Ex Parte WehmeierDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 6, 201613367742 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 6, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation