Ex Parte Lord et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 11, 2017

13721095 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2017)

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.
13/721,095 12/20/2012 Wesley K. Lord 63416US01;
67097-2094PUS1
1062
54549 7590 10/13/2017
TART SON OASKFY fr OT DS/PR ATT fr WHTTNFY
EXAMINER
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
LEGENDRE, CHRISTOPHER RYAN
Birmingham, MI 48009 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/13/2017 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 WESLEY K. LORD, ROBERT E. MALECKI,
YUAN J. QIU, BECKY E. ROSE, and JONATHAN GILSON
Appeal 2015-007724
Application 13/721,0951
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Wesley K. Lord et al. (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. §
134(a) from the Examiner’s decision in the Final Action (dated Aug.
28, 2014, hereafter “Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1—20. We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 United Technologies Corporation is the applicant as provided in 37
C.F.R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest in
Appellant’s Appeal Brief (filed Feb. 27, 2015, hereafter “Appeal
Br.”). Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-007724
Application 13/721,095
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to a gas turbine engine. Spec.,
para. 1.
Claims 1 and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A gas turbine engine assembly, comprising:
a fan including a plurality of fan blades, a diameter
of the fan having a dimension D that is based on a
dimension of the fan blades, each fan blade having a
leading edge, the fan being configured to deliver a
portion of air into a compressor section and a portion of
air into a bypass duct, wherein a bypass ratio is greater
than about 6, the bypass ratio being a ratio of a volume
of air passing to the bypass duct compared to a volume
of air passing into the compressor section; and
an inlet portion forward of the fan, a length of
the inlet portion having a dimension L between a
location of the leading edge of at least some of the fan
blades and a forward edge on the inlet portion,
wherein a dimensional relationship of L/D is
between about 0.2 and 0.45.
REJECTION
I. The Examiner provisionally rejected claims 1,15, and
18—20 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
over claims 1,13, and 14 of co-pending U.S. Patent
2
Appeal 2015-007724
Application 13/721,095
Application No. 14/091,862 (hereafter “’862
Application”).
II. The Examiner rejected claims 1—10, 15, and 17—20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grabowski
et al. (US 2010/0162683 Al, publ. July 1, 2010, hereafter
“Grabowski”), Ehrich (US 3,843,277, iss. Oct. 22, 1974),
Stockman et al. (US 5,058,617, iss. Oct. 22, 1991,
hereafter “Stockman”), Harris (US 4,240,250, iss. Dec.
23, 1980), and an engineering expedient.
III. The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 11—13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Berkey
(US 3,546,882, iss. Dec. 15, 1970), Ehrich, Stockman,
Harris, and an engineering expedient.
IV. The Examiner rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Berkey, Ehrich,
Stockman, Harris, an engineering expedient, and
Grabowski.
V. The Examiner rejected claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith (US
2010/0218483 Al, publ. Sept. 2, 2010), Grabowski,
Ehrich, Stockman, Harris, and an engineering expedient.
3
Appeal 2015-007724
Application 13/721,095
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Appellants do not challenge the merits of the Examiner’s
obviousness-type double patenting rejection. See Appeal Br. 9.
Rather, “Appellants wish to defer the filing of a terminal disclaimer
until the claims of the instant application are finalized and until the
present claims of the ’862 Application are allowed.” Id. Accordingly,
we decline to reach the merits of the obviousness-type double
patenting rejection.
Rejection II
The Examiner finds that Grabowski discloses substantially all
of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 15, but fails to disclose
“a dimensional relationship of L/D . . . between about 0.2 and about
0.45.” Final Act. 9, 17. Nonetheless, the Examiner further finds that
(1) Ehrich discloses “a gas turbine engine inlet characterized by a
length (L). . . and a fan diameter (D3)”;(2) Stockman discloses a gas
turbine engine inlet (nacelle) having dimensions optimized for “both
acoustic performance . . . and size/weight”; and (3) Harris discloses
“optimizing the length-to-diameter ratio of a gas turbine engine inlet
duct” for sound suppression and minimizing weight. Id. at 9—10
(citing Ehrich, Fig. 2; Stockman, col. 1,11. 17—24, col. 7,11. 65—68,
and col. 8,11. 1—14; Harris, Abstract). Thus, the Examiner concludes
that because
both Stockman and Harris disclose that the nacelle length
and diameter are result effective variables which achieve
4
Appeal 2015-007724
Application 13/721,095
a recognized result (i.e., - minimizing size and weight of
the nacelle inlet), and Harris discloses that a dimensional
relationship between inlet length and fan diameter is a
result-effective variable which achieves a recognized
result (i.e. — minimizing size/weight of a nacelle inlet
portion while maintaining sufficient noise suppression
capability), and it has been held that discovering an
optimum value of a result effective variable involves
only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05), it would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to modify the inlet
length and fan diameter, in terms of a dimensional
relationship therebetween, of Grabowski, for the purpose
of optimizing the inlet size based on the design
considerations of noise suppression and size/weight. . .
of the inlet section and, hence, the nacelle.
Id. at 10.
Appellants argue that “[t]he cited references do not teach a ratio
of inlet length (L) to fan diameter (D) nor keeping such ratio within a
particular range.” Appeal Br. 4. According to Appellants, (1) Ehrich
is concerned with a ratio of length Li of a throat area 32 to a throat
diameter Di; (2) Stockman discloses dimensions and ratios of inlet 24
in regards to a lip 62 and a throat 42 in reference to air flow 20; and
(3) Harris is concerned with a length between a forward edge 48 and a
rear edge of inlet 10. Id. at 5.
In response, the Examiner takes the position that a person
skilled in the art would have readily “define[d] the length parameter in
[the] length-to-diameter ratio as between the forward edge of the
nacelle/inlet section and the leading edge of the fan blade since the
space between these locations is illustrative of an inlet.” Examiner’s
5
Appeal 2015-007724
Application 13/721,095
Answer 25 (dated July 30, 2015, hereafter “Ans.”). The Examiner
further contends that the same person skilled in the art would have
readily “define[d] the diameter parameter in [the] length-to-diameter
ratio as the fan blade diameter . . . [as] this dimension is illustrative of
the cross-sectional area of the air inlet flow path” because this
dimension “is a critical design parameter of gas turbine engines that
affects acoustics[] and the size of the inlet section of the nacelle.” Id.
Thus, according to the Examiner, because (1) Ehrich “discloses the
identical length dimension [L] and diameter dimension [D] as
claimed”; (2) Harris recognizes that inlet optimization is based on a
“length-to-diameter ratio”; and (3) Stockman “correlates nacelle
length and diameter to overall size/weight and acoustics,” the
combined teachings of the applied references “provides a factual basis
... to consider the claimed length-to-diameter ratio to be a known
result-effective variable that is recognized for affecting the
size/weight of the nacelle/inlet section and the acoustics thereof.” Id.
at 25—26.
Although we agree with the Examiner that Ehrich discloses a
length dimension L, as called for by each of independent claims 1 and
15, we do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that Ehrich also
discloses a fan diameter, as called for by these claims. See Final Act.
9; see also Ans. 25. Even though Ehrich’s diameter D3, as evidenced
in Figure 2, may appear to be the diameter of fan blades 28, such an
interpretation of Ehrich is inconsistent with the express disclosure of
Ehrich, which states that diameter D3 is a diameter of inlet
6
Appeal 2015-007724
Application 13/721,095
passageway 32 “at the fan blade leading edges 28'.” See Ehrich, col.
4,11. 11—14.2 In other words, Ehrich’s diameter D3 does not represent
the diameter of fan blades 28, but rather characterizes the diameter of
inlet passageway 32 at the location of fan blade leading edges 28'.
Furthermore, like Ehrich, neither Stockman nor Harris discloses
a fan diameter D. See Appeal Br. 5. Specifically, Stockman discloses
optimizing a variety of dimensions of scroop inlet 24 (nacelle) such
as, crown 50, keel 52, sides 58, 60, scarf angle S, droop angle D,
contraction ratio of lip 62, diffuser 44, and throat 42, in order to obtain
a scroop inlet 24 (nacelle) having “preferred aerodynamic and
acoustic performance.” Stockman, col. 7,1. 65—col. 8,1. 10, Fig. 4.
However, Stockman does not disclose anything about the diameter of
fan 30. Similarly, even though Harris discloses a desire to reduce the
length-to-diameter ratio of a nacelle inlet, Harris likewise does not
disclose anything about a fan diameter. Harris, col. 2,1. 67—col. 3,1.
2. As such, because none of Ehrich, Stockman, or Harris discloses a
fan diameter D, as called for by each of independent claims 1 and 15,
we do not agree with the Examiner’s position that the combined
teachings of the applied prior art “provides a factual basis for . . .
considering] the claimed length-to-diameter ratio to be a known
result-effective variable.” Ans. 25—26.
2 Ehrich specifically states that “[t]he inlet passageway 32 thereafter
converges toward the outer radial tips of the fan blades 28 so as to
approach a diameter D3 at the fan blade leading edges 28'.”
7
Appeal 2015-007724
Application 13/721,095
It is well established that an artisan must be presumed to know
something about the art apart from what the references disclose. See
In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962). In this case, we
appreciate that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that the cross-section of a nacelle/inlet section of a gas turbine engine
could be defined by a length Liniet and a diameter Diniet. We agree with
the Examiner that based on the combined teachings of Ehrich,
Stockman, and Harris, the person of ordinary skill in the art would
further recognize that Liniet and Diniet constitute result-effective
variables that affect aerodynamic and acoustic performance of a gas
turbine engine.
However, the claimed fan diameter D is not the same parameter
as the inlet diameter Diniet and the Examiner has not set forth
persuasive evidence or technical reasoning to show that they are
interchangeable in their effect on aerodynamic and acoustic
performance of a gas turbine engine. As none of Ehrich, Stockman,
and Harris discloses a fan diameter, and the Examiner has not set forth
persuasive evidence or technical reasoning that the fan diameter is the
same as the inlet diameter Diniet or can be correlated to Diniet, the
claimed fan diameter D does not constitute a result-effective variable.
Accordingly, the claimed ratio L/D is likewise not a result-effective
variable whose optimization is within the grasp of one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289,
1295—96 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations and quotations omitted).
8
Appeal 2015-007724
Application 13/721,095
We, thus, agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s reliance on
DMet in finding that the claimed fan diameter D also constitutes a
result-effective variable that affects aerodynamic and acoustic
performance of a gas turbine engine is based on speculation, and
hence, is conclusory and not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. See Reply Brief 3 (filed Aug. 20, 2015, hereafter “Reply
Br.”). As such, the Examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness is not
supported by sufficient factual evidence, and thus, cannot stand. See
In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (holding that “[t]he
legal conclusion of obviousness must be supported by facts. Where
the legal conclusion is not supported by facts it cannot stand.”).
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection of independent claims 1 and 15, and their respective
dependent claims 2—10 and 17—20, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Grabowski, Ehrich, Stockman, Harris, and an
engineering expedient.
Rejections III V
The Examiner’s reliance on the disclosures of Berkey,
Grabowski, and Smith does not remedy the deficiencies of the Ehrich,
Stockman, and Harris combination discussed supra. See Final Act.
20-28. Therefore, for the same reasons as discussed above, we also
do not sustain Rejections III—V.
9
Appeal 2015-007724
Application 13/721,095
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
10