Ex Parte Sabnis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 24, 2016

13854225 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/854,225 04/01/2013 Jayant Sabnis
54549 7590 10/26/2016
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.
90546US02;
67097-2476PUS1
6274
EXAMINER
KIM, CRAIG SANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2016 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 JAY ANT SABNIS
Appeal2015-000864
Application 13/854,225
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1-24 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Smith (US 2009/0097967 Al, pub. Apr. 16, 2009). 1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant filed an Amendment After Final Rejection on May 8, 2014,
proposing to cancel claim 25 to overcome a section 112, first paragraph,
written description rejection of claim 25. Appeal Br. 4. A provisional, non-
statutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-24 is included in the Final
Office Action. Final Action 2-3. As indicated in the Terminal Disclaimer
Review Decision dated March 12, 2014, the Terminal Disclaimer filed on
February 12, 2014, has been approved.
Appeal2015-000864
Application 13/854,225
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to turbofan engines. Spec. i-f 2. Claim 1,
reproduced below with the language at issue highlighted, is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A turbofan engine comprising:
a gas generator section for generating a gas stream flow with
higher energy per unit mass flow than that contained in ambient
air;
a power turbine converting the gas stream flow into shaft
power, the power turbine rotating at a first rotational speed;
a speed reduction device driven by the power turbine; and
a propulsor section including a fan driven by the power
turbine through the speed reduction device at a second speed
lower than the first speed for generating propulsive thrust as a
mass flow rate of air through a bypass flow path,
wherein an Engine Unit Thrust Parameter ("EUTP '')
defined as net engine thrust divided by a product of the mass flow
rate of air through the bypass flow path, a tip diameter of the fan
and the first rotational speed of the power turbine is less than
1 , n -r ~ , , 1 rr 1•, • aoour u.1 J ar a raKe-011 conamon.
OPINION
Unpatentability of Claims 1-24 over Smith
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Smith discloses all of the elements of claim 1
except for an Engine Unit Thrust Parameter ("EUTP") that is less than about
0.15 at a take-off condition. Final Action 5---6. In particular, the Examiner
finds that Smith teaches the same structure as that of the instant application,
and further teaches that thrust is a function of density, velocity, and area and
that one or more of those parameters can be manipulated to vary the amount
and direction of the thrust provided. Id. at 6. The Examiner concludes that a
2
Appeal2015-000864
Application 13/854,225
person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to va1 y any of the
parameters of the EUTP, such as the thrust of the engine, the mass flow rate
of the air through the bypass flow path, a tip diameter of the fan, and the
rotational speed of the power turbine, to achieve the claimed invention. Id.
The Examiner relies on the principles enunciated in In re Aller, 220
F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP § 2144.05 II.A., for the proposition
that it would have only taken ordinary skill to adjust the values of engine
operation to achieve the claimed engine thrust parameter value.
Appellant traverses the Examiner's rejection by arguing that Smith
fails to recognize EUTP as a result effective variable. Appeal Br. 5. In
particular, Appellant relies on In re Antonie, 559 F .2d 618, 620 (CCP A
1977) as placing a burden on the Examiner to show that a parameter to be
optimized is a result-effective variable. Id. at 6.
In response, the Examiner states that all of the claimed parameters
were known at the time of the invention. Ans. 2. The Examiner relies on
principles of inherency to establish the relationship between EUTP and the
engine parameters used to calculate ETUP. Id. 2 Therefore, according to the
Examiner, if the desired EUTP value is the optimum number, the
optimization of the parameters would have led to an optimized EUTP. Id.
Discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable is
generally considered to be within the ambit of ordinary skill. See In re
Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980). Thus, "where the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to
2 EUTP is defined as net engine thrust divided by a product of the mass flow
rate of air through the bypass flow path, a tip diameter of the fan and the first
rotational speed of the power turbine. Claims App. Claim 1; Spec. i-fi-1 4, 56.
3
Appeal2015-000864
Application 13/854,225
discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See
Aller, 220 F .2d at 456. The mere fact that multiple result-effective variables
are combined does not necessarily render their combination beyond the
capability of a person having ordinary skill in the art. See In re Applied
Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012). However, this rule is
limited to cases in which the optimized variable is previously recognized to
be a "result-effective variable." See Antonie, 559 F.2d at 620.
Appellant's Specification explains that the overall efficiency of a
turbofan engine is a combination of how well the gas generator section (62),
the power turbine section (76), and the propulsor section (64) convert input
energy into the desired output. Spec. i-f 53, Fig. 2. The Specification further
explains that the thrust generation efficiency of the engine is related to a
ratio of the net thrust of the engine divided by the product of: ( 1) mass flow
rate of air through the fan by-pass section; (2) the fan tip diameter; and (3)
the rotational speed of the power turbine section. Id. i-f 54. The
Specification defines this relationship as Engine Unit Thrust Parameter
("EUTP") using the following formula:
EUTP =
Id. i-f 56.
Net Thrust of the Engine
[ (mass flow rate of air through fan bypass)
(Fan Tip Diameter)(Speed of the power turbine)]
Smith is directed to a gas turbine engine with a variable geometry fan
exit guide vane system. Smith, Abstract. The passage of Smith relied on by
the Examiner as disclosing parameters than can be optimized to achieve the
claimed EUTP value states:
Thrust is a function of density, velocity, and area. One or
more of these parameters can be manipulated to vary the
4
Appeal2015-000864
Application 13/854,225
amount and direction of thn.1st provided by the bypass flow B.
A significant amount of thrust is provided by the bypass flow B
due to the high bypass ratio. The fan section 20 of the engine
10 is nominally designed for a particular flight condition-
typically cruise at 0.8M and 35,000 feet.
Smith i-f 25, Final Action 6. The recited passage of Smith relates to varying
the parameters of density, velocity, and area to affect the thrust or output of
an engme.
Appellant's performance parameter, EUTP, relates to the efficiency of
the engine, not just the output of the engine. "Net Thrust of the Engine" is
merely the numerator of the EUTP ratio and is only one quantity of the
equation. The EUTP ratio is concerned with the Net Thrust of the Engine in
relation to the product of three other quantities; namely: ( 1) mass flow rate
of air through the fan by-pass section; (2) the fan tip diameter; and (3) the
rotational speed of the power turbine section is in claim 1. Spec. i-fi-154--56.
Generally, a recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by
the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective. Applied
Materials, 692 F.3d at 1297. However, the dispute between the Examiner
and Appellant, in the instant case, is not so much on whether certain
variables are "result-effective" as it is about the "result" that is being
affected by the variables. The Examiner focuses on engine thrust as a result
that is affected by variables, such as density. Final Action 6. The Examiner
fails to supply evidence that establishes a relationship between engine
efficiency (EUTP) and the combination of the four variables recited in
claim 1, in the specific claimed ratio relationship, that make up Appellant's
EUTP equation. Thus, the Examiner has not established that it would have
been obvious to optimize EUTP in view of Smith to achieve the claimed
value.
5
Appeal2015-000864
Application 13/854,225
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's
unpatentability rejection of claim 1.
Claims 9 and 17
Claims 9 and 17 are independent claims. Claims App. As with
claim 1, each of claims 9 and 17 contains a limitation directed to a value for
an Engine Unit Thrust Parameter as defined as in claim 1. Id. The
Examiner's rejection of these claims also suffers from the same infirmity
that was identified above with respect to claim 1. Thus, for essentially the
same reasons expressed above in connection with claim 1, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 9 and 17.
Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-24
Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-24 depend, directly or indirectly, from
ether claim 1, 9, or 17. Claims App. As such, the Examiner's rejection of
these claims suffers from the same infirmity that was identified above with
respect to claims 1, 9, and 17. Thus, for essentially the same reasons
expressed above in connection with claims 1, 9, and 1 7, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-24.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-24 is reversed.
REVERSED
6