Ex Parte Sun et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 28, 2018

13642240 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/642,240 10/19/2012 26096 7590 08/30/2018 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. 400 WEST MAPLE ROAD SUITE 350 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Lin Sun 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. 67426-018 PUSl 4309 EXAMINER HANSEN, KENNETH J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3746 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2018 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 cgolaw@yahoo.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LIN SUN and JOOST BRASZ Appeal 2017-011027 Application 13/642,240 1 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL W. KIM, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellants appeal from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4---6, 9, 11-19, and 21-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. According to Appellants, their invention "relates to a centrifugal compressor ... having a diffuser with microjet fluid injection ports for 1 According to Appellants, "[t]he real party in interest is Danfoss A/S." First Corrected Appeal Brief filed Apr. 13, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), 1. Appeal2017-011027 Application 13/642,240 increased stable operating range." Spec. ,r 1. Claims 1, 11, and 14 are the independent claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as representative of the appealed claims. 1. A centrifugal compressor comprising: a housing providing an inlet and an outlet having a vaneless diffuser and a volute; an electric motor provided in the housing and configured to drive at least one impeller via a shaft about an axis in response to a variable speed command, the impeller including an outlet end aligned with the vaneless diffuser; a variable fluid injector device downstream from the impeller outlet end and configured to inject fluid into the outlet in response to a compressor regulation command; a flow control device configured to control flow rate and pressure of injected fluid; a controller in communication with the electric motor and the variable fluid injector device, the controller configured to respectively provide the variable speed command and the compressor regulation command to the electric motor and operatively to the variable fluid injector device to obtain a desired compressor operating condition; wherein the outlet includes a wall having a surface, the variable fluid injector device including multiple injector nozzles provided in the surface and oriented in a direction, the multiple injector nozzles configured to inject fluid into the vaneless diffuser such that fluid flows in the direction as fluid initially enters the vaneless diffuser, and wherein at least one of the multiple injector nozzles is radially spaced-apart, relative to the axis of rotation of the impeller, from at least one other of the multiple injector nozzles; and wherein the direction and an axis of rotation of the impeller are the same. 2 Appeal2017-011027 Application 13/642,240 REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: I. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 11-19, and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Skoch et al. (US 7,326,027 Bl, iss. Feb. 5, 2008) ("Skoch"), Haley et al. (US 2009/0205360 Al, pub. Aug. 20, 2009) ("Haley"), Jacobi (US 4,579,509, iss. Apr. 1, 1986), and Lown (US 4,695,224, iss. Sept. 22, 1987); and II. Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Skoch, Haley, Jacobi, Lown, and Conry (US 2005/0223737 Al, pub. Oct. 13, 2005). ANALYSIS Re;ection I Appellants argue that the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 11-19, and 21-23 is in error because the Examiner's proposed modification of Skoch, based on Jacobi and Lown, "improperly renders Skoch unsatisfactory for its intended purpose." Appeal Br. 7; see also id. at 6-8. Based on our review of the record, including the Examiner's Final Office Action and Answer, and Appellants' First Corrected Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, we agree with Appellants. Thus, for the following reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 11-19, and 21-23. Specifically, the Examiner's rejection relies on an embodiment illustrated in Skoch' s Figures 8A, 8B, and 9 A. See generally Answer. It is clear, however, that the intended purpose of this embodiment is to provide a centrifugal compressor with reverse-tangent air injection relative to certain 3 Appeal2017-011027 Application 13/642,240 end walls. See Appeal Br. 6-8; see Skoch col. 4, 11. 25-34, n.b. at 11. 25-27 ("FIG. 8 is composed of FIGS. 8A and 8B that show the centrifugal compressor flow path each utilizing a reverse-tangent injection method."); see id. at col. 12, 11. 36-45, n.b. at 11. 43--45 ("Tangency to the surface 98 or 100 through which injection, flowing out of the exit of the internal passage 146 taking place is desirable."); see id. at col. 7, 11. 36-40 ("The diffuser 18 further has at least one vane 96, a diffuser hub end-wall 98, and a diffuser shroud end-wall 100. At least one of the vaneless regions 90 has an end-wall 98 or 100, to be further described hereinafter"). This is done, specifically, to "'help[] prevent ... flow instabilities that create ... stall and surge conditions.'" Appeal Br. 7 (citing Skoch col. 6, 1.65---col.7, 1. 3); see also id. ( citing Skoch col. 6, 11. 8-16). The Examiner's proposed modification of Skoch, based on Jacobi and Lown, results in an arrangement in which air is no longer injected tangentially as described in Skoch, but instead through "multiple injector nozzles [that are] radially spaced-apart, relative to the axis of rotation of the impeller," where "the multiple injector nozzles [are] configured to inject fluid into the vaneless diffuser such that fluid flows in the direction as fluid initially enters the vaneless diffuser," "wherein the direction and an axis of rotation of the impeller are the same." Appeal Br., Claims App. (Claim 1); see, e.g., Answer 6. Although the Examiner seems to acknowledge that the proposed modification would change Skoch such that Skoch no longer injects air tangentially as described above (see, e.g., Answer 15-18), the Examiner does not address sufficiently Appellants' argument that Skoch's intended purpose would no longer result from the combination. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (It is impermissible to modify a 4 Appeal2017-011027 Application 13/642,240 reference if the modification would render the reference unsatisfactory for its intended purpose). Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection. Reiection II The Examiner's rejection of claim 6 suffers from the same deficiency as the rejection of the other claims, discussed supra. Thus, we also do not sustain claim 6's rejection. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4---6, 9, 11- 19, and 21-23. REVERSED 5