General Electric Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 2, 2022

2021002408 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2022)

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. 15/207,640 07/12/2016 Mohamed Elbibary 311348-US-1/GECV-1904 1052 122218 7590 02/02/2022 Dority & Manning, P.A. and GEC-Aviation Post Office Box 1449 Greenville, SC 29602-1449 EXAMINER THOMAS, KYLE ROBERT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2022 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 MOHAMED ELBIBARY and DANIEL JEAN-LOUIS LABORIE __________ Appeal 2021-002408 Application 15/207,640 Technology Center 3700 __________ Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-7 and 16-21. See Final Act. 1. Claims 10-15 are withdrawn from consideration. See id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as General Electric Company. See Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-002408 Application 15/207,640 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims are directed to a cooling system for a gas turbine engine. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An active engine core compartment cooling system comprising: an aperture extending through a core engine cowl that forms a radially outer wall of an engine core compartment; a cooling fan mounted within the engine core compartment and comprising a cooling fan inlet and a cooling fan outlet, the cooling fan inlet coupled in flow communication with said aperture, the cooling fan outlet coupled in flow communication with the engine core compartment, wherein the cooling fan is configured to pull cooling air through the aperture and into the engine core compartment; a distribution header coupled to said cooling fan outlet, said distribution header comprising a plurality of branches, each branch configured to channel a flow of air from said cooling fan to a component within the engine core compartment, wherein each branch comprises a branch flow control valve and a temperature sensor to control flow through each branch; and a cooling fan controller configured to at least one of control a rotational speed of said cooling fan and control a position of at least one flow control valve coupled in series flow communication with said cooling fan, wherein the cooling fan controller is programmed to receive an indication of an anticipated shutdown of the gas turbine engine and use the cooling fan to initiate a flow of cooling air through the aperture and into the engine core compartment based on the received indication, the cooling fan controller operating the engine core compartment cooling system after the gas turbine engine has been shut down and until a predetermined threshold has been achieved. Appeal 2021-002408 Application 15/207,640 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Ream US 5,127,222 July 7, 1992 Laborie US 6,202,403 B1 Mar. 20, 2001 Lui US 6,305,156 B1 Oct. 23, 2001 MacFarlane US 9,038,399 B2 May 26, 2015 Ellis US 2014/0318759 A1 Oct. 30, 2014 Verseux US 2015/0267616 A1 Sept. 24, 2015 REJECTIONS2 Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Verseux, Laborie, Lui, Ellis, and Ream. Final Act. 3. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Verseux, Laborie, Lui, Ellis, Ream, and MacFarlane. Final Act. 11. Claims 16-18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Verseux, Laborie, Ellis, and Ream. Final Act. 12. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Verseux, Laborie, Ellis, Ream, and MacFarlane. Final Act. 19. OPINION Obviousness over Verseux, Laborie, Lui, Ellis, and Ream Claim 1 is representative of claims 1, 2, and 4-7 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2019). See Appeal Br. 9-11. 2 Claim 1 is objected to for informalities. Final Act. 2. However, the objection is not within the jurisdiction of the Board. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.181. Appeal 2021-002408 Application 15/207,640 4 Appellant contends that: (1) “Verseux does not disclose a distribution header with a plurality of branches and branch flow control valve and temperature sensor” and “Verseux does not disclose a cooling fan controller programmed to receive an indication of anticipated shutdown to initiate the cooling fan” (Appeal Br. 9); (2) “Laborie does not disclose a fan for pulling air into the core compartment or a cooling fan controller programmed to receive an indication of anticipated shutdown to initiate a cooling fan” because “[t]he cooling system of Laborie does not receive air when the engine is shut down” (id. at 10); (3) “Lui does not disclose a cooling fan controller programmed to receive an indication of anticipated shutdown to initiate the cooling fan or an active engine core compartment cooling system to cool the engine core compartment at shut-down” (id.); (4) “Ellis does not disclose a separate fan for pulling air into the core compartment, a cooling fan controller programmed to receive an indication of anticipated shutdown to initiate the separate cooling fan, or a cooling system that operates at shut down of the engine to cool the core compartment” (id.); and (5) “Ream does not cure the defects of Verseux, Laborie, Lui, and Ellis” (id.). The Examiner counters that “in response to Appellant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” Ans. 21 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 Appeal 2021-002408 Application 15/207,640 5 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). Appellant responds that “[t]his is not the case in the current application” and that the Examiner’s response in the Answer “is a misapplication of In re Keller.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant’s contentions are unpersuasive in that they do not address the rejection. The Examiner does not rely on the respectivelycited art for teaching the particular features as presented in the enumerated arguments above. In regard to these corresponding, enumerated arguments, the Examiner relies on: (1) Verseux for disclosing an active engine core compartment cooling system comprising: an aperture extending through a core engine cowl that forms a radially outer wall of an engine core compartment, a cooling fan mounted within the engine core compartment, a cooling fan inlet, a cooling fan outlet, and a cooling fan controller configured to at least one of control a rotational speed of the cooling fan and control a position of at least one flow control valve coupled in series flow communication with the cooling fan, in which the cooling fan inlet is coupled in flow communication with the aperture, the cooling fan outlet is coupled in flow communication with the engine core compartment, and the cooling fan is configured to pull cooling air through the aperture and into the engine core compartment (Final Act. 3- 4 (citing Verseux ¶¶ 82-84, 94, 98; Figs. 2a, 3)). Thus, Verseux discloses a fan for pulling air into the core compartment in regard to arguments (2) and (4) above. (2) Laborie for disclosing a distribution header comprising a plurality of branches, in which each branch is configured to channel a flow of air from an undercowl cooling system to a component within the engine core Appeal 2021-002408 Application 15/207,640 6 compartment, and a controller configured to at least one of control a rotational speed of a cooling fan and control a position of at least one flow control valve coupled in series flow communication with the engine undercowl cooling system (id. at 5-6 (citing Laborie 2:58-60, 3:9-11, 4:32- 35; Fig. 1)). Thus, Laborie discloses a distribution header with a plurality of branches and a branch flow control valve in regard to argument (1) above. (3) Lui for disclosing a system that removes fan air with each branch comprising at least one of a branch flow control valve and a temperature sensor to control flow through each branch (id. at 6-7 (citing Lui 4:63-5:7; Fig. 2)). Thus, Lui discloses a branch flow control valve and temperature sensor in regard to argument (1) above. (4) Ellis for disclosing an aircraft gas turbine cooling system with a controller that receives an indication of an anticipated shutdown of the gas turbine engine and uses the cooling system to initiate a flow of cooling air based on the received indication (id. at 7-8 (citing Ellis ¶¶ 14, 39, 40, 56, 57)). Thus, Ellis discloses a cooling fan controller programmed to receive an indication of anticipated shutdown to initiate the cooling fan in regard to arguments (1)-(4) above. (5) Ream for disclosing a gas turbine cooling system having a cooling fan controller that operates an engine core compartment cooling system after the gas turbine engine has been shut down and until a predetermined threshold has been achieved (id. at 8-9 (citing Ream Abstr., 5:32-44, 53-65, 8:50-65; Fig. 5)). Thus, Ream discloses an active engine core compartment cooling system to cool the engine core compartment at shut-down in regard to arguments (3) and (4) above. Appeal 2021-002408 Application 15/207,640 7 Consequently, the Examiner relies on the combination of Verseux, Laborie, Lui, Ellis, and Ream for disclosing all limitations of claim 1 and Appellant does not explain which limitation of claim 1 is missing from this combination as set forth by the Examiner. Moreover, Appellant does not argue--and we do not discern any--error in the Examiner’s findings as reiterated above. In short, Appellant does not explain why--but rather makes bald statements that--“[t]his is not the case in the current application” and that the Examiner’s response in the Answer “is a misapplication of In re Keller.” Reply Br. 2. Next, Appellant contends that “it appears that the Examiner is engaging in ‘impermissible hindsight’ in an effort to reject the claims.” Appeal Br. 10-11; see also Reply Br. 3. This argument is also unpersuasive. In the Final Office Action, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the active engine core compartment cooling system of Verseux by: (1) including the above teachings of Laborie “to improve efficiency of core compartment cooling” (Final Act. 6 (citing Laborie 1:60-61)); (2) including the above teachings of Lui “to effectively control the flow of the cooling air and thereby reduce the penalties associated with bleeding the fan air” (id. at 7 (citing Lui 5:43-44)); (3) including the above teachings of Ellis “to allow some or all of the main engines to be shut down on landing earlier than would otherwise be possible thereby saving fuel without reducing engine life or increasing maintenance requirements” (id. at 8 (citing Ellis ¶ 56)); and (4) including the above teachings of Ream “to prevent the sensible heat stored in the engine from being transferred to components housing in Appeal 2021-002408 Application 15/207,640 8 the core engine compartment after engine shutdown” (id. at 9 (citing Ream 3:10-17)). We find that the Examiner’s rejection is based on sound technical reasoning and evidence disclosed in the cited prior art, rather than improper hindsight reconstruction. Appellant does not explain why--but instead, makes a bald statement that--“it appears that the Examiner is engaging in ‘impermissible hindsight’ in an effort to reject the claims.” Appeal Br. 10- 11. Arguments must address the Examiner’s action. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“The arguments shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by appellant.”). The Board will not advocate for Appellant by scouring the record to see if the Board can identify some flaw in the Examiner’s findings of fact, articulated reasoning, or legal conclusions. See, e.g., Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1250 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“A skeletal ‘argument’, really nothing more than an assertion, does not preserve a claim. . . . Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”) (citation omitted). For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-7 as being obvious over Verseux, Laborie, Lui, Ellis, and Ream. Obviousness over Verseux, Laborie, Lui, Ellis, Ream, and MacFarlane Obviousness over Verseux, Laborie, Ellis, and Ream Obviousness over Verseux, Laborie, Ellis, Ream, and MacFarlane For the rejections of claims 3 and 16-21 over these various combinations of cited art, Appellant’s contentions rest on the same arguments discussed above for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 11 (arguing that Appeal 2021-002408 Application 15/207,640 9 “[c]laim 3 depends from independent claim 1 and is thus believed to be patentable based on the above arguments that claim 1 is patentable”); id. at 12 (arguing that “[f]or the [sic] many of the same reasons discussed above with regards to claim 1, it is submitted that Verseux in view of Laborie, Lui, Ellis, and Ream fails to render claim 16 unpatentable and that the rejection should be reversed” and that “[c]laims 17-18 and 20-21 depend from independent claim 16 and are thus believed to be patentable based on the above arguments that claim 16 is patentable”); id. (arguing that “[c]laim 19 depends from independent claim 16 and is thus believed to be patentable based on the above arguments that claim 16 is patentable”). As we find no deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being obvious over Verseux, Laborie, Lui, Ellis, and Ream for the reasons discussed above, we likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3 and 16-21 over the various combinations of cited art. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-7 and 16-21 are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4-7 103 Verseux, Laborie, Lui, Ellis, Ream 1, 2, 4-7 3 103 Verseux, Laborie, Lui, Ellis, Ream, MacFarlane 3 16-18, 20, 21 103 Verseux, Laborie, Ellis, Ream 16-18, 20, 21 Appeal 2021-002408 Application 15/207,640 10 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 19 103 Verseux, Laborie, Ellis, Ream, MacFarlane 19 Overall Outcome 1-7, 16- 21 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED