Ex Parte Norris et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 5, 2016

13334249 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/334,249 12/22/2011 James W. Norris
54549 7590 08/09/2016
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
P All l 88USAA;67097-097PUS2 4081
EXAMINER
WHITE, DWAYNE J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/09/2016 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 JAMES W. NORRIS and CRAIG A. NORDEEN
Appeal2014-007008
Application 13/3 34,249 1
Technology Center 3700
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, "[ t ]he present invention relates to a tip
turbine engine, and more particularly to a tip turbine engine with a core
airflow inlet aft of a bypass fan." Spec. 1.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is United Technologies
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2014-007008
Application 13/334,249
CLAHvIS
Claims 1-23 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed
claims and recites:
1. A turbine engine comprising:
a fan rotatable about an axis, the fan including a plurality
of radially-extending fan blades, including at least one fan blade
with a compressor chamber extending radially therein; and
an airflow passage having an inlet downstream of the fan,
the airflow passage leading to the compressor chamber in the at
least one fan blade.
Appeal Br. 12.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 15, and 16 on the ground
of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable
over claims 1, 7, and 17 ofNorris. 2
2. The Examiner rejects claims 11-14 on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1,
6, and 7 ofNorris in view of Paul. 3
3. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5-19, and 21under35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Paul in view of Busquet. 4
4. The Examiner rejects claims 2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Paul in view of Busquet and Perry. 5
2 Norris et al., US 8,096,753 B2, iss. Jan. 17, 2012.
3 Paul, US 6,966,174 B2, iss. Nov. 22, 2005.
4 Busquet, US 3,009,630, iss. Nov. 21, 1961.
5 Perry, US 4,751,816, iss. June 21, 1988.
2
Appeal2014-007008
Application 13/334,249
5. The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Paul in view of Busquet, Perry, and an
engineering expedient.
6. The Examiner rejects claims 20, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Paul in view of Busquet and
Nikkanen. 6
DISCUSSION
Rejections 1and2: Double Patenting
With respect to the double patenting rejections, Appellants "defer[]
response until the claims have reached a more final form." Appeal Br. 10.
Thus, we summarily sustain these rejections.
Rejections 3-6
Each of the independent claims requires a turbine engine having an
airflow passage with an inlet that is downstream or aft of a fan/fan blades.
With respect to each independent claim, the Examiner finds that Paul
discloses everything but this feature, and the Examiner relies on Busquet to
cure this deficiency. Final Act. 10, 12-15. Specifically, for example with
respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds:
Busquet teaches:
An airflow passage having an inlet ( 11) downstream of
the fan (blades 3) (Figure 1 ). Busquet teaches an inlet that is
downstream of the fan and that passes air into the fan. It would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to modify the inlet of Paul by
constructing it downstream of the fan as taught in Busquet for
the purpose increasing the pressure of the air prior to the air
reaching the compressor sections of the engine. The
6 Nikkanen et al., US 5,722,233, iss. Mar. 3, 1998.
3
Appeal2014-007008
Application 13/334,249
modification is only brining [sic] the teaching of an inlet
downstream of the fan. In essence the apparatus would be
flipped so that the inlet is aft of the blades but the air would still
flow through the compressor and fan blades as originally
intended. Busquet is analogous art because it relates to
directing air towards a fan blade.
Id. at 10.
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner's
reason for making the proposed modification to Paul is unsupported. See
Appeal Br. 7. Notably, the rejection cites no support for the proposition that
modifying Paul's inlet to be downstream of the fan would provide increased
pressure of the air prior to the air reaching the compressor. Further, in
response to Appellants' argument, the Examiner essentially only finds that
one of ordinary skill in the art would know and appreciate the benefit of an
increase in pressure. Ans. 21. The Examiner states:
First, one in the art knows that fan blades increase the pressure
of air. This is due to the fact that fan blades impart energy on
the airflow in the form of increased speed. \Vhen more air, due
to the increased speed, enters the same volume it causes an
increase in pressure. This occurs because the fans are rotating
and cause the airflow to move more quickly. One in the art
knows and appreciates this benefit of fan blades.
Second, the examiner cited the auxiliary blades (16) of
Busquet to show that fan blades can be utilized to increase the
pressure of airflow. This contradicts Appellant's contention that
fan blades do not increase pressure. Additionally, this does not
mean that the fan blades (3) do not increase the pressure, as
argued by Appellant, but instead that the auxiliary blades are
used to increase the existing pressurized air more greatly for the
specific purpose of Busquet. Appellant's statement that the
inlet location would not benefit from increased pressure in the
airflow is therefore improper because it assumes that only the
auxiliary fan blades can increase pressure and not the hollow
fan blades which as explained above do increase pressure.
4
Appeal2014-007008
Application 13/334,249
Id.
Third, increased airflow pressure allows for a greater
amount of air to enter the engine and therefore increase the
output of the engine. Therefore, one in the art would recognize
the benefit of having the inlet downstream from the fan blades
to increase the amount of work that the engine can produce due
to the fan blades increasing the pressure of the air entering the
inlet.
However, the Examiner's statements do not conclusively show
beyond speculation that an increase in pressure would actually occur if the
proposed modification were made. We find that the Examiner has failed to
conclusively show anything in the art of record or knowledge of a person of
ordinary skill in the art that would teach that an inlet placed downstream of
Paul's fan would increase the air pressure as the Examiner's concludes.
Thus, we find that the Examiner has failed to provide an articulated
reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. For that reason, we do not sustain any of the obviousness
rejections, which all rely on the same faulty reasoning of the Examiner.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the double patenting
obviousness rejections of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 11-16, and we reverse the
remaining rejections.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
5