Ex Parte Schwarz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 26, 2016

14038886 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/038,886 09/27/2013 Frederick M. Schwarz
54549 7590 08/30/2016
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.
71885US03;
67097-2451PUS2
8678
EXAMINER
GOYAL,ARUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2016 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)
u-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FREDERICK M. SCHWARZ and
ROBERT E. MALECKI
Appeal2014-009020
Application 14/038,886
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, LISA M. GUIJT, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Appellants2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-21, which
are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 This Appeal is related to Appeal Number 2015-000392.
2 The real party in interest is identified as United Technologies Corporation.
(App. Br. 1.)
Appeal2014-009020
Application 14/038,886
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed invention generally relates to an elongated geared
turbofan with high bypass ratio. (Title.) Claim 1, reproduced below with
disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative:
1. A propulsion system comprising:
afan;
a gear;
a turbine configured to drive said gear to drive said fan,
said turbine having an exit point, and a diameter (Dt) defined as
the diameter of a last blade airfoil stage in the turbine at said exit
point;
a nacelle surrounding a core engine housing, said fan
configured to deliver air into a bypass duct defined between said
nacelle and said core engine housing; and
a core engine exhaust nozzle downstream of said exit
point, with a downstream most point of said core engine exhaust
nozzle being defined at a distance (Le or Ln) from the exit point,
wherein a ratio of said distance (Le or Ln) to said diameter
(DJ is greater than or equal to about 0.90.
Rejection
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Chaudhry, 3 Orosa, 4 and Alletzhauser. 5 (Final Act. 2--4.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments (App. Br. 2--4; Reply Br. 1-2). We are not persuaded by
3 US 2010/0005778 Al, published Jan. 14, 2010.
4 US 2010/0303607 Al, published Dec. 2, 2010.
5 US 7,966,827 B2, issued June 28, 2011.
2
Appeal2014-009020
Application 14/038,886
Appellants' arguments. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, in the
Answer (see Ans. 2-3), and in the Advisory Action. We highlight and
address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
According to Appellants, "[t]he Examiner acknowledges Chaudhry
does not disclose any ratio that could meet the claims." (App. Br. 3.) In the
Final Action, however, the Examiner concludes it is obvious from Figure 1 A
of Chaudhry that the ratio of distance Ln to diameter Dt "is in the order of 1."
(Final Act. 3.) The Examiner states, "Chaudhry does not specifically teach
that the ratio of said distance Ln to said diameter is greater than or equal to
about 1.17" (id.), which is the ratio claimed in claim 3. Appellants do not
apprise us of error in the Examiner's findings with regard to Figure IA of
Chaudhry, and claim 1 recites a ratio of axial-length-to-diameter greater
than or equal to about 0.90. Nonetheless, because the Examiner's rejection
for claim 1 relies also on Orosa and Alletzhauser (Final Act. 2), we consider
Appellants' remaining arguments.
We disagree with Appellants' argument that "Orosa does not disclose
anything with regard to the last blade stage of any turbine, and does not
relate the claimed length to any such diameter" (App. Br. 3). The Examiner
finds:
Orosa teaches that the downstream most point of the
exhaust nozzle (Fig. 2 downstream end of 62 region 82) being
downstream of the internal plug (78) and wherein a ratio of said
distance Ln to said diameter is greater than or equal to about 1.1 7
(>2, Fig. 4 downstream end is at 65, col. 4 11. 19).
(Final Act. 3.) Figure 4 of Orosa is reproduced below:
3
Appeal2014-009020
Application 14/038,886
FIG. 4
Figure 4 "is a graph of the profile of an inner boundary and an
outer boundary of an exhaust diffuser flow path along the axial
length of an exhaust diffuser section, comparing one
embodiment of the outer boundary profile of an exhaust
diffuser section configured in accordance with aspects of
[Orosa's] invention to the outer boundary profile of a known
exhaust diffuser section." (Orosa i-f 23.)
The leftmost portion of Figure 4 corresponds to the inlet to the
exhaust. (See Orosa i-f 26 ("The axial length Ld can extend from an upstream
end 63 of the diffuser shell 62 to a downstream end 65 of the diffuser shell
62 (see FIG. 4).").) Orosa's Figure 4 shows the relationship between the
radial distance at the exhaust inlet and the axial extent of the exhaust.
Appellants do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's finding (Final
Act. 3; Ans. 2), supported by Figure 4, that Orosa teaches the ratio between
the axial length and diameter of the last blade airfoil stage as defined in
claim 1 is greater than two. Instead, Appellants assert that "there is an
undisclosed amount of length between the diameter of the last blade airfoil
stage in a turbine, and the diffuser inlet" (Reply Br. 1 ). Appellants'
assertion is unsupported by evidence and not persuasive. As the Examiner
finds (Ans. 2), Orosa teaches "exhaust diffuser 50 has an inlet 52 that can
receive gases 54 exiting from the turbine section" (Orosa i-f 25). Inlet 52 of
4
Appeal2014-009020
Application 14/038,886
exhaust diffuser 50 is shown in Figure 2 of Orosa, which is reproduced
below:
Figure 2 is a side elevation cross-sectional view of an exhaust
diffuser section of Orosa's turbine engine. (Orosa i-f 21.)
We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand Orosa to equate inlet 52 shown in Figure 2 at the left edge of
exhaust diffuser 50 with the exit of the turbine. (See Ans. 2.) The purpose
of the exhaust is to exhaust the gases exiting the airfoils of the turbine
(Orosa i-f 4); accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect
Orosa to have any undisclosed length or change in diameter between the last
turbine airfoil and its exhaust inlet.
5
Appeal2014-009020
Application 14/038,886
In addition, the Examiner cites Graziosi 6 and Hocking 7 to further
demonstrate how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret Orosa's
disclosure regarding the relationship between the turbine section and inlet to
the exhaust. (Ans. 2.) Appellants' argument that Graziosi and Hocking "are
not part of the current rejection" (Reply Br. 1) is a procedural matter for
which Appellants' arguments are untimely under 37 C.F.R. § 41.40(a). As
Appellants elect not to address the substance of these references, or the
purpose for which they are relied on by the Examiner, the Examiner's
remarks in this regard stand uncontroverted. (See Reply Br. 1.)
Appellants also argue Orosa "does not appear to relate to a gas turbine
engine having a fan driven through a gear reduction by a turbine." (App. Br.
3.) The Examiner, however, relies on Chaudhry for teaching a gas turbine
engine with a gear-driven fan. (Final Act. 2; Advisory Act. 2.) 8
Appellants contend "nothing within Orosa would suggest modifying
Chaudhry, and in fact the teachings in the art would suggest movement to
shorten the ratio." (App. Br. 3.) The teachings in the art referred to by
Appellants are evidenced only by Appellants' Specification, which states
that under conventional design strategy, one of ordinary skill in the art
would typically seek to minimize the length of the core engine exhaust
nozzle and any exhaust case. (Spec. i-f 40.) This statement from Appellants'
Specification is insufficient to show that the prior art as a whole teaches
6 US 6,896,475 B2, issued May 24, 2005.
7 US 2007/0235080 Al, published Oct. 11, 2007.
8 Appellants also contend that the Examiner acknowledges Chaudhry does
not disclose gas turbine engines with a gear driving a fan. (App. Br. 4.)
Appellants' contention contradicts the Examiner's findings, with which we
agree, and does not apprise us of error in these findings.
6
Appeal2014-009020
Application 14/038,886
away from using the axial and radial ratio of Orosa's exhaust with
Chaudhry's turbine engine. Moreover, Appellants do not address the
Examiner's findings and reasoning that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have looked to the dimensions of the exhaust shown in Orosa to alleviate
noise problems experienced by turbine engines with gear-driven fans. (Final
Act. 3--4; Ans. 2-3.)
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
we are not apprised of Examiner error in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Chaudhry, Orosa, and Alletzhauser. Thus, we
sustain the rejection of claim 1, and, for the same reasons, the rejection of
claims 2-21, which are not argued separately (App. Br. 2--4).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7