Ex Parte Wehmeier

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 6, 2016

13367742 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/367,742 02/07/2012 Eric J. Wehmeier
54549 7590 07/08/2016
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.
61431US02;
67097-1759PUS1
CONFIRMATION NO.
1021
EXAMINER
SUNG, GERALD LUTHER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/08/2016 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
Exparte ERIC J. WEHMEIER
Appeal 2014-005175 1,2
Application 13/367,742
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references Appellant's Specification ("Spec.," filed Feb. 7,
2012) and Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed Sept. 4, 2013), as well as the
Examiner's Answer ("Answer," Oct. 9, 2013).
2 Appellant identifies "United Technology Corporation" under the Appeal
Brief section titled Real Party in Interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-005175
Application 13/367,742
According to Appellant, the invention "relates to a gas turbine engine
having an inlet guide vane[,] which has its position controlled to increase
windmilling speed of engine components." Spec. i-f 2. Independent
claims 1, 14, and 20 are the only independent claims under appeal. We
reproduce independent claim 1, below, as representative of the appealed
claims.
1. A gas turbine engine comprising:
a compressor section;
a low spool;
afan;
said fan delivering air into said compressor section, and
said compressor section compressing air and delivering it into a
combustion section;
the combustion section mixing air with fuel, igniting the
fuel, and driving the products of the combustion across turbine
rotors;
said compressor section including a variable inlet guide
vane which is movable between distinct angles to control the
airflow approaching said compressor section;
a control for said gas turbine engine, programmed to
position said vane at startup of the engine to direct airflow across
said compressor section; and
said fan also delivering bypass air into a bypass duct
positioned outwardly of a core engine including said compressor
section, said combustor, and said turbine rotors, and wherein the
position of said vane is configured to direct airflow across the
compressor section while an aircraft associated with the gas
turbine engine is in the air, and to increase a windmilling speed
of the compressor section and said turbine rotors ..
Br., Claims App.
2
Appeal2014-005175
Application 13/367,742
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1-11 and 14--23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph (pre-AIA) as being indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that Appellant regards as the
invention.
The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 20-23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rundell (US 4,069,661, iss.
Jan. 24, 1978) and Micheli (US 2007/0253805 Al, pub. Nov. 1, 2007).
The Examiner rejects claims 4, 9, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rundell, Micheli, and Kohlenberg (US 2009/0053058 Al,
pub. Feb. 26, 2009).
The Examiner rejects claims 6, 7, 16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Rundell, Micheli, and Wiegman
(US 2007 /0240426 Al, pub. Oct. 18, 2007).
The Examiner rejects claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rundell, Micheli, and Moniz (US 7 ,997 ,085 B2, iss.
Aug. 16, 2011 ). See Answer 2-9.
ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness rejection
The Examiner determines, "[r]egarding independent claims 1, 14, and
20, the limitation [in each independent claim] 'to increase a windmilling
speed of the compressor section and said turbine rotors' renders the claims
indefinite because it is unclear exactly what the increase is relative to."
Answer 2. Based on our review of the record, we agree with Appellant that
3
Appeal2014-005175
Application 13/367,742
the claim limitation identified by the Examiner is not indefinite because it is
"clear that the increase in the speed of the compressor section and turbine
rotors is with respect to their respective speeds prior to the positioning for
the windmilling condition." Br. 3. Thus, we do not sustain the
indefiniteness rejection of claims 1-11 and 14--23.
Obviousness rejections
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 20-23
With respect to the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10, 14,
15, 17, and 20-23 based on Rundell and Micheli, Appellant argues the
rejection is in error because
Micheli ... is a ground-based power generating turbine, not an
aircraft engine. Nothing within Micheli would suggest a
modification to Rundell ... that would position a vane to "direct
airflow across the compressor section while an aircraft associated
with the gas turbine engine is in the air, and to increase a
windmilling speed of the compressor section and said turbine
rotors."
Br. 3--4. We are not persuaded by this argument, however. We find that a
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's finding that Rundell
discloses most on the limitations of the independent claims, including a gas
turbine engine with a variable inlet guide vane. See Answer 3--4. We also
find that a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's finding
that Micheli teaches opening a gas turbine engine's guide vanes under
certain operating conditions including a start-up condition, and Appellant
does not argue that the Examiner's finding that "open vanes ... increase[ e]
the flow across the compressor during start up" is incorrect. See id. at 4.
Further, we determine that the Examiner's reasoning that it would
have been obvious to modify operation of Rundell' s engine based on the
4
Appeal2014-005175
Application 13/367,742
operation of iviicheli' s engine "because windmilling is a starting condition,
the vane control of Micheli would open to maximize the airflow, in order to
facilitate re-ignition" appears to have the required rational underpinning, and
the proposed combination appears to be the operation of a known engine by
a known method, providing an expected result. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 418 (2007). Thus, we are not persuaded of error
even though "Rundell does not recognize or discuss that positioning a guide
vane at a startup, much less a start in the air, has beneficial characteristics,"
or that "Micheli discloses a ground-based turbine ... [so] Micheli is not
concerned with conditions that occur while an aircraft carrying a gas turbine
engine is in the air," or that "the claims now require a bypass airflow, which
is further not included in Micheli's ground-based turbine." Br. 5. Based on
foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 14, 15, 17, and 20-23.
Appellant argues the rejection of claims 8 and 10 separately.
Specifically, Appellant argues "the Micheli startup method would not relate
to a bypass duct, and would surely not relate to the limitations required by
claims 8 and 10, that a variable area nozzle of a bypass duct is also
controlled at startup. Micheli, being ground based, would have no bypass
duct." Br. 6. Inasmuch as we sustain the above rejection, concluding that
the Examiner's proposed modification of Rundell' s gas turbine engine to
operate in accordance with Micheli' s method is reasonable, we sustain the
rejection of claims 8 and 10.
Claims 4, 9, and 11
With respect to dependent claims 4, 9, and 11, inasmuch as we sustain
the rejection of independent claim 1, from which the dependent claims
depend, we sustain the rejection of claims 4, 9, and 11.
5
Appeal2014-005175
Application 13/367,742
Claims 6, 7, 16, 18, and 19
With respect to dependent claims 6, 7, 16, 18, and 19, Appellant
argues "[t]he fact that Wiegman ... may control other features based on
altitude and air speed does nothing to overcome the failure of Micheli to
position a vane dependent on altitude or air speed in any manner. As
mentioned above, Micheli being ground-based, would have no air speed, and
would have a constant altitude." Br. 6-7. Inasmuch as we conclude that the
Examiner's proposed modification of Rundell's gas turbine engine to
operate in accordance with Micheli' s method is reasonable, we sustain the
rejection of claims 6, 7, 16, 18, and 19.
Claim 13
With respect to dependent claim 13, inasmuch as we sustain the
rejection of independent claim 1, from which the dependent claim depends,
we sustain the rejection of claim 13.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's indefiniteness rejection of claims 1-11
and 14--23.
We AFFIRM the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-11
and 13-23.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6