Ex Parte Sawyers-Abbott et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 11, 2019

14765037 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/765,037 07/31/2015 Nigel David Sawyers-Abbott
54549 7590 03/13/2019
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.
61429US02;67097-2033PUS1 4527
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, ANDREW H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2019 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 NIGEL DAVID SA WYERS-ABBOTT and
CONSTANTINO V. LOFFREDO
Appeal2018-006637
Application 14/765,037 1
Technology Center 3700
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellants, their invention is directed to a gas turbine
engine with an actuator-operated variable area fan nozzle. See, e.g.,
1 Appellants identify United Technologies Corporation as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-006637
Application 14/765,037
Specification, Abstract. Claims 1 and 13 are the independent claims on
appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed claims.
1. A nacelle assembly for a gas turbine engine
compnsmg:
a core nacelle defined about an engine centerline axis;
a fan nacelle assembly mounted at least partially around
the core nacelle to define a fan bypass flow path, the fan nacelle
assembly including a fan duct nacelle section and a fan nozzle
nacelle section moveable relative to the fan duct nacelle section;
a thrust reverser system including a plurality of pivot doors
movable relative to the fan nacelle assembly between a stowed
position and a deployed position;
a variable area fan nozzle in communication with the fan
bypass flow path;
a first actuator mounted to the fan duct nacelle section to
actuate the thrust reverser system, wherein the first actuator
includes a first housing mounted to the fan duct nacelle section
forward of the pivot doors and a first rod that extends outwardly
of the first housing to a distal end that is pivotally coupled to at
least one pivot door of the plurality of pivot doors; and
a second actuator mounted to the fan duct nacelle section
to move the fan nozzle nacelle section relative to the fan duct
nacelle section to vary a fan nozzle exit area, and wherein the
second actuator includes a second housing mounted to the fan
duct nacelle section and a second rod that extends outwardly of
the second housing to a distal end that is coupled to the fan nozzle
nacelle section, and wherein the second housing is positioned aft
of the pivot doors and aft of the first actuator.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 1-11, 13-20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lair et al. (US 6,895,742 B2, iss. May 24,
2
Appeal2018-006637
Application 14/765,037
2005) (hereinafter "Lair"), Bhatt (US 2013/0067884 Al, pub.
Mar. 21, 2013), and Wang (US 8,505,307 B2, iss. Aug. 13,
2013); and
II. Claims 12 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lair, Bhatt, Wang, and Cariola et al. (US 5,806,302, iss.
Sept. 15, 1998) (hereinafter "Cariola").
ANALYSIS
Reiection I
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites both a thrust reverser
system operated by a first actuator, and a variable area fan nozzle operated
by a second actuator. Appeal Br., Claims App. The second actuator is
mounted to move a fan-nozzle nacelle section relative to a fan-duct nacelle
section, to vary a fan nozzle exit area. Id. In claim 1 's rejection, the
Examiner relies on Lair to disclose certain claim recitations, but not the
variable area fan nozzle operated by a second actuator. See, e.g., Final
Action 3. Instead, the Examiner relies on Bhatt or Wang to disclose the
claimed variable fan nozzle. See, e.g., id. at 3--4. Appellants argue that the
Examiner errs because there is no rational reason to modify Lair to include a
variable area fan nozzle operated by a second actuator, that Lair teaches
away from such a modification, and that so-modifying Lair would
impermissibly change Lair's principle of operation and make Lair unsuitable
for its intended use. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 4--6.
In particular, Lair states that "specifically, a first object of the thrust
reverser is to provide thrust reverse in a turbofan engine that does not
require aft translation of any portion of the bypass duct." Lair col. 2, 11. 8-
3
Appeal2018-006637
Application 14/765,037
10 (italics and underlining added); see Appeal Br. 4. Appellants argue, and
we agree, that modifying Lair to include a variable area fan nozzle operated
by a second actuator would result in translation of a portion of the bypass
duct. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 3--4.
The Examiner finds, however, that this portion of Lair is best
understood as stating an object of the invention is to provide a "thrust
reverser ... that does not require aft translation of any portion of the bypass
duct," rather than to provide other structures, such as a variable area fan
nozzle, which do not include aft-translating portions. Answer 3 (internal
quotation marks omitted) (italics added). According to the Examiner, this
understanding is correct because "[t]he 'entire purpose' of Lair is to provide
a thrust reverser which avoids the disadvantages of the previous thrust
reversers." Id. at 4. Based on our review of the record, however, the
Examiner does not support adequately the above interpretation.
In particular, Lair expressly states that it is the "turbofan engine that
does not require aft translation of any portion of the bypass duct." Lair,
col. 2, 11. 8-10 (italics added). Further, we are unable to read this sentence
to understand that it is an object of the invention to provide a thrust reverser
that does not require aft-translation of any portion, other than by adding a
phrase directly referring to the thrust reverser----e.g., "specifically, a first
object of the thrust reverser is to provide thrust reverse in a turbofan engine
with a thrust reverser that does not require aft translation of any portion of
the bypass duct." Conversely, when we interpret the phrase "that does not
require aft translation of any portion of the bypass duct" as referring to other
structures, the sentence as a whole is not grammatically correct----e.g.,
"specifically, a first object of the thrust reverser ... that does not require aft
4
Appeal2018-006637
Application 14/765,037
translation of any portion of the bypass duct," or "specifically, a first object
of the thrust reverser is to provide thrust reverse ... that does not require aft
translation of any portion of the bypass duct." Notwithstanding the
foregoing, Lair later states that "[a] particular advantage of ... fan
reverser 36 is that .. . fan nozzle 48 itself may remain fixed at the aft end of
the fan nacelle surrounding the core engine." Lair col. 4, 11. 16-18 (bold
omitted, italics added). In this case, based on our reading of Lair as a whole,
we interpret the explanation that the fan nozzle is fixed to mean that the fan
nozzle does not move (which includes aft translation).
Thus, based on the above, the Examiner does not provide rational
underpinnings and reasoning for modifying Lair to include a variable area
fan nozzle operated by a second actuator, and Lair teaches away from such a
modification. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1. We also do not sustain independent claim 13 's
rejection, which the Examiner rejects based on a similar rationale. Further,
we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-11, 14--20, and 22 that depend
from, and the Examiner rejects with, claims 1 and 13.
Reiection II
The Examiner does not rely on Cariola to remedy the above
deficiency in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 13. Therefore, we do
not sustain the rejection of claims 12 and 21 that depend from the
independent claims.
5
Appeal2018-006637
Application 14/765,037
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-22.
REVERSED
6