Chandler, Jesse M. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 12, 2019

14600235 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2019)

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.
14/600,235 01/20/2015 Jesse M. Chandler 76588US02;
67097-2918US1
3577
54549 7590 12/12/2019
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
GREEN, RICHARD R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/12/2019 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 JESSE M. CHANDLER
and GABRIEL L. SUCIU
Appeal 2019-003606
Application 14/600,235
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMESON LEE, MICHAEL R. ZECHER,
and BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–16. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United
Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003606
Application 14/600,235

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to gas turbine engines. Spec. ¶ 5. As
background, the Specification describes as follows:
Gas turbine engines are known and typically include a fan
delivering air as bypass air into a bypass housing and further
delivering air into a core engine. Air in the core engine is
directed into a compressor where it is compressed. The
compressed air is then delivered into a combustion section where
it is mixed with fuel and ignited. Products of this combustion
pass downstream over turbine rotors, driving them to rotate.
Id. ¶ 2. According to the Specification, efforts to increase the diameter of
the fan in the gas turbine engine were limited by the size of the packaging
envelope available on an aircraft. Id. ¶ 3. Prior proposals to replace a single
large diameter fan with a plurality of fan rotors have been deficient. Id. ¶ 4.
The invention is directed to using a gas turbine engine to drive a fan
drive turbine, which, in turn, drives a driveshaft. Id. ¶ 5. The driveshaft
drives at least three fan rotors. Id. The driveshaft extends such that at least
one of the fan rotors is spaced to be either more forward or more rearward of
the fan drive turbine relative to at least one of the fan rotors positioned
closer to the fan drive turbine. Id. Figure 3 is reproduced below:

Figure 3 shows an embodiment of the claimed invention. Id. ¶ 24. An
aircraft “swept” wing is shown, and engine 100 includes gas generator 101
Appeal 2019-003606
Application 14/600,235

3
driving fan drive turbine 102. Id. ¶ 33. Fan drive turbine rotates common
shaft 105, which drive, down stream, individual fan rotors 106, 108, 110,
and 112. Id. In this embodiment, driveshaft 105 extends away from gas
generator 101 such that at least one of fan rotors, e.g., 112, is spaced more
rearward of fan drive turbine 102 relative to at least one of the fan rotors,
e.g., 106, which is positioned closer to fan drive 102. Id. The Specification
explains that by providing a common shaft that drives multiple fan rotors,
and by using a fan drive turbine that is down stream of the last turbine rotor
in a gas generator, compact packaging is achieved while still providing
adequate drive for all of the fan rotors. Id. ¶ 30.
Claim 1 is the only independent claim and is reproduced below:
1. A gas turbine engine comprising:
a gas generator with at least one compressor rotor, at
least one gas generator turbine rotor and a combustion section;
a fan drive turbine positioned downstream of said at
least one gas generator turbine rotor, said fan drive turbine
driving a single driveshaft and said single driveshaft engaging
gears to drive at least three fan rotors; and
said single driveshaft extending away from the gas
generator such that at least one of said fan rotors that is
positioned remotely from said fan drive turbine on said
driveshaft is spaced to be either more forward or more rearward
of the fan drive turbine relative to at least one of said fan rotors
positioned closer to said fan drive turbine.
App. Br. 5 (Claims Appendix).2

2 All references to the Appeal Brief refer to the Appeal Brief filed on
October 23, 2018.
Appeal 2019-003606
Application 14/600,235

4
REFERENCES
Wagner US Pat. No. 2,296,006 Sept. 15, 1942
Wolf US Pat. No. 3,054,577 Sept. 18, 1962
Rieger DE 29 05 082 A1 Aug. 14, 1980
REJECTION
Claims 1–13 and 16 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Wagner and Wolf. Final Act. 2–5.3
Claim s 14 and 15 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Wagner, Wolf, and Rieger. Id. at 6–8.
OPINION
A. Rejection of Claims 1–13 and 16
as Obvious over Wagner and Wolf
1. Claim 1
Figure 1 of Wagner is reproduced below:

Figure 1 illustrates a plan view of a multi-motored airplane according to
Wagner. Wagner, 1, 2:21–22. Each of motors 1, 1a, 1b, and 1c drives a

3 All references to the Final Action refer to the Final Action entered on May
29, 2018.
Appeal 2019-003606
Application 14/600,235

5
separate propeller 2, 2a, 2b, and 2c, respectively, and also operate common
shaft 3. Id. at 1, 2:39–42. Figure 3 of Wagner is reproduced below:

Figure 3 shows the details of the connection from a motor shaft to the
common shaft. Id. at 1, 2:28–30. Rotation of motor shaft 35 drives shaft 40,
and rotation of shaft 40 and ratchet wheel 41 causes rollers 42 to move
outwardly into frictional engagement with the core of flange 43a so that it is
rotated. Id. at 2, 1:32–38. Common shaft 3 is turned through gearings 45
and 46. Id. at 2, 1:38–39.
According to Wagner, if a motor stalls, through common shaft 3 the
other motors still can drive the propeller normally driven by the stalled
motor. Id. at 2, 1:45–48. This is done by a mechanism to cause rotation of
common shaft 3 to rotate shaft 40 and, in turn, motor shaft 35. Id. at 2,
1:45–65. Wagner describes that rotation may be imparted to any of the
propellers so long as one motor continues to run. Id. at 2, 1:63–65.
For claim 1, the Examiner finds that Wagner describes use of a single
common shaft to drive four propellers. Final Act. 2. We regard each of
Wagner’s propellers as a fan rotor. The Examiner implicitly has done the
same. Appellant does not contend that Wagner’s propeller is not a fan rotor.
Appeal 2019-003606
Application 14/600,235

6
The Examiner further finds that Wagner’s common shaft 3 extends away
from motor 1a such that propeller 2b remotely positioned on the common
shaft is spaced further forward of motor 1a, from the perspective of motor
1a, than is propeller 2 which is closer to motor 2a. Id. at 3.
The Examiner acknowledges, however, that Wagner does not describe
a gas generator with a compressor rotor, combustion section, and gas
generator turbine rotor as is required by claim 1. Id. The Examiner further
acknowledges that Wagner does not describe a fan drive turbine as is also
required by claim 1. Id. According to the Examiner, however, all of these
missing elements are met when Wagner’s aircraft is modified by replacing
each of Wagner’s engines with Wolf’s gas turbine engine. Id. The
Examiner states as follows:
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention to have modified the aircraft
of Wagner by replacing the engines with gas turbine engines as
taught by Wolf because gas turbine engines are known to be
more fuel efficient than piston engines. In such a modification,
it would have been obvious to either replace the motor of Wagner
with conventional turbo fan engines as disclosed by Wolf (Wolf
c. 1, l. 12–19), as known conventional aircraft engines, or with
the entire propulsion assembly shown in either figs. 1-2 of Wolf,
to provide additional thrust. Wolf has shown how gas turbine
engines can drive a plurality of fan rotors through driveshaft
engaging gears, so one with ordinary skill in the art would have
every expectation of success in such a modification.
Id.
Figure 1 of Wolf is reproduced below:
Appeal 2019-003606
Application 14/600,235

7

Figure 1 shows a sectional view of Wolf’s jet power plant A including a
turbine for operating two symmetrically arranged fans. Wolf, 2:43–45.
Power plant A is in the form of a turbojet engine, which comprises
compressor 11, combustion chamber 12, main turbine 13, and auxiliary
turbine 14 independent of main turbine 13. Id. at 3:6–11. The composite jet
produced includes hot exhaust jet discharged through nozzle 10 and two cold
streams produced by fans Ba and Bb. Id. at 3:50–53.
The Examiner finds that Wolf discloses a gas turbine engine including
gas generator A with compressor rotor 11, combustion section 12, gas
generator turbine rotor 13, and fan drive turbine 14 positioned downstream
of gas generator turbine rotor 13 that drives shaft 19, which, in turn, engages
gears 20 to drive two fan rotors 17. Final Act. 3. The Examiner identifies
Wolf’s auxiliary turbine 14 as the fan drive turbine required by claim 1. Id.
The issue in dispute is whether one with ordinary skill in the art would
have had reason to substitute Wagner’s engine or motor with the gas turbine
engine of Wolf, as shown in Figure 1 or Figure 2 of Wolf.4

4 Figure 2 of Wolf shows the same as Figure 1, except that the direction of
fans Ba and Bb are turned 180◦ and thrust reversers in the form of
hemispherical obstructions are employed. Wolf, 2:47–49.
Appeal 2019-003606
Application 14/600,235

8
Appellant argues that, because Wolf discloses using a single turbine
14 to drive a plurality of propellers, it would “suggest eliminating each of
the engines of Wagner, but not separately replacing every one of the
motors.” App. Br. 3. Also, Appellant argues the following:
[W]hile Wolf might well disclose something that could
conceptually drive plural propellers, this is not true of the
combination with Wagner. Again, Wagner desires each
propeller to be provided with its own motor; there is nothing
within Wolf that suggest eliminating that goal and benefit of
Wagner.
Id. (Emphasis added).
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s above-noted arguments
Appellant does not explain why one with ordinary skill in the art would not
have readily recognized that, if Wolf’s gas turbine engine can drive two
propellers, then it can also drive one propeller. Further, Wolf expressly
discloses an embodiment in which power plant A, the gas turbine engine of
Wolf, is used to drive only a single propeller. Wolf, 2:64–67; 4:56–60,
Fig. 8.
Figure 8 of Wolf is reproduced below:

Figure 8 illustrates an embodiment in which power plant A is associated
with a single fan Bc secured to fuselage 23 of aircraft 22. Id., at 4:56–60.
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, replacing each of Wagner’s engines with
Appeal 2019-003606
Application 14/600,235

9
power plant A of Wolf, as the Examiner proposes, does not undermine any
goal or benefit of Wagner based on each propeller having its own associated
motor. Wolf does not require more than one propeller be driven by a single
power plant A.
Appellant further argues that Wolf’s turbine 13 is separate from
Wolf’s turbine 14. App. Br. 3. On that basis, Appellant argues as follows:
The turbine 13 would not be separately driven by a distinct motor
should any one of the hypothetical gas turbine engines of
Wagner, as modified by Wolf, stop. That is, very important goals
and benefits of Wagner would not be achieved by the Examiner’s
proposed combination.
Id. The Examiner responds as follows:
This argument is not persuasive. Appellant does not cite where
Wolf discloses this separation, giving instead a conclusory
statement without any reference to the document. Figures 1 and
2 do appear to have a gap in the driveshaft but without any
discussion of such a break in the disclosure this is merely
speculation based on the drawings.
Ans. 10. In its Reply, Appellant cites ample evidence that turbine 14 does
not rotate with turbine 13. Specifically, Appellant cites to the paragraph
beginning at line 38 of column 3 of Wolf, which includes this statement:
“The auxiliary turbine 14 is rotated by and withdraws energy from the
exhaust jet produced by the main turbine 13.” Wolf, 3:38–40 (cited at Reply
1). Further, as discussed above, Wolf’s Figure 1 illustrates that auxiliary
turbine 14 is independent of Wolf’s main turbine 13. Id. at 3:6–11.
Thus, we agree with Appellant (App. Br. 3) that Wolf’s turbine 13
would not be separately driven by a distinct motor acting on turbine 14
should any one of the hypothetical gas turbine engines of Wagner, as
modified by Wolf, stop. However, that turbine 13 would not be rotated by
Appeal 2019-003606
Application 14/600,235

10
turbine 14 is inconsequential in the Examiner’s proposed combination of
Wagner and Wolf.
Appellant has not sufficiently explained the relevance of its noting
that, in the Examiner’s proposed combination of Wagner and Wolf, turbine
13 would not be driven at any time by turbine 14. In the context of Wagner
as discussed above, the output of each motor drives local shaft 35 and
common shaft 3. Wagner, 2, 1:32–39; Fig. 3. In case a motor stalls, through
common shaft 3, the other motors still can drive the propeller normally
driven by the stalled motor. Id. at 2, 1:45–48. This is done by a clutch
mechanism to cause rotation of common shaft 3 to rotate shaft 40 and, in
turn, rotate motor shaft 35 of the stalled motor. Id. at 2, 1:45–65. The
mechanism does not involve anything upstream of the motor output. Id.;
Fig. 3. Thus, when Wolf’s gas turbine engine replaces Wagner’s piston
engine in the Examiner’s proposed combination of Wagner and Wolf, the
disclosed mechanism of Wagner operates similarly and requires no
particular change within Wolf’s gas turbine engine upstream of auxiliary
turbine 14, which provides the engine output to drive motor shaft 35 and
common shaft 3. Nothing in the Examiner’s proposed combination requires
main turbine 13 to be turned by auxiliary turbine 14 at any time, even when
the gas turbine engine has stalled. In summary, Appellant’s argument
regarding turbine 14 not turning turbine 13 is not sufficiently developed such
that we can understand its relevance, if any, to the obviousness analysis.
Appellant further asserts the following in its Reply: “The Examiner’s
proposal would apparently be to include a shaft extending to the left of the
figures in Wolf, such that the input drive can come into the engine.
However, this would not then drive the turbine 14 (and hence the propeller)
Appeal 2019-003606
Application 14/600,235

11
associated with Wolf.” Reply 1. We disagree. Appellant does not identify
specifically what the Examiner stated which can be read as the Examiner
reasonably taking that position, and we can find none. On this record, the
Examiner has not proposed to make any change to motor shaft 35 of
Wagner, common shaft 3 of Wagner, or how motor shaft 35 is connected to
common shaft 3. The Examiner has proposed merely to substitute, within
Wagner’s aircraft, Wolf’s gas turbine engine for Wagner’s piston engine.
Final Act. 3. In that regard, Wolf already describes how to connect Wolf’s
auxiliary turbine 14 to a shaft (Wolf, 3:18–36) and Appellant does not argue
that one with ordinary skill in the art would not have known how to achieve
this connection.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wagner and
Wolf.5

5 We are not persuaded by the Examiner’s alternative position that claim 1
would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill based on substituting a
conventional turbo fan engine for Wagner’s piston engine (Final Act. 3).
Although Wolf refers to and explains the general structure of a conventional
turbo fan jet engine (Wolf, 1:12–19), it is not clear to us whether such a
structure includes auxiliary turbine 14, which is what the Examiner identifies
as the claimed fan drive turbine. Indeed, the following description from
Wolf indicates that the conventional turbo fan engine does not include
auxiliary turbine 14: “The exact construction of the power plant A, with the
exception of the provision of a second turbine 14, forms no part of the
present invention.” Wolf, 3:11–13.
Appeal 2019-003606
Application 14/600,235

12
2. Claims 2–13 and 16
Each of claims 2–13 and 16 depends, directly or indirectly from
claim 1. Because Appellant has not separately argued the merits of claims
2–13 and 16 from that claim 1, these claims stand or fall with independent
claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 2–13 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wagner and
Wolf.
B. The Rejection of Claims 14 and 15 as
Obvious over Wagner, Wolf, and Rieger
Claims 14 and 15 each depend from claim 13, which depends from
claim 8, which depends from claim 7, which depends from claim 1. Because
Appellant has not separately argued claims 14 and 15 from claim 1, claims
14 and 15 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wagner, Wolf,
and Rieger.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–13 16 103 Wagner and Wolf 1–13, 16
14, 15 103 Wagner, Wolf, and
Rieger
14, 15
Overall
Outcome
1–16

Appeal 2019-003606
Application 14/600,235

13
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