Ex Parte Suciu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2018

14592950 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/592,950 01/09/2015 Gabriel L. Suciu
54549 7590 12/25/2018
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.
74207US02;
67097-2840US1
1053
EXAMINER
KANG, EDWIN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/25/2018 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 GABRIEL L. SUCIU and JESSE M. CHANDLER
Appeal2018-004909
Application 14/592,950
Technology Center 3700
Before: LINDA E. HORNER, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant, United Technologies Corp., appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 17-20. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2018-004909
Application 14/592,950
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a gas turbine engine. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A gas turbine engine comprising:
an outer shroud;
an inner core housing positioned radially inwardly of said
outer shroud, said inner core housing having a core engine
including at least one compressor rotor and at least one turbine
rotor, and a combustor section intermediate said at least one
compressor rotor and said at least one turbine rotor;
a fan turbine positioned downstream of said at least one
turbine rotor, and said fan turbine for driving a gear reduction to,
in tum, drive at least one fan blade positioned radially inwardly
of said outer shroud;
a thrust reverser associated with said outer shroud, and a
pitch change mechanism associated with said at least one fan
blade, and a controller for controlling said thrust reverser in
combination with controlling said pitch change mechanism to
achieve a thrust reversal function, and said controller being
operable to change an angle of said at least one fan blade by more
than 90 degrees during movement to a thrust reverser position.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Motycka
Rudolph
Miller
Stretton
us 3,931,708
us 4,815,273
us 5,213,471
US 2011/0268563 Al
2
Jan. 13, 1976
Mar. 28, 1989
May 25, 1993
Nov. 3, 2011
Appeal2018-004909
Application 14/592,950
REJECTION 1
Claim 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Stretton, Rudolph, Miller, and Motycka.
OPINION
The claims are argued as a group based on independent claim 1. App.
Br. 2--4. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Stretton as disclosing
the basic turbine engine claimed and Rudolph as teaching it was known to
provide a reducing gear in that type of engine. Final Act. 3--4. The
Examiner's findings with regard to Stretton and Rudolph are not disputed.
Appellant initially takes issue the Examiner's reliance on two additional
references for a total of four references to support the rejection. App. Br. 2.
Reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without
more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. In re
Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (holding that the proper inquiry
is what the references "would have meant to a person of ordinary skill in the
field of the invention"); MPEP § 2145(V).
Appellant next takes issue with the Examiner's reliance on Miller for
teaching blade pitch adjustment because Miller employs unshrouded blades.
App. Br. 2-3; Reply. Br 1. Appellant does not provide any evidence or
technical reasoning to support the assertion that shrouded blades, such as
those of Stretton, would be incompatible with the adjustable blades of
1 "[T]he amendments filed on 14 August 2017 addressing the rejections of
[c]laims 7, 8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. [§] 112(b) in the Final Action have
been entered for purposes of appeal (see Advisory Action [9/7 /17])." Ans. 2
(indicating § 112(b) rejection is withdrawn).
3
Appeal2018-004909
Application 14/592,950
Miller. Indeed, Motycka confirms that shrouds can be employed with
adjustable-pitch blades. Motycka passim.
Appellant also contests the Examiner's reliance on Motycka, arguing
"Motycka ... does not show changing the angle of blades in combination
with changing the angle of a thrust reverser." App. Br. 3. First, as the
Examiner correctly points out, this is not what claim 1 recites. Ans. 6.
Second, as the Examiner also points out, Motycka teaches that flaps 26,
interpreted by the Examiner as the recited "thrust reverser,"2 are positioned
based on forward or reverse position of the blades 12. Ans. 6-7 (citing
Motycka col. 2, 11. 17-19). Thus, it is clear that Motycka's controller
controls both flap and blades in combination "to achieve a thrust reversal
function" and can move the blades to "a thrust reverser3 position." The
Examiner relied on Miller regarding the particular degree of angular rotation
of the blades. Final Act. 5. Appellant's remarks relating to Davenport and
Dinsmoor appear to relate to the Non-Final rejection of January 30, 2017, as
opposed to the Final Action of June 14, 2017, from which this appeal was
taken. See App. Br. 3.
Appellant argues the Examiner fails to state a reason for combining
the references. App. Br. 3. The Examiner proposed to incorporate Miller's
2 Appellant does not contest the Examiner's reliance on Motycka's flap 26
as the recited "thrust reverser." Based on Motycka's figure and Appellant's
Figure 1 we are unable to discern any structural differences therebetween.
As Motycka was assigned to Appellant, Appellant is in the best position to
explain any structural or functional differences that may exist and this has
not been done for purposes of this appeal.
3 The Specification describes the blades as moved to a "thrust reversing
position" which we regard as the same as the recited "thrust reverser
position." Spec. para. 34 ( emphasis added).
4
Appeal2018-004909
Application 14/592,950
teachings to provide a pitch change mechanism to the engine of Stretton.
Final Act. 5. It is readily apparent from Miller that, "[c]hanging pitch allows
the angle-of-attack of the blades to be optimized for the prevailing engine
power level and flight conditions." Miller, col. 1, 11. 27-29. This
modification allows the pilot to select reverse thrust after touch-down. Ans.
4 (citing, inter alia, Miller Col. 10, 1. 4.). The Examiner's stated basis for
employing Motycka's flap in combination with changing a blade pitch was
to form "a desirable inlet when the fan is operating in the reverse pitch
mode." Ans. 12 (quoting Motycka abstr.). These are persuasive reasons why
one skilled in the art would have incorporated the teachings of Miller and
Motycka into Stretton and they stand generally uncontroverted. Contrary to
Appellant's argument (App. Br. 4), because flap 36 operates in conjunction
with blades 12, Motycka does not rely on only a single mechanism, such as
the blades alone, to achieve a thrust reversing function.
Appellant raises a final argument in the reply brief that "[Stretton's]
propeller blades, if operated to drive air in the reverse manner, will be
driving a very large amount of air forwardly, and may well prevent air from
entering the core engine of Stretton." Reply. Br. 2. First, this argument is
untimely. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Second, this argument is not supported by
any technical evidence or reasoning of record and instead appears to be
based only on bodily incorporation. "It is well-established that a
determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references
does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements." In re
Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Third, this essentially
amounts to an argument that Appellant's own design, in which inlet 23 is
forward of blades 46, 48, would be inoperable. Neither Appellant's
5
Appeal2018-004909
Application 14/592,950
arguments nor Appellant's Specification apprise us as to any inventive
distinction that Appellant has discovered to overcome the alleged difficulty.
Absent any such disclosure it is reasonable to assume that one of ordinary
skill can use his or her ordinary skill, creativity, and common sense to make
the necessary adjustments and further modifications to result in a properly
functioning device. See KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418
(2007) ("the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ"). Absolute predictability that the
substitution will be successful is not required, all that is required is a
reasonable expectation of success. See In re O 'Farrell, 853 F .2d 894, 903-
04 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
For the foregoing reasons we sustain the Examiner's rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection is affirmed.
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
6