Ex Parte Kohlenberg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2018

13486596 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/486,596 06/01/2012 Gregory A. Kohlenberg
54549 7590 03/27/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
50640US07;
67097-901PUS7
CONFIRMATION NO.
1758
EXAMINER
BRADLEY, AUDREY KLASTERKA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3748
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2018 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 GREGORY A. KOHLENBERG,
SEAN P. ZAMORA, and FREDERICK M. SCHWARZ
Appeal2017-007221
Application 13/486,596
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFERD. BAHR, JAMES P. CALVE, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Gregory A. Kohlenberg et al. (Appellants) 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3---6, 13, and 16-
19.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appeal Brief, United Technologies Corporation is the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 2, 7-12, 14, and 15 have been canceled. See Adv. Act. (Feb. 2,
2017).
Appeal2017-007221
Application 13/486,596
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is the only independent claim and is
representative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A gas turbine engine comprising: a core nacelle defined
about an engine centerline axis;
a core engine within the core nacelle, the core engine
including a fan drive turbine with a turbine pressure ratio
greater than five ( 5);
a fan section with twenty (20) or less fan blades; a gear
system driven by the fan drive turbine to drive the fan section;
a fan nacelle mounted at least partially around said fan
section and said core nacelle to define a fan bypass flow path
for a fan bypass airflow, wherein the fan nacelle includes a
fan duct reverser cowl and the core nacelle includes a core
cowl;
a fan variable area nozzle movable relative to said fan
nacelle to vary an effective area of a fan nozzle exit area,
wherein the fan variable area nozzle includes a first section and
a second section movable axially relative to the first section and
an auxiliary port between the first section and the second
section for changing the effective area of the fan nozzle,
wherein the auxiliary port includes an entrance angle relative to
an outer wall of the fan nacelle that is less than 20 degrees; and
a lower Bi-Fi splitter within the fan bypass flow path that
interconnects the fan duct reverser cowl with the core cowl,
wherein, said fan bypass airflow having a fan pressure
ratio during engine operation less than 1.45 with a corrected fan
tip speed less than 1150 ft/second.
THE REJECTION3
Claims 1, 3---6, 13, and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Kohlenberg (US 2009/0053058 Al, pub. Feb. 26,
3 The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, set forth on pages
4--5 of the Final Action, were overcome by the amendments filed April 20,
2
Appeal2017-007221
Application 13/486,596
2009), Decker (US 2006/0228206 Al, pub. Oct. 12, 2006), and Seda
(US 2003/0163984 Al, pub. Sept. 4, 2003).
DISCUSSION
The rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 13, and 16-19 is predicated, in
pertinent part, on the Examiner's determination that it would have been
obvious, in view of the teachings of Seda, "to configure the modified[4J
Kohlenberg fan pressure ratio to be less than 1.45 with a corrected fan tip
speed of less than 1150 ft/second because Seda teaches that this
configuration allows the use of light weight composite fan blades." Final
Act. 7 (citing Seda i-fi-123, 25, 41; Fig. 1). In particular, the Examiner finds
that "Seda teaches that a sum of operational fan tip speeds for the first and
second fan sections combined is 1000 ft/second," which, according to the
Examiner, means "a single fan section has a fan tip speed of 1000 ft/second
or less." Id. at 11 (citing Seda i-fi-f 10, 41). Thus, the Examiner finds that
"Seda teaches a corrected fan tip speed for a single fan of less than 1150
ft/second as claimed." Id. The Examiner also finds that "Seda further
teaches that the bypass airflow can have a fan pressure ratio of less than
1.45." Id. (citing Seda i-fi-f 10, 41).
The Examiner emphasizes that "[t]he rejection does not propose
physically modifying Kohlenberg's gas turbine engine to include Seda's
counter-rotating fan section or direct drive," but, rather, proposes to operate
2016, and December 21, 2016. See Adv. Act. 2 (Apr. 28, 2016); Ans. 1 (all
references herein to the "Answer" or "Ans." are to the Answer dated Feb. 6,
2017).
4 The Examiner's rejection also proposes modifying Kohlenberg's fan
section, in view of Decker, to have eighteen fan blades. Final Act. 7.
3
Appeal2017-007221
Application 13/486,596
Kohlenberg's gas turbine engine within the parameters (i.e., fan pressure
ratio of less than 1.45 with a corrected fan tip speed of less than 1150
ft/second) set forth by Seda to allow "for the use of light weight composite
fan blades." Ans. 2 (citing Seda i-f 41 ). The Examiner insists that "Seda
teaches that blade composition is only dependent on gas turbine engine
operation parameters" and that "[t]he fan blades are unaffected by the device
driving them." Id. According to the Examiner, "as long as [the blades] are
operating within the parameters set forth by Seda, they can beneficially be
configured as light weight composite blades." Id.
Appellants point out that Seda discloses a fan tip speed and fan
pressure ratio for first and second fan sections combined that are driven by
counter-rotating low pressure turbine 26, and argue that one of ordinary skill
in the art would not have looked "to features of a counter-rotating turbine
section for improvements to turbine sections similar to that disclosed in
Kohlenberg." Appeal Br. 5-6. More specifically, Appellants contend that
"[a] directly driven gas turbine engine with counter-rotating fan, compressor
and turbine sections as disclosed in Seda does not inform one skilled in the
art of potential improvements to a gear-driven single fan engine disclosed in
Kohlenberg." Reply Br. 2. Appellants emphasize that Seda's "fan sections
13, 15 counter-rotate to provide a reduction in perceived noise" and submit
that "[t]he purpose of every structure and resulting performance parameter
disclosed in Seda is based on the counter-rotating fan, compressor and
turbine sections." Id. (citing Seda i-f 23).
Appellants take issue with the Examiner's finding "that the fan blades
are unaffected by the device driving them." Id. Appellants contend:
4
Appeal2017-007221
Application 13/486,596
Id.
[P]aragraph 41 [of Seda] explains that the counter-rotating first
and second fan blade rows "allows for the use of the light
weight composite fan blades." In other words, it is the counter-
rotating structure of Seda that enable[ s] the light weight
composite fan blades. Therefore the only way the Examiner
can support the proposed combination is to improperly ignore
the portions of Seda that disclose the counter-rotating
structures.
Seda teaches that counter rotating rotors are incorporated into
commercial engine designs for improved turbine efficiency. Seda i-f 7. Seda
discloses an engine having "a design fan pressure ratio in a range of 1.4-
2 .5." Seda i-f 41. Seda further teaches that "[t]he counter rotating first and
second fan blade rows 13 and 15 are designed to operate with tip speeds that,
for the two blade rows, sum to a range of about 1000 to 2500 ft/sec which
allows the use of light weight composite fan blades." Id. As noted above,
the Examiner finds that this translates to a single fan section having a fan tip
speed of 1000 ft/ second or less (Final Act. 11 ), but the Examiner does not
provide any evidence or technical reasoning to support this finding. Further,
the Examiner appears to be interpreting this sentence of Seda as attributing
the ability to use light weight composite blades solely to the disclosed
operating parameters (the tip speed and the design fan pressure ratio), and
not at all to the arrangement of dual counter rotating fan blade sections
taught by Seda. That sentence in paragraph 41, however, lacks sufficient
clarity to support this point, and the Examiner does not provide any
explanatory technical reasoning or point to any additional teachings of Seda,
or other evidence, to support the Examiner's interpretation of the sentence.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the examiner bears the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re
5
Appeal2017-007221
Application 13/486,596
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It is incumbent upon the examiner to
establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See
In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the examiner
is expected to make the factual determinations set forth in Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966), viz., (1) the scope and content of the prior
art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; and
(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition to these factual
determinations, the examiner must also provide "some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with
approval in KSR Int'!. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Only
if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming forward with evidence
or argument shift to the appellant. See Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445; Piasecki,
745 F.2d at 1472. The Examiner's determination that it would have been
obvious to design Kohlenberg' s fan to have a fan pressure ratio of less than
1.45 with a corrected fan tip speed of less than 1150 ft/second to allow for
the use of light weight composite fan blades is predicated on findings not
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Thus, the Examiner does not
establish a sustainable case of obviousness of the subject matter of
independent claim 1, or its dependent claims 3---6, 13, and 16-19.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3---6, 13, and 16-19 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
6