Ex Parte Schwarz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2019

14624668 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/624,668 02/18/2015 Frederick M. Schwarz
54549 7590 02/28/2019
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.
76507US01;
67097-3138PUS1
1911
EXAMINER
WONG,ELTONK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2019 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 FREDERICK M. SCHWARZ and GABRIEL L. SUCIU
Appeal 2018-005651
Application 14/624,668
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNFIER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN,
MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
United Technologies Corporation ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-
16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant is the applicant as provided in 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.46 and is identified
as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-005651
Application 14/624,668
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification
Appellant's disclosure "relates to a geared turbofan engine which may
be particularly beneficial for application on regional jet engines." Spec. ,II.
The Rejected Claims
Claims 1 and 3-16 are pending and rejected. Final Act. 1. Claim 1 is
representative and reproduced below.
1. A gas turbine engine comprising:
a fan rotor having blades with an outer diameter, said
outer diameter being greater than or equal to 77 inches (196
centimeters) and less than or equal to 135 inches (343
centimeter), and said fan rotor having less than or equal to 26
fan blades;
said fan rotor driven by a fan drive turbine through a gear
reduction, said gear reduction having a gear ratio and said fan
rotor delivering air into a bypass duct as bypass air, and into a
duct leading to a compressor rotor as core air, and a ratio of
bypass air to said core air being greater than or equal to 12: 1;
an upstream turbine rotor upstream of said fan drive
turbine and driving a compressor rotor, and said upstream
turbine rotor having at least two stages, and said fan drive
turbine rotor having at least three stages;
said turbine blades in at least one stage of said fan drive
turbine rotor being provided with a performance enhancing
feature, and said performance enhancing features is at least one
of said blades being manufactured by a directionally solidified
blade material, said blades provided as single crystal blades,
said blades having a radially outer platform provided with
scalloping to reduce the weight of said blades, and said blades
being provided with cooling air; and
said gear ratio is greater than 3 .06: 1.
Replacement Claims App. 2 (filed Jan. 6, 2018).
2
Appeal 2018-005651
Application 14/624,668
The Appealed Rejections
The following rejections are before us for review:
1.
Ans. 2);
2.
Claims 5 and 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (Final Act. 3;
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Kupratis2 and Quinn; 3 (Final Act. 4); and
3. Claims 8 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Kupratis, Quinn, and Barr4 (id. at 8).
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 11-16 as indefinite
because they recite, or incorporate, limitations having erroneous units
of measurement for "performance quantity." Final Act. 3. More
specifically, claim 5 recites performance quantity as measured in
"RPM in2," claim 11 recites performance quantity as measured in
"RPM* in2," and claims 12-15 depend from claim 11. See id.;
Replacement Claims App. 3--4. The Examiner determined that the
proper unit of measurement, per the Specification, should be (RPM *
in)2. Final Act. 3 ( citing Spec. ,I43).
2 US 2013/0192200 Al, published Aug. 1, 2013 ("Kupratis").
3 US 5,785,498, issued July 28, 1998 ("Quinn").
4 US 2013/0251520 Al, published Sept. 26, 2013 ("Barr").
3
Appeal 2018-005651
Application 14/624,668
Appellant does not present any arguments regarding this rejection.
See Appeal Br. 2-3. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the rejection of
claims 5 and 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Rejection 2
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-16 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kupratis and Quinn. Final Act. 4.
Kupratis teaches a geared gas turbine engine. Kupratis i-f6. The
Examiner found that Kupratis discloses the entire subject matter of claim 1
except that it does disclose a diameter for the fan rotor blades. Final Act. 4--
5. In contrast, claim 1 recites "a fan rotor having blades with an outer
diameter, said outer diameter being greater than or equal to 77 inches (196
centimeters) and less than or equal to 135 inches (343 centimeter)." Appeal
Br. 4. However, the Examiner found that Quinn teaches "diameters of
typical high bypass gas turbine engines range from 100 to 124 inches,"
which substantially overlaps with the range recited in the claim. Final Act. 5
(citing Quinn 1:35-39); see In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir.
2003) ("In cases involving overlapping ranges, we and our predecessor court
have consistently held that even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima
facie case of obviousness.").
The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art "to modify the engine taught by Kupratis such that
the fan rotor has a diameter of 100 inches to 124 inches as taught by Quinn,
since that size commonly used in the art for efficiency." Final Act. 5.
Appellant argues the following:
The Kupratis reference has a gear reduction driving its fan
rotor. The Quinn reference does not appear to have such a gear
4
Appeal 2018-005651
Application 14/624,668
reduction. A fan for an engine wherein a gear reduction is
utilized to drive the fan rotor would be designed for such an
application. A fan for an engine that does not have a gear
reduction would be designed for its application. Nothing would
suggest taking the size of the fan rotor in Quinn et al. and
utilizing it in Kupratis et al.
Appeal Br. 3; see also Reply Br. 1 ("Quinn does not disclose a gear
reduction for driving its fan rotor, and thus its teachings of fan rotor
structure would not be applicable to Kupratis. . . . Anything taught by Quinn
would not be considered by Kupratis.").
The Examiner responds that "Quinn does not explicitly state that there
is no gear reduction, but is instead silent in regards to gearing. This is
because Quinn is primarily focused on the fan rotor of the gas turbine
engine." Ans. 2. The Examiner further responds that "[b ]oth Kupratis and
Quinn are related to high bypass gas turbine engines." Id. ( citing Kupratis
,I49; Quinn 1 :35-39).
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection.
First, Quinn is analogous prior art, as it is from the same field as
Appellant's invention, the field of gas turbine engines. See Spec. i-fi-fl-2;
Quinn 1:10-12; see also In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
("In order to rely on a reference as a basis for rejection of the applicant's
invention, the reference must either be in the field of the applicant's
endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
with which the inventor was concerned.").
Second, Appellant does not cite any evidence why a person of
ordinary skill in the art, when seeking to design or improve geared gas
turbine engines such as that taught by Kupratis, would exclude from
5
Appeal 2018-005651
Application 14/624,668
consideration prior art teachings provided in the slightly broader context of
gas turbine engines such as that taught by Quinn.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 as
unpatentable over Kupratis and Quinn. For the same reasons, we likewise
affirm the rejection of dependent claims 3-7, 9-13, and 15-16. See In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("Dependent claims are
nonobvious under section 103 if the independent claims from which they
depend are nonobvious.").
Rejection 3
The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Kupratis, Quinn, and Barr. Final Act. 8. Appellant's argument
against this rejection is similar to that against Rejection 2: "Similarly, there
is no showing that the problems addressed by the scalloping in Barr et al.
would exist in the Kupratis reference." Appeal Br. 3.
The Examiner responds by pointing out that the problems addressed
by scalloping in Barr are not limited to Barr but would be present in
Kupratis "since operating the gas turbine engine would involve flowing
combustion gas past an airfoil." Ans. 3; see also id. ("The scalloping taught
by Ba[r]r helps the platform's response to overturning of air and weakening
of horse shoe vortices [0065]. Ba[r]r explains that these problems are a
result of combustion gases being split by the leading edge of airfoils during
operation [0035-0036]. Therefore, the problem would exist in Kupratis.").
Appellant replies that "[t]here is no support in the Examiner's
rejection that the Barr reference and the problems it addresses would still
exist in a gas turbine engine as otherwise set forth in the claims." Reply
Brief. 1. Appellant does not provide any evidence or technical explanation
6
Appeal 2018-005651
Application 14/624,668
to refute the Examiner's findings or analysis regarding the problems
addressed by Barr. Id. We are satisfied by the Examiner's prima facie
obviousness rejection and not apprised of error by Appellants.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3-16 is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
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
7