Chapski, David L.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 22, 2020

14685971 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 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.
14/685,971 04/14/2015 David L. Chapski 67036-812 PUS1; 36137 6182
26096 7590 01/22/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
CHAU, ALAIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/22/2020 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):
cgolaw@yahoo.com
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID L. CHAPSKI
Appeal 2019-004599
Application 14/685,971
Technology Center 3700
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, 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 1–9. 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 “Hamilton
Sundstrand Corporation.” Appellant further explains that “Hamilton
Sundstrand Corporation has been merged into a corporation known as UTC
Aerospace Systems (UTAS), which is ultimately owned by United
Technologies Corporation.” Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-004599
Application 14/685,971

2
According to Appellant, the invention “relates to a system for
controlling turbomachine fuel flow.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1 is the sole
independent claim on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as
representative of the appealed claims:
1. A fuel control system, comprising:
a fuel delivery valve selectively moveable to a closed
position to shut off a flow of fuel to a downstream location;
a windmill bypass valve; and
a shutoff pressure line between the windmill bypass
valve and the fuel delivery valve, the windmill bypass valve
selectively operable to direct fuel to the shutoff pressure line to
assist the movement of the fuel delivery valve to the closed
position.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 1–3 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by
Hansen (US 4,602,479, iss. July 29, 1986) (“Hansen’479”);
II. Claims 4–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hansen’479 and Eick et al. (US 7,252,068 B2, iss. Aug. 7,
2007) (“Eick”); and
III. Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hansen’479 and Hansen (US 4,493,187, iss. Jan. 15, 1985)
(“Hansen’187”).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I—Anticipation rejection of independent claim 1 and
dependent claims 2, 3, and 9
As set forth above, independent claim 1, the sole independent claim
before us on appeal, recites, in relevant part, “a shutoff pressure line between
Appeal 2019-004599
Application 14/685,971

3
the windmill bypass valve and the fuel delivery valve, the windmill bypass
valve selectively operable to direct fuel to the shutoff pressure line to assist
the movement of the fuel delivery valve to the closed position.” Appeal Br.,
Claims App. In order to find that Hansen’479 discloses a windmill bypass
valve located and operable as claim 1 recites, the Examiner relies on
Hansen’479’s sequence valve 175, rather than Hansen’479’s windmill
bypass valve 160, to disclose the claimed windmill bypass valve. See, e.g.,
Answer 3–4. Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in doing so, because
Hansen’479’s sequence valve 175 is not a windmill bypass valve, as that
term is understood by one of ordinary skill and as defined in its
Specification. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 5. Based on our review of the record,
for the reasons we explain below, the Examiner does not support adequately
that Hansen’479’s sequence valve 175 discloses the claimed windmill
bypass valve.
As Appellant explains,
[a] windmill bypass valve is a known type of valve in the
art. As explained in the [S]pecification, windmill bypass valves
are those valves that vary a flow of fuel, which “is directed to
one or more actuators via a pressure line . . . to maintain
sufficient pressure (sometimes called ‘muscle’ pressure) to
position those actuators during windmilling and engine start.”
See [Spec. ¶ 17].
Appeal Br. 5. This description accurately represents the explanation of a
windmill bypass valve as set forth in paragraph 17 of Appellant’s
Specification and is precisely worded enough to constitute a definition.
Further, both Appellant’s explanation in the Appeal Brief and paragraph 17
of the Specification are consistent with the description of a windmill bypass
valve as set forth in the “Background” section of Appellant’s Specification.
Appeal 2019-004599
Application 14/685,971

4
See Spec. ¶ 1. In particular, the Background of the Specification explains
generally that “the windmill bypass valve may maintain sufficient pressure
(sometimes called ‘muscle’ pressure) to position fuel control system
components as well as various engine actuators during windmilling and
start.” Based on the foregoing, Appellant provides evidence sufficiently
consistent to establish that the claimed windmill bypass valve is defined as a
valve that maintains sufficient pressure in a line to position engine actuators
during windmilling and start.
Conversely, the Examiner does not find that Hansen’479’s sequence
valve 175 is located or operated to maintain sufficient pressure to position
engine actuators during windmilling and start. See, e.g., generally Answer.
Instead, the Examiner determines that the claimed windmill bypass valve
need only disclose what claim 1 expressly recites—i.e., it need only be a
valve that is connected to the fuel delivery valve by a shutoff pressure line,
which is operable to direct fuel to the shutoff pressure line to assist the
movement of the fuel delivery valve to the closed position. See, e.g.,
Answer 12–13.
As set forth above, we determine that the claimed windmill bypass
valve is a valve that maintains sufficient pressure in a line to position engine
actuators during windmilling and start, however. Thus, because the
Examiner makes no such finding with respect to Hansen’479’s sequence
valve 175, the Examiner does not support adequately that Hansen’479’s
sequence valve 175 discloses the windmill bypass valve as claimed.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claim 1. Further, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
Appeal 2019-004599
Application 14/685,971

5
rejection of claims 2, 3, and 9 that depend on, and the Examiner rejects with,
claim 1.
Rejections II and III—Obviousness rejections of dependent claims 4–8
Claims 4–8 depend on independent claim 1. The Examiner does not
rely on either additional reference to Hansen’187 or Eick to remedy the
above deficiency in claim 1’s anticipation rejection based on Hasen’479.
Therefore, we do not sustain either of the Examiner’s obviousness rejections
of claims 4–8.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness
rejections of claims 1–9.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 9 102(a)(2) Hansen’479 1–3, 9
4–7 103 Hansen’479, Eick 4–7
8 103 Hansen’479, Hansen’187 8
Overall
Outcome:
1–9
REVERSED