Honeywell International Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 7, 2021

2021001449 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 7, 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.
16/056,101 08/06/2018 Nick Nolcheff H0052009 (002.4755D1) 5778
89955 7590 09/07/2021
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
09/07/2021 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 2021-001449
Application 16/056,101
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, 2, 5, and 6, which constitute all 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 2021-001449
Application 16/056,101

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “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. ¶ 2. Method claim 1 is
the sole independent claim. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal
and is reproduced below.
1. A method for operating a compressor along a flow path in a
gas turbine propulsion system comprising:
drawing a fluid along the flow path through a first inlet;
compressing the fluid along the flow path in an axial
compressor section having a least one axial stage downstream
from the first inlet to a first exit in the axial compressor section
such that:
PRax = PE1/PI1
PR/stage ax = (PE1/PI1)1/n
where:
PI1 is the pressure at the first inlet,
PE1 is the pressure at the first exit, and
n is the number of axial stages;

communicating the fluid from the first exit into a second
inlet along the flow path;
compressing the fluid along the flow path in a centrifugal
compressor downstream from the second inlet to a second
outlet of the centrifugal compressor section such that:
PRc = PE2/PI2

where:
PI2 is the pressure at the second inlet, and
PE2 is the pressure at the second exit;

wherein:
the axial compressor section and the centrifugal
compressor section are co-rotated on a common drive shaft, and
Appeal 2021-001449
Application 16/056,101

3
the fluid is compressed according to the following
conditions:
2.6 < PRax/PRc < 4.5
0.6 < (PR/stage ax)/(PRc) < 0.8.

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
Veres et al., Conceptual Design of a Two Spool Compressor for the
NASA Large Civil Tilt Rotor Engine, NTRS 1–22 (May 11, 2010)
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Veres, Olive, and Rice.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Veres, Olive, Rice, and Ottaviano.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1 and 6
as unpatentable over Veres, Olive, and Rice
Appellant argues independent claim 1 and dependent claim 6 together.
See Appeal Br. 8–12. We select claim 1 for review, with claim 6 standing or
falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
Claim 1 is directed to a gas turbine engine and recites a method of
comparing and/or correlating the pressure of an axial compressor section
with that of a downstream centrifugal compressor section. Claim 1 recites
Appeal 2021-001449
Application 16/056,101

4
certain relationships to be determined and ranges to be achieved. Claim 1
also recites, “the axial compressor section and the centrifugal compressor
section are co-rotated on a common drive shaft.”
The Examiner relies primarily on Veres for disclosing a variety of
turbines having different axial and centrifugal pressure values depending on
their speed and the number of stages. See Final Act. 4 (referencing different
pages and figures of Veres); see also Ans. 12–17. The Examiner
additionally relies on Olive and Rice for teaching that axial pressure values
can be increased by increasing the number of stages. See Final Act. 5; Ans.
15, 17. The Examiner finds that Veres, in view of Olive and Rice, teaches
axial pressure “is a result-effective variable, whose compressor ratio
depends on the number of axial stages.”2 Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 15.
The Examiner also finds that Veres teaches that centrifugal pressure “is also
a result-effective variable” depending “on the geometry of the centrifugal
stage.” Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 17. As such, the Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to achieve the recited values “since it has
been held that optimizing a result effective variable” is not patentable. Final
Act. 5; see also Ans. 18. The Examiner states, “it is not inventive to
discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”
Final Act. 5.
Appellant disagrees stating, “[i]n only one instance does Veres
disclose an axial and centrifugal compressor on the same drive shaft (see
FIG. 8).” Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis added). Appellant states that “almost all

2 Appellant concurs stating, when addressing Olive and Rice, “the pressure
ratio of each stage, and the overall pressure ratio, may be user defined.”
Appeal Br. 8–9.
Appeal 2021-001449
Application 16/056,101

5
of the compressors disclosed in Veres are multi-spool compressors” and
hence, “the centrifugal compressor is on a separate shaft from the axial
compressor.” Appeal Br. 8. As per Appellant, only the Figure 8
embodiment (i.e., “on the same drive shaft”) meets the claim limitation of
the two compressor sections being “co-rotated on a common drive shaft.”
We note that claim 1 does not clearly restrict the recited “common
drive shaft” to only a single (i.e., “same”) drive shaft in contrast to the co-
axial, “multi-spool” drive arrangement disclosed in Veres. See, e.g., Veres
Title. Appellant’s Specification is not so restrictive either. For example,
paragraph 17 of Appellant’s Specification addresses “spools concentrically
disposed about an axis of rotation 170 within the shaft assembly 160.”
Paragraph 20 of Appellant’s Specification also addresses “operably coupling
the axial compressor section 122 and the centrifugal compressor section 124
at various drive ratios.” Italics added. This same paragraph further
addresses a distinct and alternate method of rotation via wholly different
parallel shafts (i.e., “counter rotating shafts”).
Hence, consistent with Appellant’s Specification, we understand the
recitation of “a common drive shaft” to encompass a spool arrangement that
can drive the compressor sections “at various drive ratios” as discussed
above. Thus, because the compressor sections need not rotate at the same
speed, the Examiner’s reliance on Veres’ teaching of different pressure
values based on compressor speed is viable. As such, we do not agree with
Appellant that Veres is to be limited solely to the values described in Figure
8 because, as per Appellant, this is the only figure that “disclose[s] an axial
and centrifugal compressor on the same drive shaft.” Appeal Br. 8.
Appeal 2021-001449
Application 16/056,101

6
In view of the ability to select different compressor speeds (as well as
geometry), we further agree with the Examiner that the pressure values
discussed in Veres are “result effective variable[s],” which are subject to
optimization. Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 15, 18. As noted above, Appellant
does not dispute this point and further states that what Appellant’s have
achieved is “the previously unrecognized and undisclosed (and thus, non-
obvious) balancing of TF and LF” (tuning factor and loading factor).
Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis added). To be clear, a “balancing” of these values
is a form of optimizing these values.
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s “analysis, however,
oversimplifies the complexity of axi-centrifugal systems.” Appeal Br. 9; see
also Reply Br. 4. Appellant contends that when an “an axi-centrifugal
architecture is preferred[,] . . . the loading factor (LF) is within the range of
the instant claims [but that this results] in a TF [(tuning factor)] well below
the range claimed.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant proffers no support for this
latter statement, and does not explain how this might be the case with
respect to the teachings of Veres, Olive, and Rice. See also Reply Br. 5, 8.
The Examiner states that “without substantiating evidence, appellant’s
argument regarding analytical and physical tests . . . are considered as
opinions and not evidence to support the appellant’s argument.” Ans. 14.
This is consistent with In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
which provides instruction that “attorney argument [is] not the kind of
factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”
As a consequence, we do not fault the Examiner’s reliance on Veres, Olive,
and Rice as expressed above.
Appeal 2021-001449
Application 16/056,101

7
Appellant further contends that there are “constraints that limit the
application of Olive and Rice when employed in the architecture of Veres.”
Appeal Br. 9. However, the Examiner is not relying on bodily incorporating
structure from Olive or Rice into the architecture of Veres. Instead, Olive
and Rice are employed by the Examiner to show that compressor values can
vary depending on the number of stages and geometry. See Final Act. 5; see
also Ans. 13. Hence, the teachings of Olive and Rice support the
Examiner’s finding that the recited pressure values are result-effective
variables. See Ans. 15.
Appellant further addresses the “routine experimentation” that,
according to Appellant, is the basis of the Examiner’s rejection based on
optimization (i.e., “it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable
ranges by routine experimentation”). Appeal Br. 9; Final Act. 5. Appellant
contends that “Veres actually represents the result of known ‘routine
experimentation’ at the time of the instant invention.”3 Appeal Br. 8.
Appellant does not discount Veres’ documented teachings of different
pressure values for different compressor sections at different speeds, but
instead, relies on “cases not cited by the examiner, but known to subject
matter experts,” without any accompanying evidence or citation. Appeal Br.
10; see also Reply Br. 5. Appellant’s attempt to fault the Examiner for
resorting to explicit teachings rather than some vague “cases not cited”
(Appeal Br. 10) or “common knowledge” (Reply Br. 5) is not conducive to a

3 We understand from the Information Disclosure Statement dated August 6,
2018 filed in this case, that Veres was presented in 2010. Hence,
Appellant’s contention above is to the effect that an article published not
quite a decade before Appellant’s filing date is the standard by which
“routine experimentation” is to be measured.
Appeal 2021-001449
Application 16/056,101

8
finding that the Examiner erred when relying upon the clear teachings of
Veres in this matter. Thus, similar to our discussion of Geisler above,
Appellant’s arguments regarding “routine experimentation” (premised on
such other cases or knowledge) are not indicative of Examiner error.
Appellant also challenges the Examiner’s motivation “to combine the
teachings of the prior art.” Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 8. Appellant
contends that “the prior art taught away from the claimed range.” Appeal
Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 6. Appellant does not explain how the prior art
criticizes, discredits, or discourages the solution claimed, and only states—
belatedly in its Reply Brief—that employing the prior art “would result in
increased compressor size and weight.” Reply Br. 6; see also id. at 7.
However, even if this argument were both true (i.e., size and weight are
increased) and timely, Appellant does not dispute that such increases would
occur as a consequence of the optimization of the design.4
Further, Appellant’s assertion regarding increased size and weight
does not negate the proffered rationale. See Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.,
437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has
simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily
obviate motivation to combine.”). Appellant simply points out an alleged
negative aspect without weighing it against the benefits. See Winner Int’l
Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact
that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however,

4 The Examiner states, “[t]here is no evidence in Veres to suggest that
increasing the number of axial stages and consequently the pressure ratio
would be unfavorable to engine performance.” Ans. 18. See also Veres Fig.
13 comparing efficiency and speed.
Appeal 2021-001449
Application 16/056,101

9
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.”).
Appellant also contends, “there was no reasonable expectation of
success to arrive at the claimed ranges” (Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 5), but
Appellant does not explain why these values would not have been achieved
via optimization. The Examiner responds that “[t]here is no unexpected
result from the claimed ranges because these are the benefits that one of
ordinary skill in the art would also want to achieve.” Ans. 15. Further,
Appellant proffers no evidence of unexpected results, relying instead on “the
common knowledge of subject matter experts” (Appeal Br. 11) which was
addressed above in our discussion of Geisler as lacking evidentiary
evidence.
Appellant further argues that “[n]one of the cited prior art discuss[es]
the interaction of PRax and PRc on the” equations recited, and also, “none of
the cited art discloses, even generally, the interactions of TF and LF.” Reply
Br. 4; see also id. at 5. However, our reviewing court has previously held
that it is not necessary for the prior art to serve the same purpose as that
disclosed in the specification in order to support the conclusion that the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious. See In re Lintner, 458
F.2d 1013, 1016 (CCPA 1972); see also Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google
Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333
(Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the
patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which
they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all
they contain”).
Appeal 2021-001449
Application 16/056,101

10
Furthermore, Appellant does not explain how, if each of the variables
in an equation is a result-effective variable, the equation as a whole would
not also be a result-effective variable. “In cases in which the disclosure in
the prior art was insufficient to find a variable result-effective, there was
essentially no disclosure of the relationship between the variable and the
result in the prior art.” In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297
(Fed. Cir. 2012). Although In re Antonie found a variable was not result-
effective because the prior art did not disclose a recited ratio, there the prior
art did not even recognize that one of the variables in the ratio was relevant
to the desired property. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 619 (CCPA 1977).
Appellant additionally alleges that the Examiner engaged in
impermissible hindsight. See Reply Br. 7. However, it is not made clear by
Appellant that which was only gleaned from Appellant’s disclosure, and not,
instead, as a result of the optimization of result-effective variables. See In re
McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).
For the above reasons, Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive of
Examiner error. Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 6 as being obvious in view of the
teachings of Veres, Olive, and Rice.
Regarding dependent claims 2 and 5, Appellant presents no argument
on their behalf other than stating that they “are patentable for at least the
same reasons as independent claim 1.” Appeal Br. 12. Because we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, we likewise sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2 and 5, which is based upon a combination of Veres,
Olive, Rice, and Ottaviano.
Appeal 2021-001449
Application 16/056,101

11
CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6 103 Veres, Olive, Rice 1, 6
2, 5 103 Veres, Olive, Rice,
Ottaviano
2, 5
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 5, 6
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