UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 21, 2020

2020000921 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 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.
15/101,178 06/02/2016 John W. Magowan 74309US02 (U420099US2) 7709
135291 7590 12/21/2020
Cantor Colburn LLP - Pratt & Whitney
20 Church Street
22 Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
CHENG, STEPHANIE S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2020 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN W. MAGOWAN

Appeal 2020-000921
Application 15/101,178
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before PHILIP J. HOFMMANN, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–11 and 13–20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

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 United
Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000921
Application 15/101,178

2
BACKGROUND
The Specification “relates to gas turbine engines, and more
particularly to gas turbine engines with intercoolers and recuperators.”
Spec. 1.
CLAIMS
Claims 1, 13, and 20 are the independent claims are on appeal.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A gas turbine engine, comprising:
a first stage compressor;
an intercooler in fluid communication with the first stage
compressor and configured to cool working fluid as it exits the
first stage compressor;
a second stage compressor in fluid communication with the
intercooler;
a combustor in fluid communication with the second stage
compressor; and
a recuperator in fluid communication with the combustor,
wherein the recuperator heats the working fluid after it exits the
second stage compressor and prior to it entering the combustor
using engine exhaust, wherein the intercooler and recuperator are
arranged radially outboard of the combustor, wherein the second
stage compressor is a reverse flow high-pressure compressor that
conveys working fluid axially forward and radially outward with
respect to a rotation axis of the engine.
Appeal Br. 20.
Appeal 2020-000921
Application 15/101,178

3
REJECTIONS2
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 6, 8–11, and 13–19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Du Pont3 in view of Constant,4 Yunus,5
and Norris.6
2. The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Du Pont in view of Constant, Yunus, Norris, and Dasgupta.7
3. The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Du Pont in view of Constant, Yunus, Norris, and Eleftheriou.8
4. The Examiner rejects claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Du Pont in view of Constant, Yunus, Norris, and Lee.9
DISCUSSION
Claims 1–11 and 13–19
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Du Pont teaches a gas
turbine engine with a first stage compressor and a second stage compressor,
and a combustor. Final Act. 10 (citing Du Pont Fig. 2). The Examiner finds
that the second stage compressor is “a reverse flow high-pressure
compressor . . . configured to convey working fluid axially forward . . . and
radially outward . . . with respect to a rotation axis of the engine.” Id. (citing

2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 2, 8, and 13–19 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b). See Advisory Act. 1 (mailed May 14, 2019).
3 Du Pont, US 3,589,132, issued June 29, 1971.
4 Constant, US 2,504,181, issued April 18, 1950.
5 Yunus Cengel & Michael Boles, Thermodynamics: An Engineering
Approach 367 (5th ed. 2004), hereinafter “Yunus.”
6 Norris et al., US 2011/0056208 Al, published March 10, 2011.
7 Dasgupta et al., US 2013/0239542 Al, published September 19, 2013.
8 Eleftheriou et al., US 2012/0216544 Al, published August 30, 2012.
9 Lee, US 6,341,939 B1, issued January 29, 2002.
Appeal 2020-000921
Application 15/101,178

4
Du Pont Fig. 2; col. 2, ll. 62–63). The Examiner acknowledges that Du Pont
does not disclose an intercooler or a recuperator as claimed. Id. at 10–11.
Regarding the intercooler, the Examiner finds that Constant teaches an
intercooler arranged radially outboard of a combustor. Id. at 11. (citing
Constant Fig. 2). The Examiner also finds that Yunus teaches “that
intercooling ‘reduces the required work input into the compressor.’” Id.
(citing Yunus 367). The Examiner determines that it would have been
obvious to incorporate an intercooler, as taught by Constant, into the system
of Du Pont in order to obtain the benefit taught by Yunus. Id.
Regarding the recuperator, the Examiner finds that “Norris teaches an
embodiment of a gas turbine (10) including a first stage compressor (26), a
second stage compressor (36), a combustor (18), and a heat exchanger (66)
that is used as a recuperator.” Id. at 11–12. (citing Norris ¶ 20). The
Examiner determines it would have been obvious “to use the recuperator and
augmenter of Norris in the system of Du Pont [], Constant and Yunus, in
order to ‘increase fuel efficiency by reducing the amount of heat that the
combustor section 18 must provide.’” Id. at 12 (citing Norris ¶ 20).
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
with respect to the rejection of claim 1. See Final Act. 10–12, 24–25; see
also Ans. 3–5. As discussed below, we are not persuaded of error by
Appellant’s arguments.
Appellant first argues that the combination proposed does not disclose
or teach that “the recuperator heats the working fluid after it exits the second
stage compressor and prior to it entering the combustor using engine
exhaust.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant acknowledges that the Examiner relies
on Norris with respect to this limitation. Id. However, Appellant does not
Appeal 2020-000921
Application 15/101,178

5
address the Examiner’s findings with respect to Norris. Rather, Appellant
alleges that the proposed modification of Du Pont changes its principle of
operation and/or renders it inoperable for its intended use. Id. at 8–9. In
support, Appellant asserts:
if the fairing 54 of Du Pont is removed or provided with fluid
pathways to compartment 46 in order to heat the working fluid
after it exits the second stage compressor this would cause the
engine of Du Pont to be inoperable for it intended use since the
required pressure to rotate turbine 26 would be removed.
Id. at 9.
We are not persuaded for the reasons provided by the Examiner in the
Answer. First, the Examiner explains that “the prior art teaches working
fluid exiting a second stage compressor . . . being combusted . . . in order to
provide pressure to rotate the downstream turbine.” Ans. 3. Second, the
Examiner explains that the rejection does not rely on removal of the
fairing 54 from Du Pont, and the Examiner explains that the presence of a
fairing does not preclude the modification proposed. Id. at 4. Appellant
indicates that the Examiner has not shown how Du Pont would be modified,
but without further explanation from Appellant, we are not persuaded that
the proposed combination would render Du Pont inoperable or change its
principle of operation.
Next, Appellant argues that the rejection is based on impermissible
hindsight. Appeal Br. 9. In support, Appellant first asserts that the
Examiner has not properly explained how Du Pont would be modified in the
proposed combination. Reply Br. 2. We are not persuaded. We find that
the Examiner provides sufficient evidence and explanation showing that the
elements claimed were known in the art, as shown in the art of record. The
fact that the Examiner does not provide a specific showing as to how these
Appeal 2020-000921
Application 15/101,178

6
elements may be bodily incorporated into Du Pont is not enough to
persuaded us of error in the rejection. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”).
Appellant also asserts that Du Pont “teaches away from heating the
compressed working fluid flow D by exchanging heat between engine
combustion products flow E and further compressed working fluid flow D.”
Reply Br. 4 (citing Du Pont col. 2, ll. 11–14; col. 2, l. 72–col. 3, l. 3). “A
reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon
reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out
in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that
was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir.
1994). Appellant does not explain why this is the case here. Rather, at best,
Appellant has shown that Du Pont teaches something different, but
Appellant does not point to any further disclosure that would discourage a
person of ordinary skill in the art from “heating the compressed working
fluid flow D,” as Appellant asserts. Reply Br. 4.
Finally, Appellant asserts that the Examiner has not provided
motivation to combine the references in order to provide both intercoolers
and recuperators into a single engine and that the motivation has been
gleaned from Appellant’s disclosure. Reply Br. 5–6. We disagree. The
Examiner provides reason for including both an intercooler and a
recuperator into Du Pont’s system, as noted above. The reasoning to
provide both in a single system is based on the reasoning to provide them in
Appeal 2020-000921
Application 15/101,178

7
a system individually. Appellant does not specifically point to anything
relied upon by the Examiner that is found only in Appellant’s disclosure.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection
of claim 1. Appellant does not provide any separate arguments with respect
to the rejections of claims 2–11.10 Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of
claims 1–11.
With respect to claims 13–19, Appellant relies on the same arguments
discussed above with respect to claim 1. See Appeal Br. 12–19. We are not
persuaded by these arguments here, and thus, we also sustain the rejection of
claims 13–19.
Claim 20
With respect to claim 20, Appellant primarily raises the same
arguments discussed above with respect to claim 1, which we also find
unpersuasive here. See Appeal Br. 16–19. Additionally, Appellant argues
that the combination of art does not disclose or teach a plurality of
intercoolers and recuperators as required by claim 20. Id. at 16; see also
Reply Br. 20. However, the Examiner provides reasons for including
multiple intercoolers and recuperators. Final Act. 21–22. Appellant does
not persuade us of any error in the Examiner’s reasoning in support of the
obviousness rejection of claim 20. Accordingly, we also sustain the
rejection of claim 20.

10 To the extent Appellant raises a new argument regarding claim 6 in the
Reply Brief, we find the argument untimely. See, 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2);
see also Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010)
(informative) (“[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments
that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the
Examiner's rejections, but were not.”).
Appeal 2020-000921
Application 15/101,178

8
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1–11 and 13–20.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6, 8–
11, 13–19
103 Du Pont,
Constant, Yunus,
Norris
1–4, 6, 8–
11, 13–19

5 103 Du Pont,
Constant, Yunus,
Norris, Dasgupta
5
7 103 Du Pont,
Constant, Yunus,
Norris, Eleftheriou
7
20 103 Du Pont,
Constant, Yunus,
Norris, Lee
20
Overall
Outcome
1–11, 13–
20

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 (a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136 (a)(l)(iv).

AFFIRMED