Ex Parte Roberge et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 14, 2018

13352296 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/352,296 01/17/2012 Gary D. Roberge
54549 7590 06/18/2018
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
PA8564U ;67097-1627PUS 1 3933
EXAMINER
BROWN, ADAM WAYNE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/18/2018 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 GARY D. ROBERGE, ANDREW P. BERRY ANN,
and SCOTT A. CARR
Appeal2017-008845
Application 13/352,296
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1, 6-8, 14--18, 20-22, 25, 27, and 28. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 According to Appellants, "UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
is the assignee and real party in interest of the present application." App. Br.
2.
2 Claims 2-5, 19, 23, 24, and 26 have been canceled and claims 9-13 have
been withdrawn. See Appellants' After-Final Amendment 3---6, filed Aug.
Appeal2017-008845
Application 13/352,296
We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a gas turbine engines. Claim 1, reproduced
below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1 A gas turbine engine comprising:
a high spool along an engine axis, said high spool operable
to communicate a core airflow through a core flow path;
a fan section operable to communicate a fan airflow into a
secondary flow path and said core flow path;
a low spool along said engine axis to drive said fan section;
a starter/generator connected to said low spool, said
starter/generator having a start mode in which the
starter/generator rotationally drives said low spool and a
generate mode in which said low spool drives said
starter/generator to produce electric power;
a flow control mechanism operable to direct at least a
portion of said fan airflow from said secondary flow path into
said core flow path, said flow control mechanism including a
static ring and a moveable ring relative to said static ring, said
static ring including a plurality of first circumferentially-spaced
portions in said secondary flow path and said moveable ring
including a corresponding plurality of second circumferentially-
spaced portions in said secondary flow path, said static ring and
said moveable ring having an aligned position and a staggered
position with respect to one another, wherein in said aligned
position each of said first circumferentially-spaced portions and
each of said corresponding second circumferentially-spaced
portions form an aerodynamic shape and in said staggered
position each of said first circumferentially-spaced portions is
circumferentially offset from each of said corresponding second
circumferentially-spaced portions; and
a controller configured with an engine starter mode and an
engine flight mode, wherein responsive to said engine starter
15, 2016 (entered by the Examiner in the Advisory Action, dated Sept. 9,
2016).
2
Appeal2017-008845
Application 13/352,296
mode said static ring and said moveable ring are in said
staggered position blocking said secondary flow path and said
starter/generator is in said start mode, and responsive to
changing from said engine starter mode to said engine flight
mode said controller changes said static ring and said moveable
ring to be in said aligned position opening said secondary flow
path and changes said starter/generator to be in said generate
mode.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Coull
Cherry
Dooley
Johnson
Merry
Wood
Parnin
US 7,101,146 B2
US 2006/0288686 Al
US 2007/0265761 Al
US 7,448,199 B2
US 2009/0188334 Al
US 7,730,714 B2
US 2010/0294597 Al
REJECTI0NS 3
Sept. 5, 2006
Dec. 28, 2006
Nov. 15, 2007
Nov. 11, 2008
July 30, 2009
June 8, 2010
Nov. 25, 2010
Claims 1, 6-8, 15-17, 21, 22, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Cherry in view of Coull and Merry.
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Cherry in view of Coull, Merry, and Parnin.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable
over Cherry in view of Coull, Merry, and Dooley.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable
over Wood in view of Coull and Merry.
3 As claim 19 is canceled, the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112( d)
is moot. See Final Act. 2-3.
3
Appeal2017-008845
Application 13/352,296
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Wood in view of Coull, Merry, and Johnson.
OPINION
Claim 1
The Examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Cherry in
view of Coull and Merry (Final Act. 3-7), and also rejects claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Wood in view of Coull and Merry. Final Act. 10-
13. Despite the different base references, the rejections are substantially
similar in that the Examiner finds Cherry and Wood both lack the same
structure from claim 1, (i.e., a starter/generator having a start mode and a
generate mode; a flow control mechanism comprising static and moveable
rings that are moveable with respect to one another between an aligned
position and a staggered position; and a controller having an engine starter
mode, in which the rings are in the staggered position and the
starter/generator is in the start mode, and an engine flight mode, in which the
rings are in the aligned position and the starter/ generator is in the generate
mode (Final Act. 3--4, 11) ), and then relies upon Coull and Merry to cure the
same deficiencies in both Cherry and Wood.
Specifically, the Examiner cites Merry as teaching a starter/ generator
152 having a start mode and a generator mode, and concludes it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to attach a
starter/generator to the low spool of the engine of Cherry or Wood "to
achieve the predictable result of powering engine accessories without
increasing demand on the high spool." Final Act. 5, 13. The Examiner also
cites Coull as teaching a flow control mechanism 10 (including static ring 17
4
Appeal2017-008845
Application 13/352,296
and moveable ring 15) as well as a controller4 for moving the static and
moveable rings between the staggered (see Fig. 3 of Coull) and aligned
positions (see Fig. 2 of Coull), and concludes that it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the engine of
Cherry or Wood according to Coull "for the purpose of controlling the
amount of bypass flow without affecting the efficiency of the flowpaths."
Final Act. 4--5, 12-13.
Appellants argue neither Coull nor Merry teaches "a controller
controlling the positions [ of the static and moveable rings of the flow control
mechanism] in connection with a start mode and generate mode of a
starter/generator." App. Br. 5 (emphasis added). All words in a claim
must be considered in judging the obviousness of the claimed subject matter.
See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970); MPEP § 2143.03.
Claim 1 requires a controller that is configured with two modes: (1) an
engine starter mode, in which the static and moveable rings are in the
staggered position and the starter/generator is in the start mode; and (2) an
engine flight mode, in which the static and moveable rings are in the aligned
position and the starter/generator is in the generate mode. App. Br. 6
( emphasis added). Each of the two modes of the controller are defined by
both the position of the static and moveable rings and the mode of the
starter/generator. The Examiner's rejection treats these two defining
characteristics of the controller separately: the Examiner cites Coull as
4 As to the "controller" of claim 1, the Examiner does not specify a
numbered element in Coull as meeting this requirement. Rather, the
Examiner states a controller "is necessarily a part of Coull' s configuration
because flow blocker 10 is controlled." Final Act. 5, 12 (citing Coull, col. 3,
11. 35-59).
5
Appeal2017-008845
Application 13/352,296
teaching a controller (Final Act. 5, 12) with two modes, 5 and cites Merry as
teaching a starter/generator (Final Act. 5---6, 12) with modes defining
"starter" and "flight" modes. 6 However, at no point does the Examiner
explain how the combination of the Coull controller with the Merry
starter/ generator modes yields a device that satisfies both requirements of
the engine starter mode (i.e., "[the] static [and moveable] ring[s being in the]
staggered position" and "[the] starter/ generator is in [the] start mode") and
both requirements of the engine flight mode (i.e., "[the] static [and
moveable] ring[ s] ... in [the] aligned position" and "[the] starter/ generator
... in [the] generate mode"). See id.
Accordingly, because the Examiner's rejection fails to address the
claim limitations discussed above, the rejection cannot be sustained. See
MPEP §§ 2141--43 ("The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C.
103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention
would have been obvious." ( emphasis added)).
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites a method of operating a gas turbine engine, wherein
the structural elements of the turbine engine are substantially similar to those
of claim 1. App. Br. 8. In contrast to claim 1, claim 15 does not recite a
5 "[B]ecause Coull has a controller ... and has the two configurations
claimed, the controller must have two modes: one mode to produce the
aligned position (Fig. 2, flight mode) and one mode to produce the staggered
position (Fig. 3, starter mode)." Ans. 3.
6 "[B]ecause the starter/generator of Merry is used as a starter and then as a
generator, it operates in the configurations which are used in the claims to
define the engine starter mode and engine flight mode [ of the controller]."
Ans. 4.
6
Appeal2017-008845
Application 13/352,296
"controller." Claim 15 instead recites a step of "modulating a flow control
mechanism and a starter/ generator according to an engine starter mode and
an engine flight mode," further requiring:
the static ring and the moveable ring being in the staggered
position blocking the secondary flow path and the
starter/generator being in the start mode responsive to the engine
starter mode, and
responsive to changing from the engine starter mode to the
engine flight mode the static ring and the moveable ring move to
the aligned position and the starter/ generator changes to the
generate mode.
In rejecting claim 15, the Examiner relies on Coull for teaching the
"modulating" step in substantially the same manner as the Examiner relies
on Coull and Merry for respectively teaching the "controller" and
"starter/ generator" of claim 1. Compare Final Act. 5, with Final Act. 6-7.
For the reasons stated supra as to Coull and Merry, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 15.
The Examiner's analysis regarding dependent claims 6-8, 14, 16-18,
20-22, 25, 27, and 28 do not cure the deficiencies of the rejections of claims
1 and 15.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1, 6-8,
14--18, 20-22, 25, 27, and 28 are reversed.
REVERSED
7