United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 21, 2021

2020004733 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2021)

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.
14/947,174 11/20/2015 Ian T. Marchaj 67097-3092PUS1;79161US02 3264
54549 7590 04/21/2021
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
THOMAS, KYLE ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/21/2021 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 IAN T. MARCHAJ
Appeal 2020-004733
Application 14/947,174
Technology Center 3700
Before DANIEL S. SONG, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
EDWARD A. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SONG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6, 8–10, 17, 18, and 20–26. 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(a). The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
United Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-004733
Application 14/947,174

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a gas turbine engine nacelle de-icing
system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A gas turbine engine de-icing system comprising:
a heat exchanger;
a coolant loop in fluid communication with the heat
exchanger and configured to circulate a coolant, wherein the
coolant is a phase change fluid that is configured to change
phase from a liquid to a gas or a saturated vapor;
an engine oil loop in fluid communication with the heat
exchanger and configured to transfer heat to the coolant; and
a gas turbine engine inlet structure including a cavity,
and a manifold arranged in the cavity and in fluid
communication with the coolant loop, the manifold configured
to spray the coolant onto the gas turbine engine inlet structure
to de-ice the gas turbine engine inlet structure, wherein the gas
turbine engine inlet structure is a fan nacelle, and the manifold
is an annular spray bar arranged in the fan nacelle.
Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Theodorsen US 2,081,963 June 1, 1937
Perry US 4,782,658 Nov. 8, 1988
Hoyte US 2005/0240289 A1 Oct. 27, 2005
Schilling US 2008/0022653 A1 Jan. 31, 2008
Sternberger US 7,900,872 B2 Mar. 8, 2011
Weisgerber US 2014/0182264 A1 July 3, 2014
Diaz US 2014/0345292 A1 Nov. 27, 2014
Caruel US 2014/0369812 A1 Dec. 18, 2014
Appeal 2020-004733
Application 14/947,174

3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects various claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
follows:
1. Claims 1–4, 6, 8, 21, 23, and 24 as being unpatentable over
Caruel in view of Theodorsen. Final Act. 5.
2. Claim 9 as being unpatentable over Caruel in view of
Theodorsen and Weisgerber. Final Act. 12.
3. Claim 10 as being unpatentable over Caruel in view of
Theodorsen, Weisgerber, and Schilling. Final Act. 13.
4. Claim 25 as being unpatentable over Caruel in view of
Theodorsen and Hoyte. Final Act. 14.
5. Claims 17, 18, 22, and 26 as being unpatentable over Perry in
view of Caruel and Sternberger. Final Act. 15.
6. Claim 20 as being unpatentable over Perry in view of Caruel,
Sternberger, and Diaz. Final Act. 22.
OPINION
Rejection 1: Caruel in view of Theodorsen
As to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Caruel discloses a
gas turbine engine de-icing system substantially as claimed, but fails to
“explicitly disclose [that] the manifold is an annular spray bar in the fan
nacelle.” Final Act. 5–72; see also Ans. 21–22. The Examiner relies on
Theodorsen for disclosing a de-icing system for an aircraft having “a
manifold that is a spray bar.” Final Act. 7 (citing Theodorsen, pg. 1, ll. 50–

2 We remove all formatting in quoting the Examiner’s Final Action within
this Decision.
Appeal 2020-004733
Application 14/947,174

4
54; Fig. 1 (element 15); see also Ans. 22. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill “to have modified the
invention of Caruel to have a manifold that is a spray bar, as suggested and
taught by Theodorsen, in order to efficiently raise the temperature of the
surface,” and that making the spray bar annular would have been a matter of
choice. Final Act. 7–8 (citing Theodorsen, pg. 1, col. 1, ll. 5–11); see also
Theodorsen, pg. 1, col. 2, ll. 42–43, 50–54; Fig. 3.
The Appellant argues that a person of ordinary skill “would not
modify Caruel with Theodorsen” because “Theodorsen discloses a
completely different system” in that it is for a high-wing monoplane or
biplane having a “particular wing shape that promotes drainage of
condensation, and that the coolant is a liquid.” Appeal Br. 3–4 (citing
Theodorsen col. 1, ll. 14–20; col. 2, ll. 37–20). Thus, according to the
Appellant, because “[t]he two references disclose completely different
engine types and different cooling systems,” a person of ordinary skill
“would have no reason to combine the heating system of Theodorsen with
the engine of Caruel.” Appeal Br. 4.
However, the Appellant appears to be incorrectly presuming that the
suggested combination of the rejection “would require the combination of
the entire heating system of Caruel with the heating system of Theodorsen”
when it clearly does not. Ans. 22. As the Examiner points out, all that is
being relied upon from Theodorsen is “the modification of the delivery
structure of the heated coolant, i.e., the spray bar, and not the entire heating
system.” Ans. 22. The Examiner has articulated a reason with rational
underpinnings for the suggested combination, i.e., to allow “efficient raising
Appeal 2020-004733
Application 14/947,174

5
of the temperature of the aircraft surface, as recited by Theodorsen in
Column 1, Lines 5–11.” Ans. 23; see also Theodorsen, col. 1, ll. 5–11.
The Appellant also argues that “the proposed modification would
change the principle of operation of Caruel” because whereas “Caruel
teaches spraying cooling liquid at a top of the nacelle, and as the liquid
condenses, gravity pulls it to the bottom of the nacelle. . . . [t]he proposed
modification of changing the shape of the spray bar would change how the
cooling liquid is delivered to the nacelle.” Appeal Br. 4 (citing Caruel
¶¶ 99–103).
We are not persuaded because as the Examiner points out, “nowhere
in the cited paragraphs of Caruel is it stated that the heated coolant must be
sprayed at the top of the nacelle.” Ans. 23. As the Examiner correctly finds,
Caruel discloses air inlet lip 6 that is “present around the entire annulus of
the nacelle.” Ans. 23; Caruel ¶ 102; Fig. 9. Indeed, Caruel specifically
discloses that “[d]uring its circulation, the evaporated cooling liquid is
cooled . . . for example, at the air inlet lip 6 passing through its de-icing
chamber.” Caruel ¶ 102.
Therefore, in view of the above, we are not persuaded of Examiner
error in rejecting claim 1, and thus, affirm the same. Except for claim 24
discussed infra, the Appellant does not submit any arguments with respect to
dependent claims 2–4, 6, 8, 21, and 23. Thus, these claims fall with claim 1.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Claim 24
Claim 24 depends from claim 8, which in turn, depends from claim 1.
Claims 8 and 24 require the reservoir be arranged downstream of the
Appeal 2020-004733
Application 14/947,174

6
manifold and the pump, respectively. Appeal Br. 7, 9 (Claims App.). The
Examiner finds that Caruel discloses a reservoir downstream of the manifold
and the pump. Final Act. 10–12 (citing Caruel ¶¶ 99, 103; Fig. 9). The
Examiner explains that in Caruel, “the coolant loop is a loop and therefore
has no beginning or end . . . therefore the reservoir is downstream of the
pump as the coolant from the pump will flow into the reservoir.” Final Act
12. We agree with the Examiner.
The Appellant argues that the Examiner is interpreting claim 24
unreasonably broadly, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would
understand the claimed arrangement in light of the specification and
drawings.” Appeal Br. 4. However, the Appellant does not explain why the
Examiner’s interpretation of “downstream” is unreasonably broad, or how
the Specification sets forth a basis for interpreting “downstream” differently,
much less explain how such interpretation distinguishes the coolant loop
disclosed in Caruel.
In particular, the Appellant argues that the Examiner’s “alleged
reservoir of Caruel is between the pump 18 and the alleged manifold. Thus,
Caruel does not disclose the claimed arrangement of a reservoir that is
downstream of the manifold and the pump.” Appeal Br. 4. However, as the
Examiner explains, “any component within the coolant loop may be
upstream or downstream depending on the relative starting point,” and “the
limitations of Claims 1, 8 and 24, do not provide a relative starting point.”
Ans. 24. “[T]herefore if the starting point were the pump[,] all other
components including the reservoir would be downstream.” Ans. 24.
Indeed, starting with Caruel’s pump 18, the coolant would flow to the
manifold 14b, and then to the reservoir at the bottom of Figure 9. See Caruel
Appeal 2020-004733
Application 14/947,174

7
Fig. 9. Hence, because the reservoir of Caruel is downstream of both the
manifold and the pump as required by claim 24, and the Appellant has not
adequately explained otherwise, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim
24 as well.

Rejections 2–4
The Appellant merely relies on dependency for the patentability of
claims 9, 10, and 25, arguing that the Examiner’s application of the
additional references “does not overcome the above noted deficiencies with
respect to Caruel and Theodorsen and base claim 1.” Appeal Br. 4–5. Not
being persuaded of any deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, we
affirm Rejections 2–4.

Rejection 5: Perry in view of Caruel and Sternberger
As to independent claim 17, the Examiner finds that Perry discloses a
gas turbine engine de-icing system substantially as claimed, but fails to
explicitly disclose the recited passageway, the coolant loop that circulates a
phase change fluid, and the manifold, which is an annular spray bar. Final
Act. 16–17. The Examiner relies on Caruel to remedy most of these
deficiencies to conclude that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify Perry to replace its coolant loop with that
“suggested and taught by Caruel, in order allow the coolant loop to exchange
more quantities of heat and have a high de-icing power for the structure and
more cooling power for the oil.” Final Act. 17–18 (citing Caruel ¶ 106).
The Examiner also concludes that it would have also been obvious to modify
Perry to “include a passageway configured to be exposed to an airflow from
Appeal 2020-004733
Application 14/947,174

8
the bypass flow path, as suggested and taught by Caruel, in order [] for
increased cooling of the coolant as the heat exchanger would be a triple heat
exchanger.” Final Act. 18. The Examiner further relies on Sternberger to
conclude that it would have been obvious to use an annular spray bar “in
order to provide the hot gases for de-icing more efficiently while effectively
accommodating thermal expansions and contractions of components of the
system.” Final Act. 19 (citing Sternberger, col. 1, ll. 37–38).
The Appellant argues that “one would not modify Perry and Caruel as
proposed, as the proposed modification would change the principle of
operation of Caruel.” Appeal Br. 5. However, this argument is misdirected,
and therefore, unpersuasive because the applied rejection modifies the de-
icing system of Perry, not that of Caruel. Final Act. 16.
The Appellant also argues that Caruel “teaches that this manifold
works by spraying cooling liquid at a top of the nacelle, and as the liquid
condenses, gravity pulls it to the bottom of the nacelle” so that “[t]he
proposed modification of changing the shape of the spray bar would change
how the cooling liquid is delivered to the nacelle” and “would change the
principle of operation.” Appeal Br. 5. However, this line of reasoning is
unpersuasive for the reasons already discussed relative to claim 1.
Therefore, not being persuaded by the Appellant’s arguments, we
affirm the rejection of claims 17, 18, 22, and 26.

Rejection 6
The Appellant merely relies on dependency for the patentability of
claim 20, arguing that the Examiner’s application of Diaz “does not
overcome the above noted deficiencies with respect to Perry, Caruel, and
Appeal 2020-004733
Application 14/947,174

9
Sternberger and base claim 17.” Appeal Br. 6. Not being persuaded of any
deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17, we affirm Rejection 6.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6, 8,
21, 23, 24
103 Caruel,
Theodorsen
1–4, 6, 8,
21, 23, 24

9 103 Caruel,
Theodorsen,
Weisgerber
9
10 103 Caruel,
Theodorsen,
Weisgerber,
Schilling
10
25 103 Caruel,
Theodorsen, Hoyte
25
17, 18, 22,
26
103 Perry, Caruel,
Sternberger
17, 18, 22,
26

20 103 Perry, Caruel,
Sternberger, Diaz
20
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6, 8–
10, 17, 18,
20–26

Appeal 2020-004733
Application 14/947,174

10

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED