Brian D. Merry et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 2, 2020

14614785 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 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.
14/614,785 02/05/2015 Brian D. Merry 67097-3135PUS1;
75641US01
2590
54549 7590 01/02/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
VENKATESAN, UMASHANKAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/02/2020 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 BRIAN D. MERRY, GABRIEL L. SUCIU, and
JAMES D. HILL
____________________

Appeal 2018-004123
Application 14/614,785
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.

WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as United Technologies Corporation.
Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) 1.
Appeal 2018-004123
Application 14/614,785

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a gas turbine engine having a section with a
thermally isolated area. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A gas turbine engine, comprising:
a first compressor having a first overall pressure
ratio, the first compressor being a low pressure
compressor;
a second compressor having a second overall
pressure ratio, the second compressor being a high
pressure compressor downstream of the first
compressor, wherein a ratio of the first overall
pressure ratio to the second overall pressure ratio is
greater than or equal to about 2.0; and
wherein a section of the gas turbine engine
includes a thermally isolated area.
REFERENCES
Piemmons2
Glasspoole
Giffin
Hasel
US 5,232,339
US 6,183,193 B1
US 6,672,072 B1
US 8,277,174 B2
Aug. 3, 1993
Feb. 6, 2001
Jan. 6, 2004
Oct. 2, 2012
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite.
Claims 1–5, 7–11, 13, 14, and 16–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Piemmons and Hasel.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Piemmons, Hasel, and Glasspoole.

2 Although the first named inventor of this patent appears to be “Plemmons,”
we conform to the Examiner’s and Appellant’s usage of “Piemmons.”
Appeal 2018-004123
Application 14/614,785

3
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Piemmons, Hasel, Glasspoole, and Giffin.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–20—Indefiniteness
Independent claims 1 and 17 both recite “a ratio of the first overall
pressure ratio to the second overall pressure ratio is greater than or equal to
about 2.0.” App. Br. 8, 10 (claims app.). Claims 2 and 18, which depend
from claims 1 and 17 respectively, require the claimed ratio to be “greater
than about 3.0.” Id. Claims 3 and 19, which depend from claims 2 and 17
respectively, require the claimed ratio to be “less than or equal to about 6.0.”
The Examiner determines that “it is not clear what the metes and bounds of
the term ‘about’ is in the terms ‘about 2’, ‘about 3’ and ‘about 3 [sic, 6].”
Final Act. 3. Appellant responds that the Specification gives guidance as to
the meaning of “the term ‘about.’” App. Br. 3. According to Appellant, one
of ordinary skill in the art would be able to understand this language,
because “[t]he specification states that ‘[t]erms such as ‘generally,’
‘substantially,’ and ‘about’ are not intended to be boundaryless terms, and
should be interpreted consistent with the way one skilled in the art would
interpret the term.’” Id. (quoting Spec. ¶ 54 (emphasis added by
Appellent)). Appellant further argues that “all that is required is a
reasonable degree of precision,” but “[t]he Examiner is requiring exacting
precision, which is inconsistent with the test for definiteness.” Id. at 4.
As Appellant correctly notes, exacting precision in claim language is
not required, and a claim using a term of degree such as “about” is not
indefinite when the Specification provides “some standard for measuring
Appeal 2018-004123
Application 14/614,785

4
that degree.” Biosig Instr., Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., 783 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed.
Cir. 2015). Further, “an applicant may . . . overcome an indefiniteness
rejection by providing evidence that the meaning of the term of degree can
be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art when reading the
disclosure.” MPEP § 2173.05(b)(I).
Here, Appellant relies on paragraph 54 of the Specification, as noted
above. This provision does not shed light on a standard by which “about
2.0,” “about 3.0,” etc. may be measured, however, but merely applies to
terms such as “about” the general principal that claim terms are to be
accorded “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill
in the art in question at the time of the invention.” In re Packard, 751 F.3d
1307, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1302,
1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Appellant does not identify, and we are unable
to find, any other provision of the Specification that helps determine an
objective standard for determining the metes and bounds of “about 2.0.”
Nor has Appellant proffered extrinsic evidence or persuasive argument that
does so. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 as
indefinite.
Claims 1–5, 7–11, 13, 14, and 16–20—
Unpatentability—Piemmons and Hasel
In rejecting claims 1–5, 7–11, 13, 14, and 16–20 as unpatentable over
Piemmons and Hasel, the Examiner finds that Piemmons teaches all of the
limitations of these claims—including a thermally isolated area—except for
the claimed ratio of first and second overall pressure ratios of between 3
Appeal 2018-004123
Application 14/614,785

5
and 6.3 Final Act. 4. For those limitations, the Examiner relies on Hasel,
particularly Figure 5. The Examiner determines that “it would have been
obvious to adapt the cooling teaching of Piemmons et al. to the well-known
overall pressure ratio of compressors in order [to] reduce the stress on the
compressor parts.” Id.
Appellant responds that the ratios on which the Examiner relies—
those enclosed by area “S1” on the graph depicted in Figure 5 of Hasel—
relate to three-spool engines, whereas Piemmons teaches a two-spool engine.
App. Br. 4. Appellant further notes that Hasel also teaches ratios
specifically for two-spool engines—those enclosed by area “S2” in the
Figure 5 graph—which are “far less than 1.” Id. According to Appellant,
“[o]ne skilled in the art would be inclined to apply Hasel’s two-spool
teachings to Piemmon’s two-spool engine, but that would not result in the
claimed combination because Hasel’s S2 ratios are not ‘greater than or equal
to about 2.0.’” Id. at 6.
As Appellant notes, Hasel teaches, among other things, pressure ratios
for three-spool engines that appear to overlap with the claimed pressure
ratios, and pressure ratios for two-spool engines that are outside of the
claimed pressure ratio range. We agree with Appellant that one of ordinary

3 In rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner interprets the
terms “about 2,” “about 3,” and “about 6” to be, respectively, 2, 3, and 6.
Final Act. 3 (“Examiner for this office action is interpreting the term
[‘about’] to be ‘equal.’”). Appellant criticizes this approach because, in
Appellant’s view, it “effectively ignores the term ‘about.’” App. Br. 3. We
disagree. It is, instead, the Examiner’s effort to advance prosecution of the
claims notwithstanding the Examiner’s determination of the claims’
indefiniteness. Indeed, we do the same in addressing the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection.
Appeal 2018-004123
Application 14/614,785

6
skill in the art would generally be expected to use the two-spool ratios for
two-spool engines, and three-spool ratios for three-spool engines. Although
the contrary is possible, the Examiner has not provided evidence or
persuasive argument to support that possibility.
The Examiner argues that the claims are not limited to two-spool
engines. Ans. 5. We agree. The problem is that the Examiner relies on
Piemmon’s two-spool engine in formulating this rejection. See Final Act. 4
(stating, in support of this rejection, that Piemmons discloses “a low speed
spool (34, Fig. 1)” and “a high speed spool (32, Fig. 1).”); Ans. 5 (same).
As a consequence, and as discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art
would be led to apply Hasel’s two-spool-engine pressure ratios. The
Examiner has not articulated a rejection based on a three-spool turbine.4
Because the combination of Piemmons’s two-spool engine with
Hasel’s two-spool ratios does not teach or suggest all of the limitations of
independent claims 1 and 17, as well as dependent claims 2–5, 7–11, 13, 14,
16, and 18–20, and we are not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art
would use Hasel’s three-spool pressure ratios in a two-spool gas turbine
engine, we do not sustain this rejection.

4 In an October 10, 2017 Advisory Action, the Examiner describes a
different combination of Piemmons and Hasel. See Oct. 10, 2017 Advisory
Act. 2 (stating that Piemmons’s teaching of cooling to reduce thermal
distortion is being applied to Hasel’s teaching of a three-spool turbine
engine). This is clearly not the rejection that the Examiner articulates in the
Final Action and Answer, however, where the Examiner relies on
Piemmons’s two-spool engine and Hasel’s pressure ratios. Final Act. 4;
Ans. 5.
Appeal 2018-004123
Application 14/614,785

7
Remaining Rejections
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 6 and 12 as unpatentable over
Piemmons, Hasel, and Glasspoole; and claim 15 as unpatentable over
Piemmons, Hasel, Glasspoole, and Giffin; rely on the erroneous finding that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Piemmons’s two-spool
engine with Hasel’s three-spool pressure ratios. Final Act. 5. Neither
Glasspoole nor Giffin is relied on to cure this deficiency. Therefore, we
decline to sustain these rejections.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 is
affirmed. Specifically:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 112(b) Indefiniteness 1–20
1–5, 7–11,
13, 14, 16–
20
103 Piemmons, Hasel 1–5, 7–11,
13, 14, 16–
20
6, 12 103 Piemmons, Hasel,
Glasspoole
6, 12
15 103 Piemmons, Hasel,
and Giffin
15
Overall
Outcome
1–20 1–20

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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED