Ex Parte Sabnis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 26, 2016

13871221 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/871,221 04/26/2013 Jayant Sabnis
54549 7590 10/28/2016
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
90546US04;
67097-2476PUS3
3767
EXAMINER
KIM, CRAIG SANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2016 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 JAY ANT SABNIS
Appeal2015-000869
Application 13/871,221
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1-30 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Smith (US 2009/0097967 Al, pub. Apr. 16, 2009). 1'2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 The heading of the rejection in the Final Office Action lists only claims
1-24. Final Action 4. However, the statement of the rejection also
addresses claims 25-30. Id. at 9-14. Accordingly, we understand that the
rejection covers claims 1-30.
2 A non-statutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-29 is included
in the Final Office Action. Final Action 2-3. As indicated in the Terminal
Disclaimer Review Decision dated March 12, 2014, the Terminal Disclaimer
filed February 14, 2014 has been approved.
Appeal2015-000869
Application 13/871,221
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to turbofan engines. Spec. i-f 2. Claim 1,
reproduced below with the language at issue highlighted, is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A turbofan engine comprising:
a gas generator section for generating a gas stream flow with
higher energy per unit mass flow than that contained in ambient
air;
a power turbine converting the gas stream flow into shaft
power, the power turbine rotating at a first rotational speed;
a speed reduction device driven by the power turbine; and
a propulsor section including a fan driven by the power
turbine through the speed reduction device at a second speed
lower than the first speed for generating propulsive thrust as a
mass flow rate of air through a bypass flow path,
wherein the fan includes a tip diameter greater than about
fifty (50) inches and an Engine Unit Thrust Parameter
("EUTP '') defined as net engine thrust divided by a product of
the mass flow rate of air through the bypass flow path, a tip
diameter of the fan and the first rotational speed of the power
turbine is less than about 0.30 at a take-off condition.
OPINION
Unpatentability of Claims 1-30 over Smith
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Smith discloses all of the elements of claim 1
except for an Engine Unit Thrust Parameter ("EUTP") that is less than about
0.30 at a take-off condition. Final Action 4--5. In particular, the Examiner
finds that Smith teaches the same structure as that of the instant application,
and further teaches that thrust is a function of density, velocity, and area and
that one or more of those parameters can be manipulated to vary the amount
and direction of the thrust provided. Id. at 5. The Examiner concludes that a
2
Appeal2015-000869
Application 13/871,221
person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to vary any of the
parameters of the EUTP, such as the thrust of the engine, the mass flow rate
of the air through the bypass flow path, a tip diameter of the fan, and the
rotational speed of the power turbine, to achieve the claimed invention. Id.
The Examiner relies on the principles enunciated in In re Aller, 220 F .2d
454, 456 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP § 2144.05 II.A., for the proposition that it
would have only taken ordinary skill to adjust the values of engine operation
to achieve the claimed engine thrust parameter value.
Appellant traverses the Examiner's rejection by arguing that Smith
fails to recognize EUTP as a result effective variable. Appeal Br. 5. In
particular, Appellant relies on In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA
1977) as placing an initial burden on the Examiner to show that a parameter
to be optimized is a result-effective variable. Id. at 6.
In response, the Examiner states that all of the claimed parameters
were known at the time of the invention. Ans. 2. The Examiner relies on
principles of inherency to establish the relationship between EUTP and the
various engine parameters used to calculated ETUP. Id. 3 Therefore,
according to the Examiner, if the desired EUTP value is the optimum
number, the optimization of the parameters would have led to an optimized
EUTP. Id.
Discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable is
generally considered to be within the ambit of ordinary skill. See In re
3 EUTP is defined as net engine thrust divided by a product of the mass
flow rate of air through the bypass flow path, a tip diameter of the fan and
the first rotational speed of the power turbine. Claims App. Claim 1; see
also Spec. i-fi-1 4, 59---62.
3
Appeal2015-000869
Application 13/871,221
Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980). Thus, "where the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to
discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re
Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (1955). The mere fact that multiple result-effective
variables are combined does not necessarily render their combination
beyond the capability of a person having ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012). However,
this rule is limited to cases in which the optimized variable is previously
recognized as a result-effective variable. See Antonie, 559 F.2d at 620.
Appellant's Specification explains that the overall efficiency of a
turbofan engine is a combination of how well the gas generator section ( 62),
the power turbine section (7 6), and the propulsor section ( 64) convert input
energy into the desired output. Spec. i-f 58, Fig. 2. The Specification further
explains that the thrust generation efficiency of the engine is related to a
ratio of the net thrust of the engine divided by the product of: (1) mass flow
rate of air through the fan by-pass section, (2) the fan tip diameter; and (3)
the rotational speed of the power turbine section. Id. i-f 59. The
Specification defines this relationship as Engine Unit Thrust Parameter
("EUTP") using the following formula:
EUTP =
Id. i-f 61.
Net Thrust of the Engine
[ (mass flow rate of air through fan bypass)
(Fan Tip Diameter) (speed of the power turbine)]
Smith is directed to a gas turbine engine with a variable geometry fan
exit guide vane system. Smith, Abstract. The passage of Smith relied on by
the Examiner as disclosing parameters that can be optimized to achieve the
claimed EUTP value states:
4
Appeal2015-000869
Application 13/871,221
Thrust is a function of density, velocity, and area. One or more
of these parameters can be manipulated to vary the amount and
direction of thrust provided by the bypass flow B. A significant
amount of thrust is provided by the bypass flow B due to the
high bypass ratio. The fan section 20 of the engine 10 is
nominally designed for a particular flight condition-typically
cruise at 0.8M and 35,000 feet.
Smith i-f 25; see also Final Action 5. The recited passage of Smith relates to
varying the parameters of density, velocity, and area to affect the thrust or
output of an engine.
Appellant's performance parameter, EUTP, relates to the efficiency,
not just the output, of an engine. "Net Thrust of the Engine" is merely the
numerator of the EUTP ratio; that is, only one quantity of the equation. The
EUTP ratio is concerned with the Net Thrust of the Engine in relation to the
product of three other quantities, namely: ( 1) mass flow rate of air through
the fan by-pass section; (2) the fan tip diameter; and (3) the rotational speed
of the power turbine section is in claim 1. Spec. i-fi-1 58---62.
Generally, a recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by
the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective. Applied
Materials, 692 F.3d at 1297. However, the dispute between the Examiner
and the Appellant, in the instant case, is not so much on whether certain
variables are "result-effective" as it is about which "result" is being affected
by the variables. The Examiner focuses on engine thrust as a result that is
affected by variables, such as density. Final Action 5. However, EUTP is a
parameter that relates to engine efficiency, not engine output. The Examiner
fails to supply evidence that establishes a relationship between engine
efficiency (EUTP) and the combination of the four variables recited in
5
Appeal2015-000869
Application 13/871,221
claim 1, in the specific claimed ratio relationship, that make up Appellant's
EUTP equation.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's
unpatentability rejection of claim 1.
Claims 11 and 20
Claims 11 and 20 are independent claims. Claims App. As with
claim 1, each of claims 11 and 20 contain a limitation directed to a value for
an Engine Unit Thrust Parameter defined as in claim 1. Id. The Examiner's
rejection of these claims suffers from the same infirmity that was identified
above with respect to claim 1. Thus, for essentially the same reason
expressed above in connection with claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 11 and 20.
Claims 2-10, 12-19, and 21-30
Claims 2-10, 12-19, and 21-30 depend, respectively, from ether
claim 1, 11, or 20. Claims App. As such, the Examiner's rejection of these
claims suffers from the same infirmity that was identified above with respect
to claims 1, 11, and 20. Thus, for essentially the same reason expressed
above in connection with claims 1, 11, and 20, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 2-10, 12-19, and 21-30.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-30 is reversed.
REVERSED
6