Ex Parte Savela

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 19, 2016

13364502 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/364,502 02/02/2012 Gregory M. Savela
54549 7590 04/21/2016
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.
67097-1711PUS1;61195US01 9621
EXAMINER
MEADE, LORNE EDWARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/21/2016 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 GREGORY M. SAVELA
Appeal2014-000909
Application 13/364,502 1
Technology Center 3700
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, 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 1-5, 7, and 10-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.
BACKGROUND
According to Appellant, the Specification "relates to a bearing
arrangement for a gas turbine engine." Spec. i-f 2.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is United Technologies
Corporation. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-000909
Application 13/364,502
CLAHvIS
Claims 1-5, 7, and 10-12 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
appealed claims and recites:
1. A gas turbine engine comprising:
a turbine;
first and second spools coaxial with one another about an
axis, the first spool arranged within the second spool and
extending between forward and aft ends, the aft end extending
axially beyond the second spool and supporting the turbine;
a housing portion arranged downstream from the turbine;
first and second bearings mounted to the aft end of the first
spool and supported by the housing portion, the first and second
bearings are mounted to a bearing hub;
the bearing hub includes first and second hub walls
respectively supporting the first and second bearings, the first
and second hub walls inclined in a radial direction from the first
and second bearings to an annular apex at which the first and
second hub walls are joined near the annular flange, the radial
direction normal to the axis, a portion of the first hub wall
arranged radially inward from the low pressure turbine relative
to the axis;
the first hub wall is oriented at a first angle of between
about 30° and about 60° relative to a line parallel to the axis; and
the second hub wall is oriented at a second angle of
between about 30° and about 60° relative to the line, the first and
second walls forming an obtuse angle on a side facing the first
spool.
Br. 12.
2
Appeal2014-000909
Application 13/364,502
REJECTIONS2
I. The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
for failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
II. The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite for failing to provide antecedent basis for certain
limitations.
III. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Hull3 in view of Richards,4 VanDuyn,5 Kumar, 6
Wilson, Jr.,7 and Rider. 8
IV. The Examiner rejects claims 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hull in view of Richards, VanDuyn, Kumar, Wilson, Jr.,
Rider, and Smith. 9
V. The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hull in view of Richards, VanDuyn, Rider, and Kumar.
VI. The Examiner rejects claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hull in view of Smith, Jet Engine, 10 and Jane. 11
2 The Examiner has withdrawn certain rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101
(claim 7), and 112, second paragraph (claims 1 and 7). See Ans. 2.
3 Hull, US 6,846,158 B2, iss. Jan. 25, 2005.
4 Richards, US 2006/0201160 Al, pub. Sept. 14, 2006.
5 VanDuyn, US 7,097,413 B2, iss. Aug. 29, 2006.
6 Kumar et al., US 2007/0231134 Al, pub. Oct. 4, 2007.
7 Wilson, Jr. et al., US 2009/0031732 Al, pub. Feb. 5, 2009.
8 Rider et al., US 4,483,149, iss. Nov. 20, 1984.
9 Smith, US 3,823,553, iss. July 16, 1974.
10 "The Jet Engine," Rolls Royce Limited (3d ed. 1969).
11 "Jane's Aero-Engines," Issue Seven, (Bill Gunston ed., 2000).
3
Appeal2014-000909
Application 13/364,502
VIL The Examiner rejects claims 1-5, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bart12 in view of Richards, VanDuyn, Kumar,
Wilson, Jr., and Rider.
VIII. The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bart in view of Richards, VanDuyn, Rider, and Kumar.
IX. The Examiner rejects claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bart in view of Jet Engine and Jane.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
With respect to claim 7, the Examiner finds the Specification does not
reasonably enable the limitation "the first and second bearings are spaced
apart from one another approximately four to twelve inches (10-30cm) to
provide a moment stiffness of about 80,000,000 in-lb/rad (9,144,000 cm-
kg/rad) and a lateral stiffness of about 5,000,000 lb/in (886,000 kg/cm)."
Final Action 3. The Examiner finds that the Specification only describes the
bearing hub, which is not recited in claim 7, as including a moment stiffness
of 80,000,000 in-lb/rad and a lateral stiffness 5,000,000 lb/in. Id. at 4 (citing
Spec. i-f 39). The Examiner further finds that the Specification fails "to
enable the necessary details, i.e., specific material and Young's modulus,
cross-section thicknesses, moments of inertia, lengths, etcetera, required to
calculate the various stiffnesses of all these structures to arrive at the
claimed resultant stiffness." Id.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's burden has not been met
because the Examiner failed to discuss undue experimentation. Br. 5.
12 Bart et al., US 2012/0017603 Al, pub. Jan. 26, 2012.
4
Appeal2014-000909
Application 13/364,502
Appellant also argues that the specification need not provide a blueprint for
making a gas turbine engine in order to support the claims. Id. Thus,
Appellant asserts that the claim need not specifically recite a hub and that
specific materials need not be described because "those parameters can be
determined by a skilled worker without undue experimentation based upon
the claimed bearing spacing and stiffnesses." Id. at 6.
We are not persuaded of error by Appellant's arguments. To the
extent that Appellant's argue that the Examiner erred by not discussing the
factors set forth in the MPEP related to undue experimentation, we find that
the Examiner need not specifically delineate the factors or state that undue
experimentation is required. Rather, the analysis provided by the Examiner
inherently relates to several factors including the breadth of the claim, the
amount of direction provided by the Specification, and the quantity of
experimentation needed to make the invention based on the content of the
disclosure. See MPEP 2164.0l(a) (9th ed. Rev. 07-2015, Nov. 2015); see
also id. at 2164.04; Ans. 3-7. Pursuant to the MPEP, we find that the
Examiner has specifically identified "what information is missing and why
the missing information is needed to provide enablement."
MPEP 2164.06(a). Thus, we find that the Examiner has met the burden of
establishing "a reasonable basis to question the enablement provided for the
claimed invention." Id. at 2164. 04. We also find that Appellant's
conclusory arguments that the Specification need not provide a blueprint,
that the claim need not recite a hub, or that the disclosure need not provide
the material properties identified by the Examiner fail to show any error in
the Examiner's rejection.
5
Appeal2014-000909
Application 13/364,502
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph.
Rejection II
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that it recites "the annular
flange" without antecedent basis. Final Action 8. With respect to claim 3,
which depends from claim 1, the Examiner finds that the recitation of "an
annular flange" is indefinite because it is unclear if this refers to the same or
a different annular flange as the annular flange recited in claim 1. Id. With
respect to this rejection, Appellant asserts only that the Examiner should
correct these issues by Examiner's amendment. Br. 7. Appellant does not
identify any error in the rejection, and thus, we summarily sustain this
rejection.
Rejection III
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 over Hull,
Richards, VanDuyn, Kumar, Wilson, Jr., and Rider, Appellant presents
arguments only with respect to the rejection of claim 1. See id. 7-8. Thus,
we discuss only claim 1 below, and claims 2, 10, and 11 fall with claim 1.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Hull discloses a gas
turbine engine as claimed except that Hull is silent regarding the angles of
the first and second hub walls. Final Action 9-11 (citing Hull Figs. 1, 3).
With respect to the claimed angles, the Examiner finds that Richards teaches
changing the distance between first and second bearings to tune the critical
frequency of a first spool. Id. at 11-12 (citing Richards i-fi-121, 23-27). The
Examiner also finds that V anDuyn teaches angling the hub walls "to create a
frustoconical bearing hub ... to effectively increase the distance" between
the bearings "where the first and second walls form[] an obtuse angle on a
6
Appeal2014-000909
Application 13/364,502
side facing the first spool." Id. at 12 (citing VanDuyn Fig. 2; col. 6, 11. 15-
60). The Examiner further finds that Kumar teaches a bearing hub with first
and second walls forming an obtuse angle on a side facing the first spool and
supporting first and second bearings where the first wall includes an angle
between 45° and 60° and the second wall includes an angle of about 30°. Id.
(citing Kumar Figs. 4, 5A; i-fi-125, 26). The Examiner concludes that
improving a prior art device based on these teachings in Richards, VanDuyn,
and Kumar would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and
would provide predictable and readily recognized results. Id. at 12-15.
The Examiner also finds that Hull, Richards, V anDuyn, and Kumar
are silent regarding the angles of the first and second walls relative to a line
parallel to the axis of the axis. Final Action 16. Regarding these angles, the
Examiner finds that Wilson, Jr. teaches that decreasing the shaft length
increases the shaft natural frequency and one of ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized it as obvious "that a rotor shaft has a minimum
longitudinal length which is dictated by the length of the engine and the
various sections connected to the rotor shaft such as a fan, low pressure
compressor, and low pressure turbine." Id. With respect to VanDuyn, the
Examiner further finds that "VanDuyn teaches that the effective distance
increase [between bearings without increasing the shaft length] depends on
the angles, thicknesses, and lengths of the bearing hub wall( s ). " Id. at 16-17
(citing VanDuyn Fig. 2; col. 6, 11. 15---60). Finally, the Examiner relies on
the same teachings of Kumar, as described above, and regarding Rider the
Examiner states:
Rider teaches, in Figs. 1 and 2 and the abstract, angling the shaft
bearing supports so that the line of action for the bearing load is
aligned to coincide with the angle, pass through the bearing
7
Appeal2014-000909
Application 13/364,502
support ana mtersect tne cemernne or me engine and the
midpoint of the engine which enhances the stiffness of the
support, reducing the weight necessary to support the same load.
Id. at 17. The Examiner ultimately finds that "the angles of the first and
second hub walls are recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable
which achieves a recognized result." Id. Based on the foregoing, the
Examiner concludes that:
since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the angles of
bearing hub walls and bearing hub apex, were disclosed in the
prior art by Richards, Wilson, VanDuyn, Kumar, and Rider, it is
not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine
experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to orient the
first and second hub walls disclosed by Hull, i.v., Richards,
VanDuyn, and Kumar, to between 30° and 60° relative to the line
parallel to the engine longitudinal axis.
Id. at 18.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions
regarding the rejection of claim 1 over Hull, Richards, VanDuyn, Kumar,
Wilson, and Rider. See Final Action 9-19; Ans. 12-22. We are not
persuaded of error by Appellant's arguments.
Appellant argues that there is no reason to modify Hull with the
claimed angles for the first and second hub walls. Br. 7. Appellant asserts
that Hull only discusses bearing spacing with respect to critical frequency;
particular angles are not needed to achieve a given bearing space; and thus,
"[t]here is no apparent benefit evident in the art to using Appellant's hub
angles." Id. However, the Examiner finds that no benefit need be shown to
support the obviousness conclusion because the proposed combination
represents a combination of familiar elements according to known methods
8
Appeal2014-000909
Application 13/364,502
that yield predictable results. Ans. 17-18 (citing KSR Int 'l Co. v. Telej?ex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007)). Specifically, the Examiner finds:
In this case, Appellant's invention claims a structure (a bearing
hub with first and second bearings on the aft end of the first
spool, [t]aught by Hull and Bart) already known in the prior art
that is altered by the mere substitution of one element (the angles
of the first and second hub walls, taught by Hull and Bart) for
another (the angles of the first and second hub walls, taught by
VanDuyn and Kumar) known in the field, and the combination
does no more than yield predictable results. Therefore, the above
combinations were obvious and no benefit is required from such
an obvious combination.
Id. at 18.
We find that a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's
unrebutted finding in this regard.
Next, Appellant argues that using first and second walls at an obtuse
angle "would increase the spool length at the aft-most bearing, which is
undesirable in that it contributes to undesired frequencies." Br. 8. Appellant
does not provide an explanation for this conclusion other than to state that it
is a matter of simple geometry that as the angles between the walls is
increased, the extremities will be separated further. Id. We are not
persuaded for the reasons provided by the Examiner. Specifically, the
Examiner shows that the walls of Hull may be modified to include the
dimensions claimed without increasing the length of the spool. Ans. 20. We
find that a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's
unrebutted finding in this regard.
Based on the foregoing, we determine that the Examiner established a
prima facie showing of obviousness with respect to claim 1 without error;
and the Appellant does not sufficiently rebut this showing. Accordingly, we
9
Appeal2014-000909
Application 13/364,502
sustain the rejection of claim 1 over Hull, Richards, VanDuyn, Kumar,
Wilson, Jr., and Rider. Claims 2, 10, and 11 fall with claim 1.
Rejection IV
With respect to the rejection of claims 3-5, Appellant argues only that
Smith does not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claims 1 and 2. Br. 8.
Having found no deficiencies in the rejection of claims 1 and 2 over Hull,
Richards, VanDuyn, Kumar, Wilson, Jr., and Rider, we are not persuaded of
error in the rejection of claims 3-5 over Hull, Richards, VanDuyn, Kumar,
Wilson, Jr., Rider, and Smith. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claims 3-5 over Hull, Richards, VanDuyn, Kumar, Wilson, Jr., Rider, and
Smith.
Rejection V
With respect to claim 7, the Examiner finds that Hull teaches a gas
turbine engine including a turbine, first and second spools coaxial to one
another and arranged as claimed, a housing, and first and second bearings
mounted to the aft end of the first spool and supported by the housing. Final
Action 22 (citing Hull Figs. 1, 3). The Examiner acknowledges that Hull is
silent regarding the bearing spacing and stiffness. Id. at 23. The Examiner
finds that Richards teaches that it was known to change the distance between
bearings to tune the critical frequency of the first spool. Id. (citing Richards
i-f 21, 23-27). The Examiner also finds that VanDuyn teaches that the
distance between bearings depends on the angles, thicknesses, and length of
the hub walls. Id. at 24 (citing VanDuyn Fig. 2; col. 6, 11. 15-60). The
Examiner further finds that Rider teaches angling the shaft bearing supports
to enhance stiffness and reduce the weight necessary to support the same
load. Id. (citing Rider Figs. 1, 2; Abstract). Finally, the Examiner finds that
10
Appeal2014-000909
Application 13/364,502
Kumar suggests a finite element model of the housing portion and that
finite-element analysis may be used to determine stiffness. Id. at 24--25
(citing Kumar Fig. 4; i-f 21 ). The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to find the optimum range for bearing spacing and to optimize
housing stiffness by changing certain structural variables. Id. at 23-25.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions
regarding the scope and content of Hull, Richards, VanDuyn, Rider, and
Kumar with respect to claim 7. See Final Action 22-29; Ans. 23-32. As
discussed below, we are not persuaded of error by Appellant's arguments.
With respect to claim 7, Appellant argues that the cited references do
not support the Examiner's conclusion that the claimed moment stiffness
and lateral stiffness would have been obvious. Br. 8-9. First, we note that
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's finding that the claimed bearing
spacing of four to twelve inches was obvious. With respect to the claimed
stiffness, we agree with the Examiner that the references are not silent
regarding stiffness. See Ans. 25-26. In particular, Richards discloses tuning
shaft frequencies by altering bearing spacing, structure stiffness, and/ or
sprung resilience of the bearing races. Richards i-f 27; see also Hull, col. 5,
11. 5----6 7.
Further, Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown why a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Hull to arrive at the
claimed stiffness. Br. 9. We disagree. As noted above, Appellant does not
dispute the Examiner's finding that the claimed spacing would have been
obvious in view of Richards. Further, the only structural details described in
the Specification for achieving the claimed thickness are the spacing
between the bearings and the angle of the hub arms, and Appellant has not
11
Appeal2014-000909
Application 13/364,502
explained any criticality regarding the stiffnesses listed. See Spec. i1i138, 39.
We find that the Examiner has shown that the prior art teaches the claimed
structural relationship between the bearings; that stiffness is related to the
bearing spacing and hub wall angles; and that it was known to vary the
stiffness based on certain properties of the materials used. In light of these
findings, we find that the Examiner established a prima facie showing of
obviousness for the specific moment and lateral stiffness values claimed.
This showing shifts the burden to Appellant to show, e.g., why the structure
of the combination would not possess the claimed stiffness or why the
claimed stiffnesses are critical and provide new and unexpected results
relative to the prior art. Appellant has not made such a showing, and, we
find that a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's
unrebutted findings and conclusion.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 7 over Hull in view of
Richards, VanDuyn, Rider, and Kumar.
Re} ection VI
With respect to claim 12, the Examiner finds that Hull discloses a gas
turbine engine including a turbine, first and second spools, a housing
portion, first and second bearings, a combustor, and multiple turbine rotors.
Final Action 29-30 (citing Hull Figs. 1, 3). Further, the Examiner finds that
Smith teaches using bolts to fasten gas turbine components together and that
it would have been obvious to modify Hull to use bolts as in Smith to ease
assembly and disassembly. Id. at 30 (citing Smith Fig. 2; col. 6, 11. 24--41).
The Examiner also finds that Hull and Smith together disclose a gas turbine
engine and to the extent the combined engine includes a fourth stage, it
would have been obvious to omit a stage if the function of that stage was not
12
Appeal2014-000909
Application 13/364,502
required. Id. In support of this conclusion, the Examiner cites Jet Engine as
teaching "that a turbine may consist of several stages to produce the required
driving torque with the number of stages dependent on the relation between
the power required, ... the rotational speed[,] ... and the diameter of the
turbine. Id. at 31 (citing Jet Engine 39). The Examiner also finds that Jane
discloses using a three stage low pressure turbine where the first spool is
secured to the second and third turbine rotors along with other supporting
arrangements. Id. (citing Jane 365, 508, 511). The Examiner concludes that
these teachings show that the number and arrangement of turbine stages are
dependent on the design parameters required and it would have been obvious
to modify the combined engine of Hull and Smith as claimed based on the
desired parameters. Id. at 31-32.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner findings regarding the scope
and content of Hull, Smith, Jet Engine, and Jane with respect to claim 12.
See Final Action 29-34; Ans. 32--44. As discussed below, we are not
persuaded of error by Appellant's arguments.
Appellant argues that Hull discloses four turbine stages and not a
three-turbine stage arrangement or supporting the second stage with a rotor
as claimed. Br. 9-10. Appellant contends that the Examiner has not
provided a reason to modify Hull based on Jet Engine or Jane to provide the
claimed configuration. Id. at 10. We disagree.
First, the Examiner finds that Jet Engine teaches "that a turbine may
consist of several stages to produce the required driving torque with the
number of stages dependent on the relation between the power required from
the gas flow, ... the rotational speed at which it must be produced and the
diameter of the turbine." Ans. 34 (citing Jet Engine 39). The Examiner also
13
Appeal2014-000909
Application 13/364,502
finds that it was known in the art that "aircraft engine manufacturers
designed and sold families of gas turbine aircraft engines with different
performance parameters matched to the performance requirements of the
different aircraft in the family." Id. at 34--35. Based on these findings, the
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Hull to
remove a rotor if the function of the extra rotor was not required, i.e. if the
performance requirements dictated that the fourth stage rotor was not
necessary. We find that a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner's unrebutted findings and provide sufficient reason for making the
modifications proposed.
Regarding supporting the second turbine rotor as claimed, the
Examiner finds that none of Hulls' turbine disks/rotors interfere with the low
pressure turbine hub. We agree with the Examiner that Appellant's assertion
that the second stage cannot be supported by the rotor in Hull "because the
turbine disc 92 of the first stage would interfere" is not clear and does not
show error in the Examiner's findings. See Br. 10. Further, the Examiner
finds that the low pressure turbine hub in Hull is secured to the second
turbine rotor. Ans. 38-39. We find that a preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner's unrebutted findings in this regard.
Thus, we find that the Examiner established a prima facie showing of
obviousness with respect to claim 12 without error. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of claim 12.
Rejections VII-IX
In as much as the rejections sustained above are dispositive regarding
all claims on appeal, we do not reach the Examiner's rejections based on
Bart.
14
Appeal2014-000909
Application 13/364,502
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we find as follows.
We affirm the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
We affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-5, 7, and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Hull in view of Richards, VanDuyn, Kumar, Wilson, Jr.,
Rider, Smith, Jet Engine, and/or Jane.
We do not reach the Examiner's rejections based on Bart.
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
15