Lisa Brilliant et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 25, 2020

2020001489 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2020)

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.
13/409,305 03/01/2012 Lisa I. Brilliant PA21180U;67097-1745PUS1 1054
54549 7590 09/25/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
KIM, TAE JUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3799
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2020 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 LISA I. BRILLIANT, BECKY E. ROSE,
YUAN DONG, and STANLEY J. BALAMUCKI

Appeal 2020-001489
Application 13/409,305
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, KEN B. BARRETT, and SEAN P. O’HANLON,
Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8, 12–18, and 22–27, the only claims
currently pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 The term “Appellant” is used herein to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies United Technologies Corp., as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-001489
Application 13/409,305

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to a turbine engine having a low pressure
bleed with a bleed trailing edge extending into a core flowpath. Claim 1 is
illustrative, and is reproduced below:
1. A turbine engine comprising:

a compressor section having at least a low pressure
compressor, and a core flowpath passing through said low
pressure compressor, said core flowpath having an inner
diameter and an outer diameter, wherein said outer diameter has
a slope angle of between approximately 0 degrees and
approximately 15 degrees relative to an engine central
longitudinal axis;

a combustor in fluid communication with the compressor
section;

a turbine section in fluid communication with the
combustor; and

said low pressure compressor further comprising an exit
guide vane located in a low pressure compressor outlet section
of said core flowpath and a low pressure bleed located between
a low pressure compressor rotor and said exit guide vane,
wherein said low pressure bleed further comprises a bleed
trailing edge extending into said core flowpath beyond said outer
diameter of said core flowpath, at the axial position where the
bleed trailing edge is located.

Appeal 2020-001489
Application 13/409,305

3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects:
(i) Claims 1–8, 12–18, and 22–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Merry (US 2010/0247306 A1, published Sept. 30, 2010)
in view of either Frost (US 5,123,240, issued June 23, 1992) or Carscallen
(US 5,845,482, issued Dec. 8, 1998);
(ii) Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 12, 14–17, 22, and 24–27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moniz (US 2007/0137175 A1,
published June 21, 2007) in view of either Frost or Carscallen;
(iii) Claims 1, 2, 4–8, 12–18, and 22–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Starr (US 2010/0223903 A1, published Sept. 9,
2010) in view of either Lewis (US 2005/0265825 A1, published Dec. 1,
2005) or Walsh (“Gas Turbine Performance,” Second Edition 2004,
Blackwell Science Ltd), optionally in view of Merry or Moniz, and further
in view of Frost or Carscallen;
(iv) Claims 1–8, 12–18, and 22–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Suciu (US 2009/0056306 A1, published Mar. 5, 2009) in
view of either Lewis or Walsh, optionally in view of Merry or Moniz, and
further in view of Frost or Carscallen;
(v) Claims 1–8, 12–18, and 22–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Merry in view of either Lewis or Walsh, optionally in
view of Moniz, and further in view of Frost or Carscallen; and
(vi) Claims 1, 2, 4–8, 12–18, and 22–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Orlando (US 2008/0098715 A1, published May 1,
2008) in view of any of Suciu, Merry, and Moniz, and further in view of
Appeal 2020-001489
Application 13/409,305

4
either Lewis or Walsh, optionally in view of Moniz, and further in view of
Frost or Carscallen.2
A rejection of claims 1–8, 12–18 and 22–27 appearing at paragraph 6
starting on page 3 of the Final Action is withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans.
25–26.
A rejection of claims 1–8, 12–18, and 22–27 appearing at paragraph
11 starting on page 25 of the Final Action is withdrawn by the Examiner as
being a substantial duplicate of a rejection appearing at paragraph 10
thereof. Ans. 26.

ANALYSIS
All of Rejections (i)–(vi)
None of the arguments presented by Appellant are identified as being
specific to any individual ground of rejection, and we therefore assume that
Appellant intends that they apply equally to each of the rejections. Appeal
Br. 4–6; Reply Br. 2–4. Appellant further does not present any separate
arguments directed to particular claims, and we regard the claims as being
argued as a single group. Id. We take claim 1 as representative of the
group, and claims 2–8, 12–18, and 22–27 stand or fall with claim 1.
The issues joined by Appellant and the Examiner on appeal involve
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as to the obviousness of modifying
the various principal references in view of the teachings of either Frost or
Carscallen to provide a low pressure bleed with a bleed trailing edge that

2 Frost and Carscallen are not included in the initial statement of this ground
of rejection, but are applied in the rejection in a manner that is substantially
identical to the manner used in all other rejections on appeal. Final Act.
30–35.
Appeal 2020-001489
Application 13/409,305

5
extends into a core flowpath beyond an outer diameter of the core flowpath.
See, e.g., Final Act. 11, 13–14; Appeal Br. 4–6. The Examiner takes the
position, for example, that whereas Merry does not teach that its bleed
trailing edge extends in the manner set forth in claim 1, Frost and Carscallen
teach a bleed trailing edge having the claimed construction, and concludes
that it would have been obvious to modify Merry so as to have a bleed
trailing edge extending into the core flowpath beyond the outer diameter of
the core flowpath, in order to enhance scooping of the flow in the core
flowpath, and/or improve compressor stage operation and efficiency. Final
Act. 11. The other grounds of rejection include essentially the same findings
and conclusions.
Appellant argues that “[t]he Examiner’s presentation of the rejections
as grouped combinations renders it unclear what rationale is being applied to
what combination.” Appeal Br. 4. Appellant particularly takes issue with
the rejections that are presented in the format, “A in view of B or C, in
further view of D or E,” arguing that the Examiner fails to provide explicit
analysis directed to each of the possible permutations arising from the use of
that format. Id.
We note initially that this argument is not seen as being directed to
rejections (i) and (ii) above, in that those are not presented in the
complained-of format. As to rejections (iii)–(vi) above, we have reviewed
the findings made by the Examiner and find them to be compliant in the
sense that they clearly identify where or how each limitation of the rejected
claims is met by the one or more references cited in each rejection. See In re
Jung, 637 F. 3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that a rejection
must be set forth in sufficiently articulate and informative manner as to meet
Appeal 2020-001489
Application 13/409,305

6
the notice requirement of § 132, such as by identifying where or how each
limitation of the rejected claims is met by the prior art references).
Appellant does not identify with specificity any instance where the
Examiner has failed to comply with this standard.
Along the same lines, Appellant further argues that the Examiner’s
rationale in support of the conclusions of obviousness is inconsistent, in that
the Examiner alternately concludes that it would have been obvious to
modify the bleed trailing edge of the various principal references such that it
extends into the core flowpath, and that, elsewhere, it would have been
obvious to incorporate the entire variable bleed structure as taught by Frost
or Carscallen. Appeal Br. 4–5. According to Appellant, this points to a
failure to clearly articulate the reasons why the claimed invention would
have been obvious. Id. at 5.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner states that both a
modification of an existing bleed trailing edge and a modification to include
a variable bleed structure would have been obvious. That, however, does
not compel a determination that the rejections fail to clearly articulate the
reasons why the invention would have been obvious. The Examiner
succinctly responds to this and other arguments advanced by Appellant,
stating that “the projection of [sic, or] extension of the trailing edge into the
core flowpath enhances the scooping of the bleed . . . regardless of whether
the bleed is variable or not, by the simple fact that by extending into the
flow, it is exposed to a greater surface to capture the bleed air.” Ans. 33.
Furthermore, Appellant presents arguments as to each of the proposed
modifications, and does not appear to be confused that each is an articulated
proposed modification. Appeal Br. 5–6. We are thus not apprised of
Appeal 2020-001489
Application 13/409,305

7
Examiner error on the basis that the reasons supporting obviousness are not
clearly articulated.
Appellant additionally argues that the proposed modification in view
of Frost or Carscallen is in error, in that the variable bleed structure in each
reference is positioned downstream of an exit guide vane, and in that a
person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had no reason to expect the
bleed structure to be able to fit within the claimed gas turbine engine
upstream of the exit guide vane,” i.e., between a low pressure compressor
rotor and the exit guide vane, as claimed. Appeal Br. 5–6.
We first note that this argument applies only to the Examiner’s
proposal to add a variable bleed structure as taught by either Frost or
Carscallen to the various principal references. The Examiner responds that
the sizing of the bleed scoops and valves in the proposed modification are
contingent on the size of the original bleed structures in the principal
references, and such a variable bleed structure would be readily
accommodated based on the size of the bleed passage in the principal
references. Ans. 28.
Appellant has not pointed to any portion of the Frost or Carscallen
references that would inform a person of ordinary skill in the art that the
variable bleed structure is positioned where it is, as opposed to being
upstream of an exit guide vane, based on space constraints. Appellant’s
argument is thus seen as being merely attorney argument not supported by
the evidence of record. Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs, Inc., 429 F.3d
1052, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (explaining that unsubstantiated attorney
argument is no substitute for competent evidence).
Appeal 2020-001489
Application 13/409,305

8
In contrast, the Examiner’s position regarding sizing a variable bleed
structure in accordance with any existing space constraints appears to be
something that would be within the level of ordinary skill for an engine
designer in this art. As such, we disagree with Appellant’s contention that
the person of ordinary skill would not have a reasonable expectation that the
proposed modification would not be successfully achieved. See Appeal
Br. 6.
Appellant argues, as to the proposed modification to simply extend
the trailing edge existing in each of the principal references such that it
extends into the core flowpath, that this amounts to an improper isolation of
that aspect of Frost and Carscallen from its overall context. Appeal Br. 6.
Appellant argues that the benefit identified by the Examiner as a reason to
make the proposed modification, i.e., enhanced scooping of flow and/or
improving compressor stage operations, “appears to be derived from the
variable nature of the bleed structures combined with the extension into the
flowpath, and not the extension of the trailing edge alone.” Id. Appellant
additionally argues that “the enhanced engine operations are achieved by the
variability of the bleed, and not by the extension of the trailing edge into the
flowpath.” Id.
As to the latter, Appellant cites to no evidence in the record in support
of the assertion; but even if we credit the argument, it does not apply to the
other reason provided by the Examiner; i.e., enhanced scooping to better
remove debris from the core flowpath. As to the former, we have already
indicated our agreement with the Examiner’s position that the projection of
the bleed trailing edge into the core flowpath enhances the scooping of the
bleed regardless of whether the bleed is variable or not, in that, by extending
Appeal 2020-001489
Application 13/409,305

9
into the flow, the bleed trailing edge is exposed to a greater surface to
capture the bleed air. See Ans. 33. It is our view that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would not view this form of proposed modification as an
improper isolation of one feature or function from another (variable bleed).
“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
The Examiner and Appellant further exchange positions directed to
whether enhanced engine operation is as a result only of providing a variable
bleed structure. Ans. 30–32; Reply Br. 3–4. We need not reach these
arguments, given the foregoing analysis, which indicates that we are not
apprised of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Rejections (i)–(vi) are sustained as to claim 1. Claims 2–8, 12–18,
and 22–27 fall with claim 1 for each rejection applied to each of those
claims.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1–8, 12–18, and 22–27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Merry and Frost or Carscallen is
affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–7, 12, 14–17, 22, and 24–27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moniz in view of either Frost or
Carscallen is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–8, 12–18, and 22–27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Starr in view of either Lewis or Walsh,
optionally in view of Merry or Moniz, and further in view of Frost or
Carscallen, is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1–8, 12–18, and 22–27 under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal 2020-001489
Application 13/409,305

10
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suciu in view of either Lewis or Walsh,
optionally in view of Merry or Moniz, and further in view of Frost or
Carscallen, is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1–8, 12–18, and 22–27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Merry in view of either Lewis or Walsh,
optionally in view of Moniz, and further in view of Frost or Carscallen, is
affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–8, 12–18, and 22–27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Orlando in view of any of Suciu, Merry,
and Moniz, further in view of either Lewis or Walsh, optionally in view of
Moniz, and further in view of Frost or Carscallen, is affirmed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–8. 12–18,
22–27
103(a) Merry, Frost, Carscallen 1–8, 12–18,
22–27

1, 2, 4–7, 12,
14–17, 22,
24–27
103(a) Moniz, Frost, Carscallen 1, 2, 4–7, 12,
14–17, 22,
24–27

1, 2, 4–8, 12–
18, 22–27
103(a) Starr, Lewis, Walsh,
Merry, Moniz, Frost,
Carscallen,
1, 2, 4–8,
12–18,
22–27

1–8, 12–18,
22–27
103(a) Suciu, Lewis, Walsh,
Merry, Moniz, Frost,
Carscallen
1–8, 12–18,
22–27

1–8, 12–18,
22–27
103(a) Merry, Lewis, Walsh,
Moniz, Frost, Carscallen
1–8, 12–18,
22–27

1, 2, 4–8,
12–18, 22–27
103(a) Orlando, Suciu, Merry,
Moniz, Lewis, Walsh,
Moniz, Frost, Carscallen
1, 2, 4–8,
12–18,
22–27

Appeal 2020-001489
Application 13/409,305

11
Overall
Outcome
1–8, 12–18,
22–27

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED