General Electric Company

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 22, 2021

2021002618 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 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. 15/620,264 06/12/2017 Chaitanya Venkata Rama Krishna Ongole 316274-US-1/72266-0352 1176 91753 7590 12/22/2021 McGarry Bair PC / General Electric Company 45 Ottawa Ave. SW Suite 700 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 EXAMINER WALTHOUR, SCOTT J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2021 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 patents@mcgarrybair.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHAITANYA VENKATA RAMA KRISHNA ONGOLE, JOHN JOSEPH, GANESH SESHADRI, and RAVIKANTH AVANCHA Appeal 2021-002618 Application 15/620,264 Technology Center 3700 Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. GUIJT, 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 to reject claims 1–4, 8–13, 15–20, and 24–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kataoka.2,3 We have jurisdiction 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 the General Electric Company. Appeal Br. 2. 2 US 2010/0303608 A1; published Dec. 2, 2010. 3 The rejection of claims 9 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn. Ans. 3; see also Final Act. 4–5. Appeal 2021-002618 Application 15/620,264 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention relates to a “Turbine Center Frame.” Spec., Title. Claims 1, 17, and 26 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A turbine engine comprising: an engine core defining an engine centerline and including a compressor section, a combustion section, and a turbine section including a high pressure turbine and a low pressure turbine in axial flow arrangement defining a mainstream flow path; and a turbine center frame extending from the high pressure turbine to the low pressure turbine including at least two diffusion sections, upstream and downstream of one another relative to a flow direction of the mainstream flow path, the downstream diffusion section spaced further from the engine centerline than the upstream diffusion section. Supplemental Appeal Br. 2 (Claims App.). OPINION The Examiner’s First Interpretation of Kataoka Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner provides an annotated Figure 1 of Kataoka, reproduced below. Final Act. 6. Appeal 2021-002618 Application 15/620,264 3 The Examiner’s annotated Figure 1 of Kataoka is “a sectional view of the main portion of a two-shaft gas turbine” (Kataoka ¶ 14), including, inter alia, two arrows added by the Examiner that delineate the extent of a turbine center frame, wherein the left-most arrow generally points to a cross- section of the turbine comprising at least a portion of high-pressure (HP) turbine 12 (i.e., including stator and rotor blades 25, 26, and also annular gas-passage outlet 15 of HP turbine 12) and the right-most arrow generally points to a cross-section of the turbine comprising at least a portion of low- pressure (LP) turbine 13 (i.e., including stator and rotor blades 28, 29, and also annular gas-passage inlet 16 of LP turbine 13). See id. ¶¶ 27–28. With respect to the Examiner’s annotated Figure 1 of Kataoka supra, and the Examiner’s identification of a turbine center frame, as required by claim 1, the Examiner explains that the arrows are not meant to correspond Appeal 2021-002618 Application 15/620,264 4 to reference numerals in Kataoka’s Figure 1, but rather, specify “only the static structure . . . and . . . not . . . any rotating structure of the turbines,” such that “the portions of the duct through which combustion gases flow are relied upon” and “the high pressure turbine 12 and low pressure turbine 13 are not part of the turbine center frame because they are rotating elements.” Ans. 4. Moreover, the Examiner expressly rejects that Kataoka’s intermediate duct 17 must be interpreted as the claimed turbine center frame, because “nothing in the claim . . . requires [such an interpretation]” and “there is no special definition in the [Specification] to prevent a broader interpretation.” Id. at 4–5; see also id. at 6 (with reference to Figure 3 of the Specification, “the turbine center frame [is] objectively structurally indistinguishable from the remainder of the static structure extending between, and about, the turbine sections”). Appellant argues, inter alia, that Kataoka discloses, with reference to Figure 1, that “the high-pressure turbine 12 and the low-pressure turbine 13 have an annular gas-passage outlet 15 and an annular gas-passage inlet 16, respectively, which are connected to each other with an annular intermediate duct 17” (quoting Kataoka ¶ 27 (with emphasis)), such that “the Examiner is misconstruing how and where the ‘turbine center frame’ is defined by Kataoka.” Appeal Br. 9; see also id. at 10–11 (arguing that the Examiner’s findings “refer to completely non-analogous structures in Kataoka, e.g., the high-pressure turbine . . . as well as the low-pressure turbine . . . , all of which are entirely outside of the intermediate duct 17”). Appellant submits that “turbine center frame” is “a term of art, as the part of the engine between the high pressure turbine and the low pressure turbine.” Reply Br. 6. Moreover, Appellant submits that “the claim language is clear Appeal 2021-002618 Application 15/620,264 5 regarding the boundaries of the claimed turbine center frame,” the Specification’s Figure 3 “clearly shows the turbine center frame 86 extending between, and not including, the high pressure turbine 34 and low pressure turbine 36,” and the Specification discloses that “the turbine center frame can begin at the aft end of the HP turbine 34 and terminate at the forward end of the LP turbine 36.” Id. at 4–5 (citing Spec. ¶ 28, Fig. 3). Appellant argues that the Examiner’s identified turbine center frame in Kataoka’s Figure 1 supra “include[s] locations well within the high pressure turbine and low pressure turbine of Kataoka, which are clearly excluded from Appellant’s claimed turbine frame,” and therefore, the Examiner’s finding is in error. Id. at 2–3. Appellant also argues that the Examiner’s reliance on a turbine center frame that is “objectively structurally indistinguishable from the remainder of the static structure” of the turbine engine is “erroneous.” Id. at 5. During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A construction that is “unreasonably broad” and which does not “reasonably reflect the plain language and disclosure” will not pass muster. Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim Appeal 2021-002618 Application 15/620,264 6 limitations that are not a part of the claim.” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). During patent prosecution, when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Regarding the claim term “a turbine center frame,” the Specification discloses that turbine center frame 86 can be provided between the HP turbine 34 and the LP turbine 36. The turbine center frame 86 can be a transition duct provided between the HP turbine 34 and the LP turbine 36. As such, the turbine center frame can begin at the aft end of the HP turbine 34 and terminate at the forward end of the LP turbine 36. The turbine center frame 86 can provide for fluidly coupling the HP turbine 34 and the LP turbine 36 and diffusing the flow of fluid exhausting from the HP turbine 34. Spec. ¶ 28; see also id. ¶ 2 (disclosing that a turbine center frame is positioned between, and serves as a duct for fluid flowing from, the HP turbine to the LP turbine, and also may diffuse the fluid between the HP and LP turbines). We view the disclosures of a turbine center frame in the Specification as descriptive, but not as an express definition of the claim term “turbine center frame.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ Per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (when a patent applicant has elected to be a lexicographer by providing an explicit definition in the specification for a claim term, such definition controls). Additionally, Appellant’s definition supra of a turbine center frame as “a term of art” is very broad, as there is no Appeal 2021-002618 Application 15/620,264 7 express mention of a duct or fluid flow passage: “the part of the engine between the high pressure turbine and the low pressure engine.”4 Regarding Appellant’s argument that the claims are clear regarding the meaning of a turbine center frame, claim 1 requires—in addition to reciting the term itself—that the turbine frame extends from the HP turbine to the LP turbine and includes at least two specific diffusion sections, while claim 15 further limits the structure of claim 1’s turbine center frame as “begin[ning] at an aft end of the high pressure turbine and end[ing] at a forward end of the low pressure turbine.” Supplemental Appeal Br. 2, 3 (Claims App.). Independent claim 17 recites “[a] turbine center frame comprising: at least two diffusion sections . . . and at least one intervening section,” and independent claim 26 recites “a turbine center frame” such that air flow is directed through upstream, intervening, and downstream diffusion sections. Id. at 4, 5. Appellant does not argue that the claim term “turbine center frame” must inherently have the claimed sections, and we agree with the Examiner that “a ‘section’ is just a portion of a whole.” Ans. 6. On the record before us, we construe the claim term “turbine center frame” to mean a structure, such as a duct, that extends between a HP turbine and a LP turbine to provide a fluid flow path through the turbine engine. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that a turbine center frame cannot include structures identified in Kataoka as being part of the HP and LP turbines (i.e., the inlet and outlet ducts). Notably, Kataoka discloses an improvement over known two-shaft gas turbines in that strut covers 22 are within Kataoka’s intermediate duct 17 and may function as 4 Notably, Appellant does not provide any source for this definition. Reply Br. 6. Appeal 2021-002618 Application 15/620,264 8 first-stage stator blades for the low pressure turbine. See, e.g., Kataoka Abstract, ¶ 30. Notwithstanding, we find that the Examiner’s separation of Kataoka’s HP and LP turbines into rotating and static components to define a turbine center frame is unreasonable. For example, such a division does not provide starting and ending points of the turbine engine frame (i.e., a duct), as Kataoka’s rotating rotor blades 26, 29 are positioned adjacent and between static stator blades 25, 28 and within any such a duct as identified by the Examiner. See, e.g., Kataoka ¶ 28, Fig. 1. Put another way, it is unreasonable to find that rotor blades are part of a HP and LP turbine, but the adjacent stator blades of the HP and LP turbine are part of a turbine center frame that extends between a HP and LP turbine. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 2–4 depending therefrom, based on the Examiner’s First Interpretation of Kataoka. See Final Act. 7 (applying the Examiner’s findings relative to the First Interpretation of Kataoka to claims 2–4 depending from independent claim 1). The Examiner relies on the same erroneous findings relative the Examiner’s First Interpretation of Kataoka in the rejection of independent claims 17 and 26, which also recite “a turbine center frame,”5 and claims 18–20, 24, 25, and 27–306 depending therefrom; 5 We construe claim 26 as implying that the recited diffusion sections are each part of the turbine center frame. See Supplemental Appeal Br. 5 (Claims App.). 6 Although the Examiner omits reference to any annotated Figure of Kataoka in the rejection of claims 25 and 27–30, these claims depend from independent claims 17 and 26, which are rejected by the Examiner solely upon the Examiner’s First Interpretation of Kataoka and corresponding annotated Figure 1 of Kataoka; therefore, we understand that the Examiner also relies on the Examiner’s First Interpretation of Kataoka and Appeal 2021-002618 Application 15/620,264 9 therefore, for essentially the same reasons as stated supra, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17–20, and 24–30. Final Act. 10– 12. The Examiner’s Second, Alternative Interpretation of Kataoka Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner provides an alternative annotated Figure 1 of Kataoka, reproduced below. Final Act. 8. The Examiner’s alternative annotated Figure 1 of Kataoka is “a sectional view of the main portion of a two-shaft gas turbine” (Kataoka ¶ 14), including, inter alia, two arrows pointing to vertical lines, which are added by the Examiner to apparently delineate the extent of a turbine center frame. In this alternative annotated Figure 1 of Kataoka, the Examiner’s vertical corresponding annotated Figure 1 of Kataoka in the rejection of claims 25 and 27–30. Final Act. 10, 11. Appeal 2021-002618 Application 15/620,264 10 lines substantially correspond to Kataoka’s intermediate duct 17 (i.e., a duct that connects annular gas-passage outlet 15 of HP turbine 12 to annular gas- passage inlet 16 of LP turbine). See Kataoka ¶ 27. As depicted supra, the Examiner also identifies upstream and downstream diffusion sections of intermediate duct 17 at portions of intermediate duct 17 adjacent Kataoka’s annular gas passage outlet 15 of HP turbine 12 and annular gas-passage inlet 15 of LP turbine, respectively. The Examiner finds that these upstream and downstream diffusion sections “define expanding cross-sectional areas which inherently decrease the velocity and increase the static pressure of the gas flow” (Ans. 6) and “are capable of functioning in the same manner as Appellant’s diffusion sections” (id. at 7). See id. at 6 (“the [E]xaminer selected sections which structurally and functionally correspond to the claimed sections”). Appellant argues that “the Examiner takes two arbitrarily-chosen locations along the intermediate duct 17” to define upstream and downstream diffusion sections, which are not identified as such in Kataoka. Appeal Br. 9–10; see also id. at 11 (“the Examiner . . . creates arbitrarily- drawn boundaries to form multiple ‘diffusion sections’ where none are disclosed to be”). Appellant submits that “[w]hile [it is] true that any ‘diffusion section’ can be seen as any expanding turbine section, the particular upstream and downstream diffusion sections are specifically defined and positioned in the claimed design.” Id. at 12. Appellant also submits that “[t]he cross-sectional areas or the walls of the intermediate duct 17 in Kataoka are merely the axial extents of a single diffusion section.” Id. at 13; see also Reply Br. 6 (“intermediate duct 17 of Kataoka discloses a single, continuous diffusion section extending along its axial length”). Appeal 2021-002618 Application 15/620,264 11 Appellant concludes that “[t]o whatever extent Kataoka discloses a diffusion section, Kataoka does not disclose the diffusion sections as claimed.” Reply Br. 8. Claim 1 recites the following structural requirements for the upstream and downstream diffusion sections of the turbine center frame: (i) the sections have an increasing cross-sectional area (i.e., diffuse the gas flow); (ii) the sections are part of a mainstream flow path; (iii) the upstream diffusion section is upstream of the downstream diffusion section relative to the flow direction of the gas in the main flow path; and (iv) the downstream diffusion section is spaced further from the engine centerline than the upstream diffusion section. Thus, claim 1 reads on the upstream and downstream diffusion sections as identified by the Examiner, including at least one structural feature that distinguishes one section from the other along the mainstream flow path, namely, the spacing from the centerline. The Specification refers generally to “a turbine center frame having staged diffusion sections.” Spec. ¶ 13 (emphasis added). The Specification discloses, with reference to Figure 3, that [t]wo diffusion sections 108 are included in the turbine center frame 86, including an upstream diffusion section 108a and a downstream diffusion section 108b relative to the flow direction of the flow of fluid 106. The diffusion sections 108 include an increasing radius 102, 104 for the radially inner and outer walls 90, 92 relative to the engine centerline 12. The downstream diffusion section 108b can have greater radiuses 102, 104 than the upstream diffusion section 108a. Id. ¶ 34. The Specification further discloses, with reference to Figure 3, that “[t]he increasing radius 102, 104 in the axial direction defining the increasing cross-sectional area through the diffusion sections 108 can be Appeal 2021-002618 Application 15/620,264 12 defined by a positive slope for the diffusion sections,” wherein “[t]he slope for the diffusion sections 108 need not be constant,” or alternatively, can be “defined based upon a maximum angle 113a-d of the inner and outer walls,” wherein “[d]ifferent angles can be defined for each diffusion section 108 [(i.e., angles 113a–d)]” and “angles 113a-d can all be the same or different from one another.” Id. ¶ 36. Notably, the Specification states, with reference to Figure 3, that “mean flow path line 112 can be beneficial for defining the diffusion sections 108 when the radially inner and radially outer walls 90, 92 include differing slopes or angles, or have differing rates of increasing radius 102, 104.” Id. ¶ 37. In sum, differing slopes or angles are optional structural elements for distinguishing between diffusion sections, and such differing slopes or angles are not structural elements recited in claim 1. Appellant does not dispute the correctness of the Examiner’s delineation of Kataoka’s intermediate duct 17 as the claimed turbine center frame or that the upstream and downstream sections of Kataoka’s intermediate duct 17, as identified by the Examiner, have expanding cross- sectional areas (i.e., are diffusers) spaced from the engine centerline as claimed. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Kataoka’s intermediate duct 17 must represent a single diffusion section, without multiple sections, such that the Examiner’s delineation of upstream and downstream sections, which exhibits the claimed spacing from the engine centerline, is merely an arbitrary division of intermediate duct 17 into sections. As stated supra, we agree with the Examiner that “section” is a broad claim term, meaning simply part of a whole, and further, that the Appeal 2021-002618 Application 15/620,264 13 structural limitations that are recited in claim 1 relative to the upstream and downstream sections are disclosed by the sections identified by the Examiner, as well as distinguish the upstream section from the downstream one. See Ans. 6. In other words, Appellant fails to identify with specificity which specifically defined and positioned claimed design limitations are missing from the Examiner’s findings relative to Kataoka, nor does Appellant address the spacing as failing to provide a distinguishing structural feature of the sections. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. The Examiner relies on this Second, Alternative Interpretation of Kataoka in the rejection of claims 8–13, 15, and 16. Final Act. 8–9. Appellant chose not to present arguments separate from the arguments presented for claim 1 supra for the patentability of dependent claims 8–13, 15, and 16, and therefore, for essentially the same reasons as stated supra, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8–13, 15, and 16. Appeal Br. 14. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 8–13, 15, and 16 is affirmed, and the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–4, 17–20, and 24–30 is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 8–13, 15–20, 24–30 102(a)(1) Kataoka 1, 8–13, 15, 16 2–4, 17–20, 24–30 Appeal 2021-002618 Application 15/620,264 14 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 IN PART