HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 5, 2021

2020004920 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 5, 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.
15/079,538 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