Ex Parte Cloft

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 10, 2015

11823496 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte THOMAS G. CLOFT
____________________

Appeal 2012-012034
Application 11/823,496
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention generally relates to an “accessory system for use
in a gas turbine engine, which system includes a gearbox adapted to be
arranged radially outward of a main axis of the gas turbine engine and inside a
nacelle,” along with “a gas turbine engine oil system driven by a source other

1
Appellant identifies Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2012-012034
Application 11/823,496

2

than the gearbox.” Spec., Abstract. One objective of the invention is to reduce
the size of the accessory gearbox. Spec. ¶ 1.
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. We select
independent claim 1 as illustrative:
1. An accessory system for use in a turbofan engine, the
accessory system comprising:
a gearbox adapted to be arranged radially outward of a
main axis of the turbofan engine and inside a nacelle;
one or more engine accessories arranged inside the nacelle
and connected to and driven by the gearbox; and
a turbofan engine oil system driven by one or more electric
motors.

Examiner’s Rejections
The following rejection is before us for review.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Champion (US 7,681,402 B2, iss. Mar. 23, 2010), Olsen (US 6,735,952 B2, iss.
May 18, 2004), and Newton (US 5,253,470, iss. Oct. 19, 1993).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the claimed invention to modify Champion in
view of Olsen, and simply substitute the shaft-driven gearbox of
Champion with the electrical motor of Olsen, in order to obtain
the predictable result of supplying shaft [sic] power to the oil
pump. . . .
Ans. 3. As an additional basis for combining these references, the Examiner
finds “electrical motors and gear boxes connected to the turbine shaft were
known equivalents at the time of the claimed invention to drive auxiliary
Appeal 2012-012034
Application 11/823,496

3

devices, such as the instant oil pump. . . .” Id.
Appellant contends the combination of Champion and Olsen is improper.
App. Br. 9–10. Appellant argues that modifying Champion with Olsen by
adding an electrically powered oil system to Champion would “defeat the entire
purpose of the invention of Champion.” Id. at 9. Appellant explains the
invention of Champion is focused on delivering adequate cooling oil to a sight
glass. See Champion, col. 1, ll. 29–32. Champion’s “gas turbine engine
comprises an oil system and a gearbox, the gearbox is driven by at least one
engine shaft, the oil system comprises a pump drivingly connected to the
gearbox.” Id., ll. 36–39. Because the oil system of Champion is driven by the
engine shaft, problems arise with overheating when the main engine is at sub-
idle or windmill conditions. App. Br. 9–10. Appellant points out that the entire
focus of Champion is to remedy “this problem ‘with a valve 60 capable of
increase [sic] the oil flow at sub-idle and windmill conditions.’ (Champion, col.
3, lines 47–55).” App. Br. 10. Appellant further reasons
If the pump 38 were not driven by gearbox 33, the invention of
Champion becomes unnecessary and illogical. Because the speed
of an electric motor is independent of that of a gas turbine engine,
using an electric motor to drive an oil pump would make the
entire Champion invention (and the entire Champion patent)
completely unnecessary.
Id.
Examining the entirety of each of the prior art references to determine
whether it would have been obvious to combine Olsen’s electrically driven oil
system into Champion, we conclude it would not because doing so would
render Champion unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. See In re Gordon,
733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Replacing Champion’s gear and shaft
driven oil system with an electrically powered system would change the
principle of operation of Champion such that the invention of Champion would
Appeal 2012-012034
Application 11/823,496

4

be “completely unnecessary” as Appellant argues. Champion’s objective is to
prevent overheating when the main engine is at low power or windmill
conditions through the use of an anti-siphon pipe with a variable flow valve for
regulating the flow of oil. See Champion, col. 3, ll. 30–36, 47–55. Champion
is focused on the problem of pumping sufficient oil in sub-idle or windmill
conditions in a shaft driven system. If Champion’s oil system were not engine
shaft driven, the problem addressed by Champion would not exist. If Olsen’s
electric motor oil system is combined into Champion, the primary purpose of
the invention of Champion becomes unnecessary.
Because we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have used an electric motor in Champion to drive
the engine oil system, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has erred in
rejecting claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
As such, we REVERSE the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–20.

REVERSED

mls