General Electric Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 1, 2021

2021001674 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 2021)

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.
14/986,101 12/31/2015 Brandon Christopher Clarke 284037-US-1/GECV-1841 4160
122218 7590 09/01/2021
Dority & Manning, P.A. and GEC-Aviation
Post Office Box 1449
Greenville, SC 29602-1449
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, THUYHANG NGOC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2021 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):
oc.prosecution@ge.com
usdocketing@dority-manning.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRANDON CHRISTOPHER CLARKE,
DANIEL JEAN-LOUIS LABORIE,
STEVEN EDWARD NOLTE, and
ERHAN TURAN
Appeal 2021-001674
Application 14/986,101
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision, set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated October
16, 2019 (hereinafter “Non-Final Action” or “Non-Final Act.”), to reject

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as General
Electric Company. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-001674
Application 14/986,101

2
claims 1, 4–10, 12–15, and 20–22. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is directed to “gas turbine engines and, more
particularly, to gas turbine engines equipped with a core compartment
cooling system.” Spec. ¶ 1. Of the claims involved in this appeal,2 claims 1
and 20 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter.
1. A system for cooling an equipment compartment, said
system comprising:
a cooling manifold for directing cooling air from outside
of said equipment compartment to within said equipment
compartment;
a temperature sensor disposed within said equipment
compartment;
at least one modulating valve disposed in the cooling
manifold, the at least one modulating valve being configured to
incrementally open to a position intermediate a fully open
position and a fully closed position to control a volume of air
flowing through said cooling manifold; and
a control unit in communication with said temperature
sensor and said at least one modulating valve, the control unit
receives electronic data from the temperature sensor and, in
response to the electronic data, sends a control signal to the at
least one modulating valve, thereby causing the at least one
modulating valve to incrementally open to a position
intermediate the fully open position and the fully closed

2 Claims 3 and 11 have been canceled, and claims 16–19 have been
withdrawn from consideration. Non-Final Act. 1; Amendment submitted
Feb. 28, 2019. Although the Examiner identifies claim 2 as being rejected
(Non-Final Act. 1), the Non-Final Action does not include a rejection of
claim 2, nor does the Answer include a rejection of claim 2. See Ans. 3–16.
Thus, claim 2 is not involved in this appeal.
Appeal 2021-001674
Application 14/986,101

3
position to limit the volume of air entering the equipment
compartment to only the volume of air needed to cool
components within the equipment compartment.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Laborie et al.
(“Laborie”)
US 6,202,403 B1 Mar. 20, 2001
Karpman et al.
(“Karpman”)
US 6,487,491 B1 Nov. 26, 2002
Smith et al. (“Smith”) US 2010/0143090 A1 June 10, 2010
Maldonado et al.
(“Maldonado”)
US 2014/0072399 Al Mar. 13, 2014
Ekanayake et al.
(“Ekanayake”)
US 2014/0126991 Al May 8, 2014
Papa et al. (“Papa”) US 9,334,802 B2 May 10, 2016

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4–10, 12, 14, 15, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as anticipated by Laborie, Ekanayake, and Papa.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as anticipated by
Laborie, Ekanayake, Papa, and Maldonado.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as anticipated by
Laborie, Ekanayake, Papa, and Karpman.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as anticipated by
Laborie, Ekanayake, Papa, and Smith.
OPINION
Obviousness—Laborie, Ekanayake, and Papa
Appeal 2021-001674
Application 14/986,101

4
Appellant argues independent claims 1 and 20 together, and relies on
these arguments for dependent claims 4–10, 12, 14, and 15 as well. Appeal
Br. 9–11. We decide the appeal of this rejection on the basis of claim 1, and
claims 4–10, 12, 14, 15, and 20 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (permitting the Board to select a single claim to decide the
appeal as to a single ground of rejection of a group of claims argued
together).
The Examiner finds that Laborie discloses a system for cooling an
equipment compartment substantially as recited in claim 1, including a
cooling manifold (inlet 41 and cooling air manifold 43), a modulating valve
(cooling valve 42), and a control unit (engine electronic control unit 44).
Non-Final Act. 2–3; Ans. 3–4. The Examiner finds that Laborie does not
disclose a temperature sensor disposed within the equipment compartment
from which the control unit receives electronic data, or the modulating valve
being configured to incrementally open to a position intermediate a fully
open position and a fully closed position. Non-Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 4–5.
The Examiner finds that Ekanayake teaches a system for cooling an
equipment compartment (gas turbine engine) comprising a modulating
valve, a control unit, at least one temperature sensor (temperature sensors
110 and 120) disposed within the equipment compartment, wherein the
control unit receives electronic data from the at least one temperature sensor
to control the modulating valve. Non-Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 4. The Examiner
determines it would have been obvious to modify Laborie to incorporate a
temperature sensor disposed within the equipment compartment, with a
control unit receiving electronic data from the temperature sensor as taught
by Ekanayake “in order to monitor the temperature of the hot gas path
Appeal 2021-001674
Application 14/986,101

5
components and predict the lifetime of the components.” Non-Final Act. 4
(citing Ekanayake ¶ 26); Ans. 5. Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s
finding that temperature sensors 110 and 120 are disposed within the
equipment compartment (gas turbine engine). See Non-Final Act. 4; Appeal
Br. 10.
The Examiner finds that Papa teaches, in a thermal management
system for a gas turbine engine, a modulating valve (valve 88) configured to
incrementally open to a position intermediate a fully open position and a
fully closed position. Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Papa, col. 7, ll. 54–67);
Ans. 5. Specifically, Papa teaches that engine controller 134 may close
valve 88 during engine idle conditions, modulate valve 88 to an intermediate
position during engine cruise conditions, and modulate valve 88 to a fully
open position during engine takeoff conditions. Papa, col. 7, l. 54–col. 8, l.
1. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to further modify
Laborie to use a modulating valve configured to incrementally open to a
position intermediate a fully open position and a fully closed position “to
limit the volume of air to only the volume of air needed to cool the
components within the equipment compartment . . . in order to optimize and
accurately control a flow of cooling air to achieve desired cooling
temperature of the equipment compartment.” Non-Final Act. 5; Ans. 5–6.
Appellant contends that Laborie “does not disclose a modulating
valve that is incrementally moved to a position between a fully open position
and a fully closed position.” Appeal Br. 10. Rather, Appellant argues,
Laborie “only discusses moving a two position valve from the fully open
position to the fully closed position” and “never discusses a modulating
valve to provide a variable flow rate.” Appeal Br. 10. This argument does
Appeal 2021-001674
Application 14/986,101

6
not apprise us of error because the Examiner agrees with Appellant on this
point. Ans. 17. As discussed above, the Examiner relies on Papa for a
teaching of the concept of providing a modulating valve configured to
incrementally open to a position intermediate a fully open position and a
fully closed position. See Ans. 17 (reiterating this point).
Appellant also argues that Laborie uses an open loop control system,
in contrast to Appellant’s invention, which uses feedback control to
constantly monitor and modulate the flow of air entering the equipment
compartment. Appeal Br. 10. This argument is not persuasive because it
attacks Laborie individually. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981)).
Appellant argues that Ekanayake discloses an active cooling system to
cool components of the turbine along the hot gas path, not an engine
compartment cooling system, and, thus, “does not cure the defects of
Laborie.” Appeal Br. 10. For the reasons that follow, these arguments are
not persuasive.
Ekanayake discloses an active cooling system for components of a gas
turbine engine; thus, we fail to discern, and Appellant does not sufficiently
explain, why this is not an engine compartment cooling system. Further,
although there are differences between Ekanayake’s cooling system and that
of Laborie, Appellant does not explain, nor is it apparent, why a person
having ordinary skill in the art would not consider the teaching of
Ekanayake on which the Examiner relies—the use of temperature sensors
Appeal 2021-001674
Application 14/986,101

7
disposed within the engine equipment compartment to monitor temperatures
of the components to provide feedback to more closely control the
temperatures of the components and to predict the lifetime of these
components—to be applicable to Laborie’s cooling system to more precisely
monitor the component temperatures. See Ekanayake ¶¶ 22, 24, 26; Laborie,
col. 1, ll. 14–19 (recognizing that as combustor and turbine hot gas
temperatures have increased to achieve higher output and thermal
efficiencies, it has become more challenging to maintain component lives
due to metallurgical limitations of critical hot components).
Appellant points out that Papa’s system uses a three-way valve to split
a conditioned fluid, such as engine oil, between two heat exchangers, and
asserts that, thus, Papa “does not disclose a system for cooling an engine
compartment” and fails to cure the defects of Laborie and Ekanayake.
Appeal Br. 11. Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of error. Aside
from pointing out specific structural differences between Papa’s thermal
management system and that of Laborie, Appellant does not explain why the
basic concept of Papa on which the Examiner relies—the teaching to provide
a valve configured to incrementally open to a position intermediate a fully
open position and a fully closed position, to more precisely control the
amount of cooling to that which is needed during engine idle, startup, and
cruise conditions—would not be applicable to Laborie’s cooling system.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of
claims 4–10, 12, 14, 15, and 20, which fall with claim 1, as being
unpatentable over Laborie, Ekanayake, and Papa.
Appeal 2021-001674
Application 14/986,101

8
Obviousness—Laborie, Ekanayake, and Papa further in view of one of
Maldonado, Karpman, or Smith
In contesting the rejections of claims 13, 21, and 22, Appellant relies
solely on their dependence from claim 1 or claim 20. Appeal Br. 11–12.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we also sustain the rejection
of claim 13 as being unpatentable over Laborie, Ekanayake, Papa, and
Maldonado; the rejection of claim 21 as being unpatentable over Laborie,
Ekanayake, Papa, and Karpman; and the rejection of claim 22 as being
unpatentable over Laborie, Ekanayake, Papa, and Smith.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4–10, 12–15, and 20–22 are
AFFIRMED.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–10, 12,
14, 15, 20
103 Laborie,
Ekanayake, Papa
1, 4–10, 12,
14, 15, 20

13 103 Laborie,
Ekanayake, Papa,
Maldonado
13
21 103 Laborie,
Ekanayake, Papa,
Karpman
21
22 103 Laborie,
Ekanayake, Papa,
Smith
22
Overall
Outcome
1, 4–10, 12–
15, 20–22

Appeal 2021-001674
Application 14/986,101

9
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED