Ex Parte Suciu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

11846095 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/846,095 08/28/2007 GabrielL. Suciu 67097-841PUSl;PA0004585US 9814
54549 7590 09/05/2017
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
SUNG, GERALD LUTHER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2017 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 GABRIEL L. SUCIU,
BRIAN D. MERRY, and CHRISTOPHER M. DYE
Appeal 2016-000575
Application 11/846,095
Technology Center 3700
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, LISA M. GUIJT, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-000575
Application 11/846,095
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants, Gabriel L. Suciu et al.,1 2appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated
December 11, 2014 (“Final Act.”), rejecting claims 1—9, 11, 12, 14, and 15.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a gas turbine engine. Claim 1, the
independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below with disputed limitations
italicized for emphasis:
1. A turbine engine comprising:
a fan case surrounding a fan rotatable about an axis;
a core supported relative to the fan case by a support
structure and arranged downstream from the fan, the core
including a core housing having an inlet case arranged to receive
airflow from the fan, a compressor case axially adjacent to the
inlet case and surrounding a compressor stage having a first rotor
blade with a blade leading edge and a second rotor blade with a
blade trailing edge, both blades rotatable about the axis, and an
intermediate case arranged axially adjacent to the compressor
case, the support structure arranged axially forward of the
intermediate case;
a gear train interconnected between the fan and a spool that
is arranged within the core; and wherein the support structure is
axially aligned with the compressor case, the support structure
including a support structure leading edge facing the fan and a
support structure trailing edge on a side opposite the support
structure leading edge, the support leading edge arranged axially
rearward of the blade leading edge, and the support structure
trailing edge arranged axially forward of the blade trailing edge.
1 Appellants identify United Technology Corporation as the real party
in interest. Appeal Brief, dated April 20, 2015, at 1 (“Appeal Br.”).
2
Appeal 2016-000575
Application 11/846,095
REFERENCES
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art:
Clark US 3,797,561
Chaplin US 4,722,184
Delonge US 5,472,314
Suciu US 2006/0130456 A1
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 1—5 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Suciu and Chaplin.
2. Claims 6—9 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chaplin, Suciu, and Schilling.
3. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Suciu, Chaplin, Schilling, and Delonge.
4. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Suciu, Chaplin, Schilling, and Clark.
Appellants seek our review of these rejections.
DISCUSSION
The Rejection of Claims 1—5 and 11
as Unpatentable Over Suciu and Chaplin
Appellants argue claims 1—5 and 11 as a group. Appeal Br. 3—5. We
select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2—5 and 11 stand or
fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Suciu discloses all of the limitations of claim
1 except for “the support structure trailing edge arranged axially forward of
Mar. 19, 1974
Feb. 2, 1988
Dec. 5, 1995
June 22, 2006
3
Appeal 2016-000575
Application 11/846,095
the blade trailing edge.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds, in part, that this
missing limitation is disclosed by Chaplin, which discloses “a support
structure 50, 52 where the leading edge of the support structure 50 is
downstream of the leading edge of the blade 70a and upstream of the trailing
edge of the blade 70d.” Id. The Examiner finds that support structure 50, 52
“increase [s] the rigidity of the fan casing and stiffness of the engine to
increase efficiency.” Id. (citing Chaplin 2:60-3:17).
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s findings are erroneous.
According to Appellants, the “Chaplin text cited by the Examiner has
nothing to do with axially positioning of the fan/flow exit guide vanes to
improve rigidity or stiffness.” Appeal Br. 3. Appellants assert that “Chaplin
considers the problem as not the axial positioning of the exit guide vanes but
the inner diameter of the exit guide vanes.” Id. at 3^4 (citing Chaplin 2:2—7,
18—21; 3:12—17). Appellants acknowledge that Chaplin’s exit guide vanes
stiffen and structurally support the engine case but argue without persuasive
explanation that this fact is “not significant.” Id. at 4 (citing Chaplin 2:18—
21, 3:12—17).
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive for several reasons.2 First,
Appellants do not dispute that Chaplin’s exit guide vanes (i.e., support
2 To the extent that Appellants argue that Chaplin “leads away” or
“teaches away” from claim 1 (Appeal Br. 3), Appellants’ citations to
columns 2—3 does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage
positioning the exit guide vanes rearward of the blade leading edge, and
forward of the blade trailing edge, as recited in claim 1. Thus, we are not
persuaded that Chaplin teaches away from the proposed combination. See In
re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1199-1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (To teach away, a
reference’s disclosure must “criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage the
solution claimed.”).
4
Appeal 2016-000575
Application 11/846,095
structure) are located rearward of the blade leading edge, and forward of the
blade trailing edge, as recited in claim 1.
Second, Appellants’ arguments “fail from the outset because . . . they
are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.” In re Self, 671 F.2d
1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982); see also In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369
(Fed. Cir. 1998) (Unclaimed features cannot impart patentability.). Contrary
to Appellants’ argument that Chaplin does not “improve rigidity or
stiffness,” claim 1 does not recite the disputed support structure component
improves rigidity or stiffness.
Third, Appellants’ argument that Chaplin’s discussion of the problems
in the prior art, such as Fitton, somehow limits the advantages and structure
in Chaplin’s device is legally and factually unsupported. Appeal Br. 3^4. In
contrast to prior art designs concerned with “aerodynamic function only”
(Chaplin 2:2—7), Chaplin discloses that its design achieves advantages in
“the stiffness and weight of the engine [] from using an existing
aerodynamic component... as both an aerodynamic component and a
structural component by pretensioning the component.” Chaplin 3:12—17
(emphasis added). Thus, one of Chaplin’s advantages is improved rigidity
and stiffness resulting from the exit guide vanes (i.e., support structure).
Fourth, Appellants argue that “a skilled worker would not modify
Suciu with Chaplin to position Suciu’s flow exit guide vanes as set forth in
claim 1 with respect to the compressor blades since there is no reason to do
so as there is no apparent benefit.” Appeal Br. 5. Contrary to Appellants’
argument that the Examiner offers no rationale for combining the references,
the Examiner determines it would be obvious to modify Chaplin with
Suciu’s exit guide vanes “to increase the rigidity of the fan casing and
5
Appeal 2016-000575
Application 11/846,095
stiffness of the engine to increase efficiency.” Final Act. 4 (citing to
Chaplin 2:60-3:17). Appellants do not address the rejection as articulated
by the Examiner, and, thus, do not identify error.
For the reasons above, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. Claims 2—
5 and 11 fall with claim 1.
The Rejection of Claims 6—9 and 14
as Unpatentable Over Chaplin, Suciu, and Schilling
The Examiner determines that it would be obvious to modify Suciu
and Chaplin, to include Schilling’s forward and rearward attachments as
recited in claim 6, to provide “a suitable support for [the] fan casing.” Final
Act. 7. Appellants argue that Chaplin discloses a “suitable, desirable
support” and “[t]here is nothing to indicate that the Schilling configuration
offers any improvement or benefit over the Chaplin arrangement, so there is
no reason for a skilled worker to make the proposed modification.” Appeal
Br. 5. In response, the Examiner does not address Appellants’ arguments,
and merely states that “Schilling discloses the claimed load path and points
and that the claimed load paths are well known in the art.” Answer, dated
August 14, 2015, at 4 (“Ans.”). The Examiner offers no articulated
reasoning with rational underpinning for modifying Chaplin’s support
attachment with Schilling’s attachment.
The rejection of claim 6, and claims 7—9 and 14, which depend from
claim 6, is not sustained.
6
Appeal 2016-000575
Application 11/846,095
The Rejection of Claim 12
as Unpatentable Over Suciu, Chaplin, Schilling, and Delonge
Claim 12 depends from claim 6. Because the rejection of claim 6 is
not sustained, the rejection of claim 12 is also reversed.
The Rejection of Claim 15
as Unpatentable Over Suciu, Chaplin, Schilling, and Clark
Appellants argue that “[cjlaim 15 depends from claim 1 and is
allowable for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1 above.”
Appeal Br. 6. Because the rejection of claim 1 is sustained and Appellants
do not identify any patentable features in claim 15, the rejection of claim 15
is sustained.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—5, 11,
and 15 are AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 6—9, 12, and 14 are REVERSED.
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
7