Ex Parte XuDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 18, 201713066838 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/066,838 04/25/2011 Cheng Xu H0030949 4678 93153 7590 10/20/2017 HONEYWELL/GRIECCI Patent Services 115 Tabor Road P.O.Box 377 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 EXAMINER MCCAFFREY, KAYLA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/20/2017 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): patentservices-us @ honey well, com pto @ griecci. com sherry, vallabh @ honey well. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHENG XU Appeal 2016-004280 Application 13/066,838 Technology Center 3700 Before JOHN C. KERINS, LEE L. STEPINA, and SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Cheng Xu (Appellant)1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s January 16, 2015, non-final decision (“Non-Final Act.”) rejecting claims 12, 14—20, and 22—34. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 The Appeal Brief identifies Honeywell International, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3 (filed Nov. 23, 2015). Appeal 2016-004280 Application 13/066,838 SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM-IN-PART. SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION Appellant’s disclosure is directed to “a mixed or radial flow turbocharger wheel having contoured surfaces for secondary flow control.” Spec. 11. Claim 12, reproduced below from pages 20-21 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 12. A turbocharger wheel, comprising: a hub of a radial or mixed flow configuration, being characterized by an axis of rotation; and a plurality of blades, each blade having a hub edge adjoining the hub, a shroud edge opposite the hub edge, a leading edge, and a trailing edge; wherein the wheel is configured to rotate around the axis of rotation in a given direction with respect to its leading edge during turbocharger operation such that the leading edge is upstream of the trailing edge, and such that each blade is characterized by a pressurized surface and a suction surface; wherein the blade leading edges in rotation around the axis of rotation define an inlet surface and the blade trailing edges in rotation around the axis of rotation define an outlet surface; wherein between the hub edges of each successive pair of blades, the hub forms a hub end-wall extending between the inlet surface and the outlet surface; wherein the cross-sectional shape of each hub end-wall, when taken parallel to the flow direction at a cross-stream location and represented meridionally, is characterized by a streamwise intermediate portion having a given curvature, a concave upstream portion that is closer to the inlet surface than the streamwise intermediate portion, and a concave downstream portion that is closer to the outlet surface than the streamwise intermediate portion; 2 Appeal 2016-004280 Application 13/066,838 wherein the streamwise intermediate portion is characterized by a curvature that is both less concave than the upstream portion, and less concave than the downstream portion; and wherein the cross-sectional shape of each hub end-wall, when taken parallel to the flow direction and represented meridionally, is further characterized at the cross-stream location by a shape defined by a smoothly varying curve that extends across the concave upstream portion, the streamwise intermediate portion and the concave downstream portion, with no inflection points, added to a cyclical component that extends across the concave upstream portion, the streamwise intermediate portion and the concave downstream portion, having at least two inflection points, two of which respectively delineate the border between the upstream portion and the streamwise intermediate portion, and the border between the streamwise intermediate portion and the downstream portion. REJECTIONS I. Claims 12 and 14—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ghizawi (US 7,147,433 B2, issued Dec. 12, 2006) and Hausammann (US 2,918,254, issued Dec. 22, 1959). II. Claims 22—26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ghizawi, Hausammann, and Jansen (US 5,215,439, issued June 1, 1993).2 III. Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ghizawi, Hausammann, Jansen, and Burton (US 2008/0152504 Al, published June 26, 2008). 2 Although the heading of this rejection indicates that claim 27 is included in the rejection, the claim is not addressed in the body of the rejection. See Non-Final Act. 7—9; see also Appeal Br. 13—14; and Ans. 4. 3 Appeal 2016-004280 Application 13/066,838 IV. Claims 28—34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ghizawi and Burton. ANALYSIS Rejection I The Examiner finds that Ghizawi discloses a turbocharger wheel substantially as recited in independent claim 12, but does not disclose the cross-sectional shape of the hub end-wall surface having a meridional cross- sectional shape defined by a smoothly varying curve added to a cyclical component as recited in claim 12. Non-Final Act. 4—5. The Examiner finds that Hausammann discloses a hub surface having downstream, intermediate, and upstream portions having a shape defined by a smoothly varying curve added to a cyclical component. Id. at 5—6 (providing a copy of Hausammann Figure 3a annotated to show concave and convex surfaces). The Examiner clarifies that it is the combination of Hausammann’s cyclic component added to the smoothly varying curve of Ghizawi’s hub surface that results in the recited meridional surface shape. Ans. 2—3. The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Ghizawi’s hub with Hausammann’s contoured surface “to reduce frictional losses of the flow stream at the hub surface.” Non-Final Act. 5 (citing Hausammann, 1:58—60). The Examiner further determines that the cross-sectional end-wall shape recitation is a product-by-process limitation and, therefore, “has not been given patentable weight.” Id. at 6; see also Ans. 3. 4 Appeal 2016-004280 Application 13/066,838 Appellant traverses, first arguing that “Hausammann does not define the cross-sectional shape of each hub end-wall when taken parallel to the flow direction and represented meridionally.” Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis omitted). Although Appellant does not offer an explicit definition of meridionally, we understand this term to mean a projection onto the plane defined by the rotational axis and the radial direction (which is defined by the blades extending away from the hub). See Spec. 148, Fig. 7; see also Ghizawi 5:41—43, Fig. 3. With the term thus defined, we agree with the Examiner that Hausammann Figure 3a illustrates a meridional cross- sectional view of hub surface 4, regardless of whether Hausammann explicitly describes the view as such. See Ans. 2; Hausammann Figs. 1—3a. Appellant also argues that the recited shape of the cross-sectional shape of the end-wall is a structural limitation, not a method-type limitation. Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 3. “A product-by-process claim is ‘one in which the product is defined at least in part in terms of the method or process by which it is made.’” SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 158 n. (1989)). Here, claim 12 recites that the cross-sectional shape of the hub end-wall is defined by a smoothly varying curve added to a cyclical component, both of which extending across the inner, intermediate, and outer portions. Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). This describes and further limits the recited hub end-wall surface, and, thus, is a structural limitation; the claim does not require any particular method or process by which the 5 Appeal 2016-004280 Application 13/066,838 hubs, or the end-wall surfaces thereof, are to be made. Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s determination to the contrary is in error. Appellant also argues that “Hausammann fails to disclose a shape that includes a component that is a smoothly varying curve with no inflection points extending across the upstream, intermediate and downstream portions.” Appeal Br. 11. Although Appellant may be correct that Hausammann alone does not disclose the recited hub end-wall shape, we are unpersuaded of error because the Examiner relies on the combination of the smoothly varying curve of Ghizawi’s hub surface added to Hausammann’s cyclic component. Ans. 2— 3. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because they attack the individual teachings of Hausammann and do not address what the combination of references teaches, as explained by the Examiner. “Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Finally, Appellant argues that “Hausammann fails to teach that the frictional losses are reduced by the shape of the hub surface,” and, thus, the Examiner’s rationale for combining Hausammann with Ghizawi and Burton is improper. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant asserts that “as a whole, ... the Hausammann invention reduces friction losses by overcoming the requirement of a high number of small length blades, which allows for greater blade spacing, and thereby removes the hub conditions that occur with blades that are too close.” Id. Continuing, Appellant asserts that such a teaching is inapplicable to the turbocharger wheel of claim 12 because radial 6 Appeal 2016-004280 Application 13/066,838 turbines “are not known to require a large number of closely spaced blades.” Id. at 13. Hausammann discloses that its contoured hub surface provides an asymmetrical pressure distribution on its partition walls (i.e., blade surfaces). Hausammann 4:73—5:24. As noted by Appellant, this, in turn, reduces friction losses. Id.', see also Appeal Br. 12. Thus, in considering Hausammann’s teachings as a whole, we agree with the Examiner that incorporating Hausammann’s hub end-wall contour into Ghizawi’s hub would act, at least to some degree, to redirect pressure forces on its blades and thereby reduce losses. See Ans. 3^4. We further note that this is the same purpose Appellant discloses for the recited hub end-wall shape. See, e.g., Spec. 148. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 12 and its dependent claims 14—20, which are not argued separately, as being unpatentable over Ghizawi and Hausammann. Rejection II With respect to the rejection of claims 22—26, Appellant relies on the arguments presented above in regard to the rejection of claim 12. Appeal Br. 13. Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed above, we also sustain the rejection of claims 22—26 as being unpatentable over Ghizawi, Hausammann, and Jansen. Rejection III Claim 27 depends indirectly from claim 12 and further requires: wherein the height of each blade from the hub edge to the shroud edge, when taken perpendicular to the local flow 7 Appeal 2016-004280 Application 13/066,838 direction, is characterized by a shape defined by a smoothly varying curve, extending from a leading edge to a trailing edge, with no inflection points, added to a cyclical component, extending from a leading edge to a trailing edge, having at least two inflection points. Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that the combination of Ghizawi, Hausammann, and Jansen discloses a turbocharger wheel substantially as recited in claim 27, but does not disclose the blade height, from the hub edge to the shroud edge, being defined by a smoothly varying curve added to a cyclical component as recited in claim 27. Non-Final Act. 10. The Examiner finds that Burton discloses a blade with a height having a shape characterized by a smoothly varying concave curve added to a cyclical component, and reasons that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to “to modify the blade of [Ghizawi] with a curving profile as taught by [Burton] in order to reduce the effects of secondary flow.” Id. (citing Burton 13, Figs. 4, 5); see also Ans. 5. The Examiner further determines that the blade height recitation is a product-by-process limitation and, therefore, “has not been given patentable weight.” Non-Final Act. 10—11; see also Ans. 5. Appellant traverses, arguing that Burton Figure 4 “gives no discernible information about the height of the vane” and “shows no indication that this height varies from the leading edge to the trailing edge with a shape characterized by a smoothly varying concave curve . . . added to a cyclical component.” Appeal Br. 15. Appellant also argues that Burton Figure 5 “only shows the height at one location, and discloses nothing about an alleged variation in height from the leading edge to the trailing edge.” Id. 8 Appeal 2016-004280 Application 13/066,838 “[Rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added) (cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). We are persuaded that the rejection does not satisfy these requirements. The Examiner’s rejection does little more than recite the language of claim 27 and state that the recitations are shown in Burton Figures 4 and 5. The Examiner does not explain how this figure shows the recited smoothly varying curve or cyclical component, or how each of these curve components extends across the recited height of each blade from the hub edge to the shroud edge. Nor does the Examiner cite to any written description of Figures 4 or 5 or offer any further clarification in the Examiner’s Answer. We agree with Appellant that Burton’s Figure 4 does not appear to show any variation in the blade height, and that Figure 5 is a cross-sectional centerline, and, thus, only shows the height at one location. The Examiner has not set forth an articulated reasoning as to how Burton discloses the varying blade height as required by claim 27, nor is such readily apparent from our review of Burton. Appellant also argues that the recited blade height is a structural limitation, not a method-type limitation. Appeal Br. 15—16. We agree for the same reasons as set forth regarding the rejection of claim 12. 9 Appeal 2016-004280 Application 13/066,838 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 27 as being unpatentable over Ghizawi, Hausammann, Jansen, and Burton. Rejection IV Independent claim 28 recites: 28. A turbocharger wheel, comprising: a hub of a radial or mixed flow configuration, being characterized by an axis of rotation; and a plurality of blades, each blade having a hub edge opposite a shroud edge; wherein the height of each blade from the hub edge to the shroud edge, when taken perpendicular to the local flow direction, is characterized by a shape defined by a smoothly varying curve from the leading edge to the trailing edge with no inflection points added to a cyclical component from the leading edge to the trailing edge having at least two inflection points. Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Ghizawi discloses a turbocharger wheel substantially as recited in claim 28, but does not disclose the blade height, from the hub edge to the shroud edge, being defined by a smoothly varying curve added to a cyclical component. Non-Final Act. 11. The Examiner finds that Burton discloses a blade with a height having a shape characterized by a smoothly varying concave curve added to a cyclical component, and reasons that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to “to modify the blade of [Ghizawi] with a curving profile as taught by [Burton] in order to reduce the effects of secondary flow.” Id. at 11—12 (citing Burton 13, Figs. 4, 5); see also Ans. 6. The Examiner further 10 Appeal 2016-004280 Application 13/066,838 determines that the blade height recitation is a product-by-process limitation and, therefore, “has not been given patentable weight.” Non-Final Act. 12; see also Ans. 6—7. Appellant traverses, presenting essentially the same arguments as with respect to the rejection of claim 27 (Appeal Br. 16—18), which we find persuasive for the same reasons as set forth above. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 28 or its dependent claims 29—34 as being unpatentable over Ghizawi and Burton. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 12, 14—20, and 22—26 is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 27—34 is 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 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation