Bruce L. Morin et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 15, 2019

14606087 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2019)

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.
14/606,087 01/27/2015 Bruce L. Morin 63900US03;
67097-2360PUS2
3742
54549 7590 08/15/2019
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
EASTMAN, AARON ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/15/2019 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 BRUCE L. MORIN, DAVID A. TOPOL, and
DETLEF KORTE
____________________

Appeal 2018-006363
Application 14/606,087
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before BRETT C. MARTIN, LISA M. GUIJT, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–28.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 United Technologies Corporation is the applicant and is identified as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-006363
Application 14/606,087
2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ invention “relates to the design of a lower noise gas
turbine engine.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter.
1. A gas turbine engine, comprising:
a turbine section including a fan drive turbine;
a geared architecture driven by the fan drive turbine; and
a fan driven by the fan drive turbine via the geared
architecture;
wherein at least one stage of the turbine section includes
an array of rotatable blades and an array of vanes, and
wherein a ratio of number of vanes to the number blades
is greater than or equal to 1.55, and
wherein a mechanical tip rotational Mach number of the
blades is configured to be greater than or equal to about 0.5 at an
approach speed.

REJECTIONS2
1) The Examiner rejected claims 1–9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
being indefinite.
2) The Examiner rejected claims 1–8, 10–22, and 26–28 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Morin (US 8,246,292 B1, issued
Aug. 21, 2012).
3) The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 23–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Morin and Suciu (US 2013/0025257 A1,
published Jan. 31, 2013).

2 Appellants argue that drawing objections entered by the Examiner should
be withdrawn. Appeal Br. 9. We do not reach this question because it is a
petitionable matter.
Appeal 2018-006363
Application 14/606,087
3
4) The Examiner rejected claims 1–24 for double patenting over
claims 1–24 of Application No. 13/970,670.

DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
The Examiner determined that the term “‘about’ in claim 1 is
a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.” Final Act. 6.
In support of the rejection, the Examiner asserts that “the
specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the
requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be
reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.” Id. Appellants
contend that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
the term “about” should be given “the ordinary meaning of the
term, which is ‘approximately.’” Appeal Br. 8–9 (citing MPEP §
2173.05(b). The Examiner responds “that there is no way to
determine the metes and bounds of the claim because the term
‘approximately’ is so vague as to not allow a person having
ordinary skill in the art to determine exactly what is claimed.”
Ans. 16. For the following reasons, we do not sustain this
rejection.
“[W]e apply the approach for assessing indefiniteness
approved by the Federal Circuit in Packard, i.e., ‘[a] claim is
indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is
unclear.’” Ex parte McAward, No. 2015-006416, 2017 WL
Appeal 2018-006363
Application 14/606,087
4
3669566, at *5 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential) (quoting In
re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1310, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The
Federal Circuit instructs that “[c]laim language employing terms of
degree has long been found definite where it provided enough
certainty to one of skill in the art when read in the context of the
invention.” Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F. 3d 1364,
1370 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Appellants’ Specification provides that “a
mechanical tip rotational Mach number of the blade of the low
pressure turbine is greater than or equal to MA at approach speed.
In the example engine, RA is about 1.55 and MA is about 0.5.”
Spec. ¶ 60. The Specification further provides that reduced noise
will result “because at least one stage of the low pressure turbine is
‘cutoff’ at its rotor blade passing frequency.” Id. In light of this
disclosure, we agree with Appellants that the claim limitation
“about 0.5” would not be unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art
in light of the Specification because the resulting mechanical tip
rotational Mach number must still result in “cutoff” of one stage of
the low pressure turbine at its blade passing frequency. Therefore,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 as indefinite nor do we
sustain the rejection of claims 2–9 which were rejected due to their
dependency from claim 1.

Appeal 2018-006363
Application 14/606,087
5
Rejection 2
The Examiner finds that Morin discloses most of the
limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 11. The Examiner acknowledges
that “Morin is silent regarding the mechanical tip rotational Mach
number of the blades being greater than or equal to about 0.5 at an
approach speed.” Id. The Examiner finds that Morin “discloses a
low noise turbine for a geared gas turbine engine” and that “it is
known that the speed . . . of a low pressure-turbine of a gas turbine
engine can be selected in order to achieve noise reduction.” Id. at
11–12 (citing Morin 4:49–5:18). The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to
have arrived at such Mach values and ranges by selecting from
various Mach values and ranges in order to fit the desired
operational design requirements” and that it would have been
obvious “to have the mechanical tip rotational Mach number of the
blades be configured as greater than or equal to 0.5 at an approach
speed in order to reduce noise.” Id. at 12. Further, according to
the Examiner, because Morin “discloses the general conditions of
the claims” the discovery of “the optimum or workable only
involves routine experimentation.” Id.
Appellants contend that before the optimum or working
ranges of a variable may “be characterized as routine
experimentation, the Examiner must first show that the parameter
Appeal 2018-006363
Application 14/606,087
6
to be optimized [is] a result-effective variable” and that the
Examiner “improperly relies on Morin for teaching that
mechanical tip rotational Mach number was a known result
effective variable.” Appeal Br. 5 (citing MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Further, Appellants contend that “[t]he Examiner’s reliance on
turbine rotational speed is insufficient to establish that mechanical
tip rotational Mach number was known to be result effective.” Id.
at 6. Because Appellants’ Specification discloses that mechanical
tip rotational Mach number is based on “local tip diameter” (Spec.
¶ 57), mechanical tip rotational Mach number “is not the same as a
rotational speed.” Id. In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner
maintains that because Morin discloses “the rotor rotational speed
is a result effective variable inherently means that the mechanical
tip rotational Mach number is also a result effective variable since
the former directly influences the latter.” Ans. 15. For the
following reasons, we do not sustain this rejection.
Appellants’ Specification provides that “reduced low
pressure turbine noise [will result]” when the “ratio of the number
of vanes to blades in a stage of the low pressure turbine is greater
than or equal to RA” and the mechanical tip rotational Mach
number “is about 0.5” Spec. ¶ 60. The Specification also discloses
that the mechanical tip rotational Mach number is proportional to,
Appeal 2018-006363
Application 14/606,087
7
inter alia, the rotor rotational speed N and the local tip diameter D.
Id. ¶ 57.
In order for us to sustain a rejection based on routine
optimization of a variable, the Examiner is required to show that
the parameter, in this case the mechanical tip rotational Mach
number, is recognized in the prior art “to be a result effective
variable.” See In re Antonie, 559 F. 2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977).
Morin discloses that “[i]t has been discovered that a careful design
between the number of rotating blades, and the rotational speed of
the low pressure turbine can be selected to result in [low] noise
frequencies that are less sensitive to human hearing.” Morin 4:50–
52. Although we acknowledge that Morin discloses a relationship
between turbine rotational speed and lower noise frequencies,
which the Examiner equates to noise reduction, Morin discloses
that the lower noise frequencies are proportional to the product of
rotational speed and blade count. Id. 4:55. Thus, even if shifting
noise to lower frequencies is equivalent to noise reduction, Morin’s
disclosure of turbine rotational speed is not equivalent to a
rotational tip Mach number which, as Appellants correctly note, is
dependent on “local tip diameter.” Appeal Br. 6. The Examiner,
however, does not direct us to any passage of Morin that discloses
local tip diameter as having a relationship to noise reduction or that
blade count is equivalent to local tip diameter in the context of
Appeal 2018-006363
Application 14/606,087
8
noise reduction. Consequently, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 1 and claims 2–8, which depend from claim 1, because the
Examiner has not established that mechanical tip rotational Mach
number is recognized in the prior art as a result effective variable.
Independent claims 10 and 17 contain substantially the same
limitation concerning the mechanical tip rotational Mach number
as claim 1. Appeal Br. 12–13. The Examiner rejects claims 10
and 17 based on substantially similar findings as for claim 1. Final
Act. 13–15. We, thus, do not sustain the rejection of claims 10 and
17 as well as dependent claims 11–22, and 26–28 for the same
reasons as discussed above for claim 1.
Rejection 3
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and claims 23–25 depend
from claim 17. Appeal Br. 12, 14 (Claims App.). The Examiner
does not rely on the additional disclosure from Suciu to cure the
deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1 or claim 17. Final Act. 16–
17. We, thus, do not sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 23–25.
Rejection 4
The Examiner entered a provisional double patenting
rejection of claims 1–24 over claims 1–24 of co-pending
application No. 13/970,670. Final Act. 6. The Examiner requires
Appellants “to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from
all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation
Appeal 2018-006363
Application 14/606,087
9
between the applications.” Id. (citing 37 C.F.R. § 1.78(f); MPEP §
822). Appellants do not provide arguments sufficient to overcome
the rejection but state that it “wishes to defer the filing of a
terminal disclaimer until the claims of the instant application are
finalized and until the present claims of the ‘087 Application are
allowed.” Appeal Br. 9. Because we do not sustain Rejections 1,
2, and 3 and in light of the fact that application No. 13/970,670 is
pending as of this date we do not reach this rejection. Ex parte
Moncla, et al. slip op. 3 (BPAI June 22, 2010)(precedential).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–9 under 35
U.S.C. § 112(b) is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–28 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
We do not reach the Examiner’s double patenting rejection of
claims 1–24.

REVERSED