Action ("Final
Act.," mailed Sept. 13, 2017).
2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is United Technologies
Corp. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-005497
Application 14/797 ,264
BACKGROUND
"The present disclosure relates generally to gas turbines, and more
particular[ly] to vaneless turbine section configurations for the same."
Spec. ,r 1.
CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 9 are the independent claims. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the appealed claims and recites:
1. A gas turbine engine comprising:
a compressor section including a first compressor portion
and a second compressor portion;
a combustor fluidly connected to the compressor section
via a primary flowpath;
a turbine section fluidly connected to the combustor via
the primary flowpath, wherein the turbine section includes at
least a first turbine portion and a second turbine portion
connected to the first turbine portion via a transition duct, fluid
in the second turbine portion having a lower pressure than fluid
in the first turbine portion, and wherein the first turbine portion
and the second turbine portion are counter-rotating turbine
portions;
a first shaft connecting the first turbine portion to the
second compressor portion;
a second shaft connecting the second turbine portion to the
first compressor portion;
wherein the second turbine portion includes at least three
turbine stages and a static support structure, the static support
structure being connected to the second shaft via a bearing;
wherein the transition duct is vaneless; and
wherein the first turbine portion and the second turbine
portion are counter rotating turbine portions.
Appeal Br. 8.
2
Appeal2018-005497
Application 14/797 ,264
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5, and 6, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as
anticipated by Krebs. 3
2. The Examiner rejects claims 1--4 and 7-17, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Krebs in view of Petrie. 4
DISCUSSION
Anticipation
With respect to this rejection, Appellant argues the claims as a single
group. See Appeal Br. 4. We select claim 1 as representative of this group,
and the remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Krebs discloses a gas
turbine engine including, in relevant part, a second turbine portion 3 2
including a static support structure 95 that is connected to the second
shaft 34 through bearing 80. Final Act. 2-3. 5 As discussed below,
Appellant's arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's findings.
Appellant argues only that "[t]he alleged static support structure 95 of
Krebs is not included within the second turbine portion, and would not read
on the claimed features." Appeal Br. 4. Claim 1 requires a second turbine
portion that includes "a static support structure" that is "connected to the
second shaft via a bearing." Id. at 8. Krebs describes element 95 as "a
circumferential row of turbine outlet guide vanes [that] function as structural
3 Krebs et al., US 3,703,081, iss. Nov. 21, 1972.
4 Petrie, US 3,307,775, iss. Mar. 7, 1967.
5 The Final Action lacks page numbers. We designate the page titled
"Office Action Summary" as page 1 and number the remaining pages
consecutively therefrom
3
Appeal2018-005497
Application 14/797 ,264
members." Krebs col. 6, 11. 2---6. Appellant does not explain why these
guide vanes may not be considered a part of the second turbine portion or
how the claimed support structure would not read on element 95, and we
find that the cited portion of Krebs supports the Examiner's findings.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by
Krebs. We also sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 6, for which Appellant
did not present separate arguments.
Obviousness
With respect to this rejection, Appellant argues the claims as a single
group. See Appeal Br. 4--7. We select claim 1 as representative of this
group, and the remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1.
Here, with respect to claim 1, the Examiner relies on a different
element in Krebs as the static support structure, i.e., the "vane between first
and second turbine rows 40 of second turbine portion in figure 3," and the
Examiner acknowledges that this support structure is not connected to the
second shaft via bearing. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Petrie
teaches connecting a static support structure to a shaft via a bearing in a
compressor, and the Examiner concludes that modifying Krebs to include a
bearing as in Petrie would have been obvious in order to strengthen "the
rotor section with as little weight penalty as possible." Id. at 3--4 (citing
Petri col. 3, 11. 39--41).
As discussed below, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection by
Appellant's arguments.
Appellant first argues that "the proposed combination would not have
been obvious to one of skill in the art at least because the alleged 'benefit'
... would not be applicable to Krebs." Appeal Br. 4. Appellant asserts that
4
Appeal2018-005497
Application 14/797 ,264
there is no indication that strengthening the rotor section of Krebs would be
desirable and that Petrie only teaches strengthening the blades and vanes of a
compressor against impact from ingested birds and other debris. Id. at 4--5.
Appellant further asserts that "[i]ngested debris is not a problem" with
respect to turbine sections, and thus, there would be "no reason to attempt to
strengthen the turbine vanes" as proposed by the Examiner. Id. at 5. We are
not persuaded of error by this argument. Petrie discloses that the specific
design features "described have been intended to strengthen the compressor
with as little weight penalty as possible." Petrie col. 3, 11. 3 9-41. Petrie also
specifically discloses that the relationship between the blades and the
bearing is designed in order to reduce the stress on the blades and reduce the
risk of blade fracture. Id. at col. 3, 11. 23-34. Although Petrie discloses
these advantages in the context of stress created by the ingestion of bird
parts or other debris, we find that this disclosure sufficiently supports the
Examiner's conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that using a bearing as in Petrie would reduce stress on and strengthen "the
turbine section [ of Krebs, which] will increase the operable life and the
durability of the turbine section." Ans. 2-3.
Appellant also argues that "the resultant structure of the combination
would not read on the rejected claims." Appeal Br. 5. In particular,
Appellant asserts that "the alleged static support structure of Krebs (the vane
between the first and second blade 40 of the turbine section of Krebs) is not
a static support structure at all. While the vane is fixedly mounted to the
outer casing, the vane is not connected to the second shaft." Id. at 6.
Appellant asserts that "the contact between the alleged static support and the
shaft [is] a knife edge seal, the connection is incapable of providing static
5
Appeal2018-005497
Application 14/797 ,264
support, and cannot read on the claimed static support structure." Id.
Appellant alleges that the "knife edge seal" is merely a contact point that
does not achieve the function of the connection required by the claims. Id.
at 6-7.
We are not persuaded of error for the reasons provided by the
Examiner. See Ans. 3. Most importantly, we note that Appellant's
argument against Krebs individually does not explain why the proposed
combination would lack a static support structure as required by the claim.
The rejection relies on the combination of Krebs and Petrie and specifically
contemplates including a bearing as in Petrie as the connection between the
static support structure and the shaft in Krebs. Appellant does not explain
why the combination would not include a connection between the static
support structure and the shaft as claimed.
Further, we agree with the Examiner that the knife edge seal provides
a connection between the static support structure and the shaft in Krebs. See
Ans. 3. Although Appellant argues that "a knife seal contact is not
consistent with Appellant's usage of 'connect' ... throughout Appellant's
specification," Appellant does not explain, such as by way of examples from
the Specification, why that is the case. We agree with the Examiner that the
claims do not indicate the degree of "static support" required, and we also
find that the claim does not suggest the degree of "connection" required
between the shaft and the static support structure. We note that although
Appellant argues that the Specification requires a specific interpretation of
what is required by "static support" and/ or a "connection," Appellant has not
identified any portion of the Specification in support of these arguments.
See Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 4. Further, the Specification does not appear to
6
Appeal2018-005497
Application 14/797 ,264
use these terms in a manner that is inconsistent with the elements of Krebs
relied upon by the Examiner. See, e.g., Spec. ,r 9 (stating that "the static
support structure is connected to a second shaft via a bearing" without
further explanation); ,r 40 (explaining that the specific connection between
rotors in the second portion of the turbine to each other are "via
mechanically fastened or bonded joints in disk arms," but stating only that
the second turbine portion is "connected to a second shaft" without further
description of what is required by this connection.).
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error and we sustain
the rejection of claim 1 as obvious. As noted above, claims 2--4 and 7-17
fall with claim 1, and thus, we also sustain the rejection of those claims as
obvious.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1-17.
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
7