Ex Parte Xu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 18, 2017

13066838 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 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.
13/066,838 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