HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 5, 20212020004920 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 5, 2021) 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. 15/079,538 03/24/2016 Nick Nolcheff H0052009 (002.4755) 7476 89955 7590 04/05/2021 HONEYWELL/LKGLOBAL Intellectual Property Services Group 300 S. Tryon Street Suite 600 Charlotte, NC 28202 EXAMINER NGUYEN, THUYHANG NGOC ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/05/2021 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): DL-PMT-SM-IP@Honeywell.com honeywell@lkglobal.com patentservices-us@honeywell.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte NICK NOLCHEFF, JOHN REPP, BRUCE DAVID REYNOLDS, and DAVID RICHARD HANSON Appeal 2020-004920 Application 15/079,538 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, 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 1–3, 6–10, 13, and 14, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. See Appeal Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of these claims. 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 “Honeywell International Inc.” Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-004920 Application 15/079,538 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter “generally relates to a gas turbine propulsion system, and more particularly relates to an axi-centrifugal compressor in which a proportioned distribution of the pressure rise across the axial and centrifugal compressor sections is achieved.” Spec. ¶ 1. Apparatus claims 1 and 8 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below. 1. An axi-centrifugal compressor for a gas turbine system comprising: a housing; and a compressor having an axial compressor section and a centrifugal compressor section rotatably supported on a common drive shaft in the housing and operable to affect a pressure ratio along a flow path between a compressor inlet and a compressor exit, wherein the common drive shaft operably couples the axial compressor section and the centrifugal compressor section for co-rotation thereon, and wherein the compressor includes: the axial compressor section having at least one axial compressor stage operable to affect a first pressure ratio along the flow path between the compressor inlet and a first section exit; the centrifugal compressor section operable to affect a second pressure ratio along the flow path between a second section inlet and the compressor exit, wherein the first section exit associated with the axial compressor section leads directly into the second section inlet associated with the centrifugal section along the flow path; wherein the compressor has a tuning factor satisfying the following condition: 2.8 < PRax/PRc < 4.5 where: PRax is the first pressure ratio, and PRc is the second pressure ratio; and a loading factor satisfying the following condition: Appeal 2020-004920 Application 15/079,538 3 0.6 < (PRax)1/n/(PRc) < 0.8 where: n is the number of axial stages in the axial compressor section. EVIDENCE Name Reference Date Rice US 4,896,499 Jan. 30, 1990 Olive US 5,024,580 June 18, 1991 Ottaviano et al. (“Ottaviano”) US 8,147,178 B2 Apr. 3, 2012 Joseph P. Veres et al., Conceptual Design of a Two Spool Compressor for the NASA Large Civil Tilt Rotor Engine, American Helicopter Society 66th Annual Form (2010) (“Veres”) REJECTIONS Claims 1, 7, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Veres, Olive, and Rice. Claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Veres, Olive, Rice, and Ottaviano. ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 1, 7, 8, and 14 as unpatentable over Veres, Olive, and Rice Appellant argues independent claims 1 and 8 together, and does not present any additional arguments for dependent claims 7 and 14. See Appeal Br. 10–14. We select claim 1 for review, with the remaining claims standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). The Examiner identifies Figure 8 of Veres as disclosing an axial compressor section and a centrifugal compressor section rotatably supported on a common drive shaft as recited. See Final Act. 2. Appellant acknowledges same. See Appeal Br. 10 (i.e., “Veres disclose[s] an axial and Appeal 2020-004920 Application 15/079,538 4 centrifugal compressor on the same drive shaft (see FIG. 8)”). However, the Examiner acknowledges that “Veres is silent on” teaching both recited ratios.2 Final Act. 4. Regarding the “tuning factor” condition (i.e., when “2.8 < PRax/PRc < 4.5”), the Examiner relies on Olive for such teaching stating that Olive discloses that “air pressure may be 30 times ambient atmospheric pressure.” Final Act. 4 (citation omitted). Regarding the “loading factor” condition (i.e., when “0.6 < (PRax)1/n/(PRc) < 0.8”), the Examiner relies on Rice for such teaching stating that Rice discloses that a compressor “can be readily modified by adding stages and diameter[s]” as desired. Final Act. 4 (citation omitted). The Examiner thus concludes that, in view of the above teachings, both pressure ratios are “result-effective variable[s]” such that “optimizing a result effective variable, i.e. a tuning and loading factor, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings.” Final Act. 5 (citations omitted). Appellant notes that Veres’ “tuning factor”3 is not within the same range as that recited, and that “[i]t is submitted that the reason for this is that the compressor of Veres actually represents the result of known ‘routine experimentation’ at the time of the instant invention.” Appeal Br. 10 (italics added). In other words, as per Appellant, the Examiner’s analysis involving Olive and Rice (neither of which “discuss the combination of axial stages with a centrifugal stage”) “oversimplifies the complexity of axi-centrifugal systems.” Appeal Br. 11. Hence, Appellant contends that the Examiner “incorrectly suggests that the instant claims directed to this complex system 2 In claim 1, the first ratio is identified as the “tuning factor” and the second ratio is identified as the “loading factor.” 3 Appellant does not address Olive’s “tuning factor.” Appeal 2020-004920 Application 15/079,538 5 are obvious or attainable through known ‘routine experimentation.’” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant’s contentions above are not persuasive. First, the Examiner is relying upon the optimization of result-effective variables, yet Appellant does not explain how such variables cannot be optimized. See Final Act. 5. Additionally, Appellant appears to be limiting the extent of known “routine experimentation” to only that which Veres discloses,4 while discounting the knowledge of one skilled in the art, whose knowledge is broader. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962) (“Those skilled in the [compressor] art must be presumed to know something about [compressors] apart from what the references disclose.”); see also In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he prior art need not provide the exact method of optimization for the variable to be result-effective. A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.”). In view of the above, we do not agree that the referenced “routine experimentation,” as known to one skilled in the art, is to be restricted only to Veres’ teachings. As such, Appellant’s surmise that Veres’ different “tuning factor” range “actually represents the result of known ‘routine experimentation’ at the time of the instant invention” (Appeal Br. 10) is too myopic in scope because Appellant’s postulation does not contemplate other reasons or other knowledge having a part in the resultant range. To be clear, Appellant’s submission is not self-evident and, lacking evidentiary support therefor, is considered to be unsupported attorney argument. See In re 4 “Veres actually represents the result of known ‘routine experimentation’ at the time of the instant invention.” Appeal Br. 10. Appeal 2020-004920 Application 15/079,538 6 Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“attorney argument [is] not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness”). Appellant further contends that the Examiner’s combination “does not address the known interactions and/or constraints that limit the application of Olive and Rice.” Appeal Br. 11. As support, Appellant contends that “[a]xial and centrifugal compressor stages have a high degree of differentiation regarding both aerodynamic . . . and mechanical . . . constraints and sensitivities.” Appeal Br. 11–12. For example, the different compressors have different “flow-per-unit-area,” “preferred rotational speeds,” and other values which set them apart aerodynamically. Appeal Br. 11. Likewise, as per Appellant, the different compressors involve different “material selection,” “disk burst,” and other values which set them apart mechanically. Appeal Br. 11–12. However, Appellant does not explain how such differences fail to likewise exist between compressors within the same category (such as one of the compressor types being designed to have a different capacity, or a different purpose, than another compressor of the same type). Appellant does not explain how the above asserted differentiation between the two types of compressors would not also apply to different compressors of the same type. In other words, the differences identified by Appellant above would appear to commonly exist between different compressors in general, and do not automatically denote distinguishing features between axial and centrifugal compressors. Furthermore, there is no indication that the above values for the two compressor types fail to overlap (e.g., fail to have overlapping “flow-per-unit-area,” “rotational speed[],” material selection,” Appeal 2020-004920 Application 15/079,538 7 or “disk burst”). Hence, Appellant’s general allegations of the above “constraints and sensitivities” between the two compressor types are not self-evident such that the Examiner’s analysis is premised upon faulty reasoning. Additionally, Appellant’s arguments regarding what “the known ‘routine experimentation’ suggested” is not persuasive as noted above. Appeal Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 4, 5. Appellant further contends that Appellant’s achievement “is done through the previously unrecognized and undisclosed (and thus, non- obvious) balancing of [tuning factor] and [loading factor] as disclosed in the instant application.” Appeal Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 4 n.7. That these factors may have been previously “unrecognized and undisclosed” in the prior art appears to be the case since the Examiner finds (and Appellant agrees) that these “terms [are] defined only in this application.” Ans. 19; see also Reply Br. 4. Appellant does not dispute, however, that both Olive and Rice disclose the ability to vary pressure ratios, such as by adding stages or the like. See Ans. 20. In fact, the Examiner points out that “adding more axial stages to an axi-centrifugal compressor increases the overall efficiency.” Ans. 17 (noting the increase in efficiency between Veres’ single-stage Figure 8 and multi-stage Figure 11); see also id. at 20. Additionally, we have been instructed that The mere fact that multiple result-effective variables were combined does not necessarily render their combination beyond the capability of a person having ordinary skill in the art. Evidence that the variables interacted in an unpredictable or unexpected way could render the combination nonobvious, see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 167 L.Ed.2d 705 (2007), but Applied failed to show anything unpredictable or unexpected in the interaction of the variables. Appeal 2020-004920 Application 15/079,538 8 Applied Materials, 692 F.3d at 1298. Appellant, on the other hand, contends that conventional wisdom teaches away from adding stages (as well as the recited ranges) “because the prior art disclosed that doing so would result in increased compressor size and weight.” Reply Br. 6; see also id. at 5, 7. Indeed, there may be some trade-offs to be made, but we have been instructed that: The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another. Winner Int'l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s analysis, premised on pressure optimization and efficiency, is improper (even at the cost of more weight), or that the “prior art taught away from the claimed range” as asserted by Appellant. Reply Br. 5. Appellant further contends that the Examiner’s analysis “has relied solely on Applicant’s own disclosure.” Reply Br. 7. However, the Examiner’s analysis explicitly relied on varying a pressure as disclosed in Olive and Rice. See Final Act. 4. As such, Appellant’s contention is not persuasive of Examiner error. Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in optimizing result effective variables in view of the teachings of Veres, Olive, and Rice. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7, 8, and 14. Appeal 2020-004920 Application 15/079,538 9 The rejection of claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, and 13 as unpatentable over Veres, Olive, Rice, and Ottaviano Appellant does not present any argument regarding this rejection by the Examiner. See Appeal Br. 14. Instead, Appellant contends that “dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, and 13 are patentable for at least the same reasons as independent claims 1 and 8.” Appeal Br. 14. Accordingly, as we are not persuaded of Examiner error in rejecting claims 1 and 8 above, we likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, and 13 as being obvious in view of Veres, Olive, Rice, and Ottaviano. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 7, 8, 14 103 Veres, Olive, Rice 1, 7, 8, 14 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13 103 Veres, Olive, Rice, Ottaviano 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13 Overall Outcome 1–3, 6–10, 13, 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation