Ex Parte Delvaux et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2017

12908831 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2017)

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.
12/908,831 10/20/2010 John McConnell Delvaux 244473-1 (GETH:0073) 4681
82438 7590 03/20/2017
(TR Power Rr Water
EXAMINER
Fletcher Yoder PC SEABE, JUSTIN D
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN McCONNELL DELVAUX and
BRIAN DENVER POTTER1
Appeal 2015-001199
Application 12/908,831
Technology Center 3700
Before BRANDON J. WARNER, AMANDA F. WIEKER, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
John McConnell Delvaux and Brian Denver Potter (“Appellants”)
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of
claims 1, 3—11, 13—15, and 18—25.2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is General Electric
Company. Appeal Br. 2 (filed Aug. 11, 2014).
2 Claims 2, 12, 16, and 17 have been cancelled. Id.
Appeal 2015-001199
Application 12/908,831
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention concerns “tuning of fluid dynamics in rotary machines
. . . via an adjustment of the spacing between rotating blades or stationary
vanes and/or an adjustment of the count of rotating blades or stationary
vanes.” Spec. 131. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal,
and recites:
1. A system, comprising:
a rotary machine comprising:
a fluid flow path extending along an axis of the rotary
machine;
a plurality of airfoils disposed about the axis; and
a plurality of spacers disposed about the axis, wherein at
least one spacer of the plurality of spacers is disposed
circumferentially between adjacent airfoils of the plurality of
airfoils to define a varying circumferential spacing of the
plurality of airfoils about the axis.
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows:
I. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 11, 13, 15, 18, 21, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Poellmitz3 and El-Aini.4
II. Claims 5, 6, 8, 14, 19, 20, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Poellmitz, El-Aini, and Ingistov.5
3 US 2,916,257, iss. Dec. 8, 1959.
4 EP 0921274 A2, pub. June 9, 1999.
5 US 6,733,237 B2, iss. May 11, 2004.
2
Appeal 2015-001199
Application 12/908,831
III. Claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Poellmitz, El-Aini, and Liang.6
IV. Claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Poellmitz, El-Aini, and Wheeler.7
V. Claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Poellmitz, El-Aini, and Sorensen.8
ANALYSIS
Rejection I— Obviousness over Poellmitz and El-Aini
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 11, 13, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Claims L 3, 4, 7, and 21
Appellants argue claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 21 as a group. Appeal Br. 6—9.
We select claim 1 as representative, and claims 3, 4, 7, and 21 stand or fall
with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Poellmitz discloses a rotary machine having a
plurality of airfoils 13 and a plurality of spacers 15/25/35 disposed
circumferentially between adjacent airfoils. Final Act. 3 (mailed Mar. 12,
2014). The Examiner finds that Poellmitz fails to disclose varied spacing
between the airfoils, but finds that El-Aini teaches a gas turbine with
differently spaced blades, i.e., varied spacing, to achieve aerodynamic
damping. Id. (citing El-Aini, 4:57—5:23). The Examiner concludes that it
6 US 7,931,442 Bl, iss. Apr. 26, 2011.
7 US 2008/0118352 Al, pub. May 22, 2008.
8 US 2,874,932, iss. Feb. 24, 1959.
3
Appeal 2015-001199
Application 12/908,831
would have been obvious to modify the spacing of Poellmitz’s airfoils, as
taught by El-Aini, to further dampen the rotor blades. Id.9
Appellants contend that Poellmitz and El-Aini cannot be combined
because “Poellmitz is concerned with mechanical and material damping”
with “equally sized spacers or wafers.” Appeal Br. 7.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. The Examiner’s
rejection is based on obviousness, not anticipation, because the Examiner
acknowledges that Poellmitz discloses only equally sized spacers and does
not disclose varying spacing between airfoils. Final Act. 3. Therefore, the
Examiner relies upon El-Aini’s explicit teaching of varying the distance
between airfoils to increase aerodynamic damping. Id.', El-Aini, Abstract,
H 19—20, Fig. 4. That Poellmitz concerns mechanical and material damping
does not detract from the combination. First, Appellants have not shown
persuasively that the desired mechanical and material damping requires
equally sized spacers. Poellmitz suggests that mechanical and material
damping occurs due to the shape and material of Poellmitz’s spacers, not due
to their equal width. See Poellmitz, 1:53—55, 2:62—70, 3:5—21, 3:30-37.
Second, the Examiner explains that material, mechanical, and aerodynamic
damping can be employed together, to further dampen the rotor and blades.
Ans. 7 (citing El-Aini 14). We agree with the Examiner that “the fact that
Poellmitz is concerned with mechanical/material blade damping with its
9 The Examiner’s findings with regard to additional evidentiary references of
Tecza, Caruso, and Ingistov, see Final Act. 3—4, are not necessary to the
rejection of representative claim 1 over Poellmitz and El-Aini. See id. at 3.
4
Appeal 2015-001199
Application 12/908,831
spacers does not negate the fact that it is advantageous to provide unequal
blade spacing for aerodynamic damping purposes.” Id. at 8.
Appellants also contend that Poellmitz and El-Aini cannot be
combined because El-Aini discloses a one-piece integrally bladed rotor,
which does not include spacers. Appeal Br. 7—8. We are unpersuaded by
Appellants’ argument because Appellants have not provided persuasive
technical reasoning to show that El-Aini’s teaching of increasing
aerodynamic damping by varying the distance between airfoils applies only
to integrally bladed rotors and would be inapplicable to a non-unitary rotor
structure, such as that disclosed by Poellmitz. Appeal Br. 7.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that “El-Aini
cannot be combined with [Poellmitz’s] teaching [of] mechanical attachment
of rotor blades [and] Poellmitz cannot be modified to include integral blades,
because the modification would remove Poellmitz’s ability to easily replace
rotor blades and would likely interfere with the uniform mechanical and
material damping disclosed in Poellmitz.” Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner’s
rejection does not involve either of these purported modifications. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to vary the spacing of
Poellmitz’s airfoils, as taught by El-Aini. Final Act. 4. The Examiner does
not propose modifying El-Aini to include mechanically attached blades, and
does not propose modifying Poellmitz to include integrally attached blades,
as Appellants contend. As discussed above, Appellants provide no
persuasive technical reasoning to explain why or how the mechanism of
attachment between the blades and rotor impacts the damping of the system.
5
Appeal 2015-001199
Application 12/908,831
Finally, Appellants cite Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d
1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013), for the proposition that the age of the references
suggests that the Examiner’s rejection involves improper hindsight. Appeal
Br. 8. We are unpersuaded by this argument. Appellants’ reliance on Leo is
misplaced because in Leo, unlike here, the Federal Circuit disagreed with the
Board’s “obvious to try” reasoning where the applied prior art did not
provide any apparent reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at
the claimed subject matter. Leo, 726 F.3d at 1355—57. Here, however, the
Examiner relies upon El-Aini’s explicit teaching that varying the distance
between airfoils improves aerodynamic damping. Final Act. 4. Therefore,
in this case, the age of the references does not suggest the non-obviousness
of Appellants’ claims. See In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127 (CCPA 1977)
(“The mere age of the references is not persuasive of the unobviousness of
the combination of their teachings, absent evidence that, notwithstanding
knowledge of the references, the art tried and failed to solve the problem.”).
Appellants have not apprised us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1, and claims 3, 4, 7,
and 21 grouped therewith.
Claims 11, 13, 15, and 24
Similar to claim 1, independent claim 11 recites, inter alia, that the
circumferential spacing between adjacent flow control segments varies
among the plurality of flow control segments.
Appellants argue claims 11, 13, 15, and 24 as a group. Appeal Br. 9—
11. We select claim 11 as representative, and claims 13, 15, and 24 stand or
fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
6
Appeal 2015-001199
Application 12/908,831
With respect to claim 11, Appellants repeat the arguments presented
with respect to claim 1. Compare Appeal Br. 9—11, with id. at 6—9.
Therefore, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 11, and claims 13, 15, and
24 grouped therewith.
Claim 18
Similar to claim 1, independent claim 18 recites a method comprising,
inter alia, varying a circumferential spacing of a plurality of airfoil segments
with a plurality of spacer segments.
With respect to claim 18, Appellants repeat the arguments presented
with respect to claim 1. Compare Appeal Br. 11—13, with id. at 6—9.
Therefore, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18.
Rejections II—V
Obviousness over Poellmitz and El-Aini, in Further Combination with
Ingistov, Liang, Wheeler, or Sorensen
Claims 5, 6, 8—10, 14, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 25
With respect to the rejections of claims 5, 6, 8—10, 14, 19, 20, 22, 23,
and 25, Appellants contend that the Examiner’s reliance on Ingistov, Liang,
Wheeler, and Sorensen does not cure the deficiencies of Rejection I. Appeal
Br. 14 (regarding Ingistov), 15 (regarding Liang), 15—16 (regarding
Wheeler), and 16 (regarding Sorensen). Because we do not find Rejection I
to be deficient, for the reasons discussed above, we are unpersuaded by
Appellants’ arguments, and sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 5, 6,
8-10, 14, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 25.
7
Appeal 2015-001199
Application 12/908,831
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3—11, 13—15, and 18—25 is
AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED
8