United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 15, 2020

14974220 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 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.
14/974,220 12/18/2015 Amr Ali 92498US01;
67097-3321US1
4907
54549 7590 06/15/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
SUTHERLAND, STEVEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/15/2020 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte AMR ALI and NIGEL SAWYERS-ABBOTT
____________

Appeal 2019-006348
Application 14/974,220
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision in the Final Office Action (dated Jan. 14, 2019, hereinafter “Final
Act.”) rejecting claims 1, 4–7, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Gilson,2 Kraft,3 and Vauchel.4 We have jurisdiction over
this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. United Technologies Corporation is identified as the real
party in interest in Appellant’s Appeal Brief (filed July 15, 2019, hereinafter
“Appeal Br.”). Appeal Br. 1.
2 Gilson et al., US 2013/0283821 A1, published Oct. 31, 2013.
3 Kraft et al., US 5,498,127, issued Mar. 12, 1996.
4 Vauchel et al., US 2011/0131945 A1, published June 9, 2011.
Appeal 2019-006348
Application 14/974,220

2

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed “to a gas turbine engine having a
noise reduction feature.” Spec. para. 1.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the claimed
invention and reads as follows:
1. A gas turbine engine comprising:
a fan rotor having fan blades received within an
outer nacelle, and said outer nacelle having an inner
surface, said outer nacelle secured to an inner portion
through a mount flange at a first axial location;
an acoustic treatment extending inwardly said
outer nacelle and across said first axial location of the
mount flange and further inwardly toward said fan
blades;
wherein said acoustic treatment is continuous for
360° about a center axis of the fan rotor, said acoustic
treatment is provided with an anti-icing feature;
wherein a distance is defined from a plane defined
by leading edges of said fan blades to an axial location
of a forwardmost part of said outer nacelle, and an outer
diameter of said fan blades being defined, and a ratio of
said distance to said outer diameter is between 0.2 and
0.5;
wherein said acoustic treatment includes a
honeycomb material; and
wherein said anti-icing feature includes the
delivery of air to said nacelle.

Appeal 2019-006348
Application 14/974,220

3

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Gilson discloses most of the limitations of
independent claim 1 including, inter alia, acoustic treatment 70, but “does
not teach that the acoustic treatment includes a honeycomb material, or that
an anti-icing feature includes delivery of air to the nacelle.” Final Act. 2–3
(citing Gilson, paras. 16, 43). Nonetheless, the Examiner further finds that
Kraft discloses an acoustic treatment 22 having a honeycomb structure and
Vauchel discloses an acoustic treatment P heated by delivery of hot air via
pipe 27 into cavity 19. Id. at 3 (citing Kraft, col. 3, ll. 42–44; Vauchel,
paras. 62, 83, Fig. 6). Thus, the Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
[T]o modify the acoustic treatment of Gilson with the
honeycomb material of Kraft, and to [further] modify the
nacelle of Gilson with the hot air delivery system of Vauchel, in
order to effect a predetermined acoustic impedance to attenuate
the noise generated by the engine . . . and to de-ice the air
intake.

Id. (citing Kraft, col. 3, ll. 42–46; Vauchel, para. 34).
Appellant argues that because in Vauchel air is provided to the engine
inlet, i.e., “forwardmost end,” when modifying Gilson, according to
Vauchel, air is supplied forward of, and, not to, Gilson’s acoustic treatment
70. Appeal Br. 3–4. According to Appellant, “claim 1 requires ‘said
acoustic treatment is provided with an anti-icing feature,’ and that anti-icing
feature is later recited as including the delivery of air.” Reply Br. 1. Thus,
Appellant asserts that “[t]he claims require that the acoustic treatment be
provided with an anti-icing feature.” Appeal Br. 4 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2019-006348
Application 14/974,220

4

In response, the Examiner takes the position that independent claim 1
does not require “placing the anti-icing feature within the acoustic
treatment.” Examiner’s Answer (dated Aug. 20, 2019, hereinafter “Ans.”) 3
(emphasis added).
Here, claim 1 recites, inter alia, “an acoustic treatment . . . provided
with an anti-icing feature . . . wherein said anti-icing feature includes the
delivery of air to said nacelle.” Appeal Br. 5, Claims App. During
examination of a patent application, pending claims are given their broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the Specification. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, we construe
claim 1 to require “an acoustic treatment” with “an anti-icing feature” that
“includes the delivery of air to said nacelle.” Such an interpretation is
consistent with Appellant’s Specification, which describes pipe 162
delivering air into passage 164 of acoustic treatment 160. Spec. para. 53,
Fig. 5B.
We appreciate the Examiner’s finding that Vauchel’s Figure 6
discloses providing heated air from pipe structure 25, 27 to acoustic element
P at air intake lip 5. Ans. 4. However, modifying Gilson to include the anti-
icing feature of Vauchel, provides lip 68 of nacelle 64, not acoustic
treatment 70, with “an anti-icing feature” that “includes the delivery of air to
said nacelle.” Thus, Appellant is correct that Gilson, as modified by
Vauchel, “would not provide air [as an anti-icing feature] to the structure 70
of Gilson.” Appeal Br. 4. Accordingly, the combined teachings of Gilson
and Vauchel do not disclose “an acoustic treatment . . . provided with an
anti-icing feature . . . [that] includes the delivery of air to said nacelle,” as
recited by claim 1. Moreover, we note that Vauchel’s anti-icing feature is
Appeal 2019-006348
Application 14/974,220

5

disclosed in conjunction with a sound attenuation panel made from a porous
material and not a honeycomb structure, like that of Gilson, as modified by
Kraft. See Vauchel para. 80.
In conclusion, as Kraft does not remedy the deficiency of the Gilson
and Vauchel combination discussed supra, we do not sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of independent claim 1, and its dependent claims 4–7,
9, and 16, as unpatentable over Gilson, Kraft, and Vauchel.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–7, 9, 16 103 Gilson, Kraft,
Vauchel
1, 4–7, 9, 16

REVERSED