United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 7, 2022

2021005313 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 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. 16/248,861 01/16/2019 Nagendra Somanath 105018US01;67097-3924PUS1 7876 54549 7590 03/07/2022 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER KANG, EDWIN G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/07/2022 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): ptodocket@cgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NAGENDRA SOMANATH, BRENDAN T. McAULIFFE, and JOSEPH B. STAUBACH Appeal 2021-005313 Application 16/248,861 Technology Center 3700 Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. WOODS, 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, 4, 9, 11-14, 16, 18, and 19. See generally Appeal Br.; see also Ans. 3-12. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Raytheon Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-005313 Application 16/248,861 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The application is titled “Work Recovery System for a Gas Turbine Engine Utilizing a Recuperated Supercritical CO2 Bottoming Cycle.” Spec. 1. Claims 1 and 19 are independent. See Appeal Br. 10-13 (“Claims App.”). We reproduce claim 19, below: 19. A gas turbine engine comprising: a primary flowpath fluidly connecting a compressor section, a combustor section, and a turbine section; a first heat exchanger disposed in the primary flowpath downstream of the turbine section, the first heat exchanger including a first inlet for receiving a fluid from the primary flowpath and a first outlet for expelling the fluid received at the first inlet; the first heat exchanger further including a second inlet fluidly connected to a supercritical CO2 (sCO2) bottoming cycle and a second outlet connected to the sCO2 bottoming cycle; wherein the sCO2 bottoming cycle is a recuperated Brayton cycle comprising a waste recovery turbine having a working fluid turbine inlet connected to the second outlet of the first heat exchanger and a spent working fluid turbine outlet connected to a working fluid compressor inlet of a working fluid compressor, the working fluid compressor further including a working fluid compressor outlet connected to the second inlet of the first heat exchanger such that compressed sCO2 is provided from the working fluid compressor to the second inlet of the first heat exchanger; and a means for transmitting rotational work from the sCO2 bottoming cycle to at least one other engine system. Claims App. 12 (emphasis added). Appeal 2021-005313 Application 16/248,861 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Held US 2012/0067055 A1 Mar. 22, 2012 Auciello US 2018/0313232 A1 Nov. 1, 2018 REJECTIONS2 The following rejections are before us on appeal: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 19 102 Auciello 1, 3, 4, 9, 11-14, 16, 18 103 Auciello, Held Ans. 3-12. ANALYSIS I. Claim 19 Anticipated by Auciello The issue is whether Auciello discloses “a first heat exchanger disposed in the primary flowpath,” as recited in claim 19. Claims App. 12. We give claim terms the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[During prosecution,] the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable [interpretation] consistent with the specification . . . Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation.”). Further, we do not import limitations from the Specification into the claim where we do not see a clear definition or exposition in the Specification to so limit the meaning of the 2 The Examiner withdrew rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), (b). Ans. 12. Appeal 2021-005313 Application 16/248,861 4 claim. See, e.g., Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 357 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In rejecting claim 19, the Examiner finds that Auciello discloses the claimed gas turbine engine, including “a first heat exchanger disposed in the primary flowpath downstream of the turbine section.” See Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 3-4. In support of this finding, the Examiner cites to Auciello’s Figure 1 (Final Act. 6), a copy of which we reproduce, below: Appeal 2021-005313 Application 16/248,861 5 Figure 1 illustrates an embodiment of Auciello’s waste heat recovery system. Auciello ¶ 16. In particular, Figure 1 depicts high-temperature thermodynamic system (top) and a low-temperature thermodynamic system (bottom). Id. ¶ 22. As it relates to the Examiner’s rejection, Figure 1 depicts waste heat recovery heat exchanger 7 in heat exchange relationship with the exhaust combustion gas flow from gas turbine engine 1. Id. ¶ 23. The Examiner finds that Figure 1 of Auciello depicts the “primary flowpath” to include compressor 4, combustor 6, turbine 8, and heat exchanger 7. See Final Act. 18. The Examiner further finds that “first heat exchanger” 7 is “disposed in the primary flowpath downstream of the turbine section,” which is the arrow emanating from high-temperature thermodynamic system to low-temperature thermodynamic system. See id. at 6 (citing Auciello ¶ 23). The Examiner submits that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in order to utilize all of the waste heat, the heat exchanger would be placed in the primary flowpath.” Ans. 13. Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding, contending that “Auciello provides no teaching or other disclosure that indicates that the alleged heat exchanger is disposed in the primary flowpath downstream of the turbine section.” Appeal Br. 5 (emphasis added). Appellant submits that the Examiner’s interpretation of “disposed in” is unreasonable for the following reasons: (1) the interpretation is inconsistent with the Specification; (2) the interpretation is internally inconsistent with the claim language; and (3) the interpretation conflicts with the plain meaning of the term “dispose.” Appeal 2021-005313 Application 16/248,861 6 See id. at 5-9; see also Reply Br. 1-3. Appellant argues that “disposed in the primary flowpath” requires the heat exchanger to be “physically positioned” within the flow of exhaust gases. See Appeal Br. 5 (“Is it reasonable to interpret a component that is not physically positioned within the primary flowpath as being ‘disposed in the primary flowpath downstream of the turbine section.’”). Appellant explains that because the heat exchanger must be “physically positioned within the primary flowpath,” it is not enough if the “heat exchanger that is fluidly connected to the turbine exhaust.” Id. at 8. In support of a claim interpretation sufficiently narrow to exclude the location of Auciello’s heat exchanger, Appellant quotes paragraphs 35 and 36 of the Specification, but with emphasis on a single sentence. Id. at 6-7. Specifically, Appellant bolds and underlines a sentence from paragraph 36 of the Specification stating, “[i]n order to recapture the waste heat within the turbine engine system of Figure 2 and convert the waste heat to work, a heat exchanger 150 is positioned within the exhaust casing 140.” Id. at 7. Appellant identifies Figure 2, which depicts heat exchanger 150 within exhaust casing 140. Id. The Examiner has the stronger position. Appellant’s interpretation of “disposed in” is too narrow as Appellant seeks to import into claim 19 the particular embodiment shown in Figure 2 of the Specification. Appellant submits a definition of “dispose” as “to put in place.” Appeal Br. 8 (citing Merriam-Webster dictionary at https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/dispose (visited on March 8, 2021)). The Examiner does not submit a different definition. See generally Ans.; see also generally Final Act. We adopt Appellant’s definition of “dispose.” Appeal 2021-005313 Application 16/248,861 7 We further acknowledge that the Specification describes an embodiment in which heat exchanger 150 is physically positioned within exhaust casing 140 of turbine engine 100. See Spec. ¶¶ 35, 36, Fig. 2; see also Appeal Br. 6-7 (citing the same). Based on the definition of “dispose” and the Figure 2 embodiment, Appellant argues that we should construe “disposed in the primary flowpath” as requiring the heat exchanger itself to be physically located within the exhaust gases, i.e., within the internal casing of an exhaust system. See, e.g., Reply Br. 1 (“the plain English meaning of the heat exchanger being ‘disposed in’ the primary flowpath requires the heat exchanger to be physically placed in the flowpath, and not merely connected to the flowpath.”). In doing so, Appellant attempts to import improperly a limitation-a heat exchanger physically located within the exhaust casing- from an embodiment described in the Specification into the claims. See Appeal Br. 5-9. We decline to import that structure into the claim phrase “first heat exchanger disposed in the primary flowpath.” See Superguide, 357 F.3d at 875. We disagree with Appellant that the embodiment of Figure 2 or the definition of “dispose” compels us to construe “disposed in the primary flowpath” to require the first heat exchanger to be physically located within the exhaust casing. If Appellant intends for the claims to require such a narrow construction, claim 19 could have been amended to require this structure. For example, claim 19 could have been amended to positively recite an “exhaust casing” and the first heat exchanger’s location within that casing. Appeal 2021-005313 Application 16/248,861 8 During prosecution, patent applicants are afforded the opportunity to amend the claims to claim an invention with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969) (applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified). “[A]s applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.” See ICON, 496 F.3d at 1379. Having established that “disposed in the primary flowpath” does not require the “first heat exchanger” to be physically positioned within an exhaust casing, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that heat exchanger 7 is disposed in the primary flow path, based on a broad, but reasonable, interpretation of claim 19 in light of the Specification. See ICON, 496 F.3d at 1379. Figure 1 (reproduced supra) depicts the “primary flowpath” to include compressor 4, combustor 6, turbine 8, and heat exchanger 7. See Final Act. 18 (finding the same). The arrow identified in Figure 1 further depicts the “primary flowpath” of exhaust gases across heat exchanger 7, and we agree with the Examiner that “the heat exchanger is in heat exchange with the exhaust combustion gas flow.” Id. (citing Auciello ¶ 23). Accordingly, Auciello’s Figure 1, along with its accompanying description, discloses a “first heat exchanger disposed in the primary flowpath downstream of the turbine section.” Claims App. 12. Appellant does not identify error in the Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 19 as anticipated by Auciello. Appeal 2021-005313 Application 16/248,861 9 II. Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11-14, 16, and 18 as Unpatentable Over Auciello and Held Appellant does not present separate arguments contesting the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11-14, 16, and 18 as unpatentable over Auciello and Held. See Appeal Br. 9. For the same reasons we affirm the rejection of claim 19 as anticipated by Auciello, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11-14, 16, and 18 as unpatentable over Auciello in view of Held. III. Conclusion We affirm the rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11-14, 16, 18, and 19. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 19 102 Auciello 19 1, 3, 4, 9, 11-14, 16, 18 103 Auciello, Held 1, 3, 4, 9, 11- 14, 16, 18 Overall Outcome 1, 3, 4, 9, 11- 14, 16, 18, 19 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). AFFIRMED