Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 27, 2020

15167886 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2020)

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.
15/167,886 05/27/2016 Joshua Robert O'Neil 0021-00114 9825
130674 7590 03/27/2020
Lightfoot & Alford PLLC (BHTI)
4100 Eldorado Parkway
Suite 100-271
McKinney, TX 75070
EXAMINER
GORDON, MATHEW FRANKLIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2020 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):
lightfootalfordpllc@gmail.com
patentdocket@lightfootalford.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOSHUA ROBERT O’NEIL, MARTIN PERYEA, and
ANDREW JORDAN BIRKENHEUER

Appeal 2019-005423
Application 15/167,886
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8 and 10–20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

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 Bell
Helicopter Textron Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005423
Application 15/167,886

2
BACKGROUND
The Specification discloses embodiments of aircraft with propulsion
systems and associated inlet barrier filters (IBFs). See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 17, 18.
The disclosed aircraft include integrated avionics control systems that “can
be used to conduct preflight system checks, such as, . . . a two-stage power
assurance check . . . configured to minimize mission cancellations
attributable to safety checks based on assumed blocked or clogged IBFs.”
Id. at ¶¶ 19, 20.
CLAIMS
Claims 1, 8, and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 8 is
illustrative of the appeal claims and recites:
8. A method of conducting an engine power assurance check,
comprising:
selecting, via a touchscreen interface, one of a first engine
power assurance check according to a first set of criteria related
to an inlet barrier filter and a second engine power assurance
check according to a second set of criteria related to the inlet
barrier filter; and
conducting the selected one of the first engine power
assurance check and the second engine power assurance check,
wherein the conducting the selected one of the first engine power
assurance check and the second engine power assurance check
comprises operating an engine, wherein the second set of criteria
is different relative to the first set of criteria, and wherein the
second engine power assurance check is conducted in response
to a fail result of the first engine power assurance check, wherein
the first set of criteria are based on engine performance charts
calculated based on an assumption that the inlet barrier filter is
installed, and wherein the second set of criteria are based on
engine performance charts calculated based on an assumption
that the inlet barrier filter is not installed or is bypassed.
Appeal Br. 9–10.
Appeal 2019-005423
Application 15/167,886

3
.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5–8, and 12–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over McCollough2 in view of Diem3 and Goetsch.4
2. The Examiner rejects claims 4, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over McCollough in view of Diem, Goetsch, and
Braeutigam.5
DISCUSSION
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has not
established that the art of record discloses or makes obvious first and second
engine power assurance tests with different criteria as required by each of
independent claims 1, 8, and 16.
Claims 1 and 8 both recite “[a] method of conducting an engine power
assurance check” including steps for performing or conducting first and
second power assurance check; wherein the first and second power checks
are based on different criteria including an assumption that an inlet barrier
filter is present or an assumption that an inlet barrier filter is not present or is
bypassed, respectively. Appeal Br. 8–10. Claim 16 recites an aircraft
including an inlet barrier filter and an integrated avionics control system
configured to selectively conduct first and second engine power assurance
checks with the same criteria recited in claim 8. Id. at 11–12.

2 McCollough et al., US 2013/0120165 A1, pub. May 16, 2013.
3 Diem, US 2005/0096806 A1, pub. May 5, 2005.
4 Goetsch et al., US 4,094,191, iss. June 13, 1978.
5 Braeutigam, US 2014/0158833 A1, pub. June 12, 2014.
Appeal 2019-005423
Application 15/167,886

4
With respect to claim 8, for example, the Examiner finds that
McCollough discloses conducting a selected first or second engine power
assurance check. Final Act. 6 (citing McCollough ¶¶ 34–36). The Examiner
relies on Diem’s teaching of using a touchscreen interface to select a first or
second engine power assurance check. Id. at 7 (citing Diem ¶¶ 19, 32–36).
The Examiner further finds and determines:
Goetsch discloses an electronic diagnosis of internal
combustion engines where the second set of criteria is different
relative to the first set of criteria (see Col.10, Lines 30-51 where
the low idle pressure and the high idle pressure correspond to the
different criteria); and
the first set of criteria are based on engine performance
charts calculated based on an assumption that the inlet barrier
filter is installed and wherein the second set of criteria are based
on engine performance charts calculated based on an assumption
that the inlet barrier filter is not installed or is bypassed (see Fig.
5 and Col. 10 lines 30-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of
Goetsch with the system disclosed by McCollough in view of
Diem in order to measure fuel pressure at low idle speed and at
high idle speed of an engine to determine bypass valve and filter
condition (Goetsch, Abstract).
Final Act. 7. The Examiner further explains that Goetsch is relied upon to
teach first and second checks with different criteria and that in Goestch
“[t]he low idle pressure corresponds to the first set of criteria and the high
idle pressure corresponds to the second set of criteria which is different than
the first.” Ans. 3. The Examiner also acknowledges that “Goetsch is not
explicit on using these tests to determine the status of an inlet barrier filter.”
Id. at 4. But, the Examiner maintains that Goetsch teaches two different
tests with different criteria and based on this, one of ordinary skill would
Appeal 2019-005423
Application 15/167,886

5
have been motivated to combine this teaching with McCollough and Diem
“in order to test the status of an inlet barrier filter using two different tests
with two different sets of criteria to verify the engine is able to meet
minimum operational requirements.” Id.
As noted above, claim 8 requires selecting a first or second check with
different sets of criteria. Claim 8 further recites how those criteria are
different, i.e., the first set of criteria is based on an assumption that an inlet
barrier filter is installed and the second set of criteria is based on an
assumption that it is not installed or is bypassed. Appeal Br. 10. The
Examiner provides no findings regarding these specific criteria. At best, the
Examiner has shown that it would have been obvious to conduct two checks
with different criteria, but that is not sufficient to explain why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have had further reason to conduct checks
under the specific requirements of the claim, i.e., assuming whether an inlet
barrier filter is or is not installed or is bypassed. Thus, the Examiner fails to
establish that the art of record teaches or otherwise renders obvious each
element of the independent claims.
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 8,
and 16. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9, 12–15
and 17–20, for which the Examiner relies on the same references and
analysis. Regarding the rejection of claims 4, 10, and 11 over McCollough,
Diem, Goetsch, and Braeutigam, the Examiner does not establish that the art
of record cures the deficiency in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 8,
from which these claims depend. Thus, we also do not sustain the separate
rejection of claims 4, 10, and 11.

Appeal 2019-005423
Application 15/167,886

6
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1–8 and 10–20.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–18,
12–20
103 McCollough,
Diem, Goetsch
1–3, 5–
18, 12–
20
4, 10, 11 103 McCollough,
Diem, Goetsch,
Braeutigam
4, 10, 11
Overall
Outcome
1–8, 10–
20

REVERSED