MAHAFFY, Kevin E. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 31, 2020

2018002346 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 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.
14/212,974 03/14/2014 Kevin E. MAHAFFY 20498.0004USU1 3155
52835 7590 07/31/2020
HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C.
45 South Seventh Street
Suite 2700
Minneapolis, MN 55402-1683
EXAMINER
MEADE, LORNE EDWARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2020 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):
PTOMail@hsml.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KEVIN E. MAHAFFY, BYRON HENNING,
KOREY ROBERT KLINE, PHILIP PELFREY,
ERIC SCHMIDT, and ELIAS WILSON
____________

Appeal 2018-002346
Application 14/212,974
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARNER, 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 4, 6, 7, 9, and 12–17, which are all the
pending claims. Appeal Br. 1, 5. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on October 17, 2019.
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Exquadrum, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-002346
Application 14/212,974

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosed invention relates to a hybrid rocket engine for
use in a propulsion system for flight vehicles, such as aircraft, missiles,
satellites, and other vehicles that rely upon rocket propulsion. See, e.g.,
Spec., p. 1, ll. 9–10. Claims 4 and 6 are independent. Claim 4, reproduced
below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
4. A hybrid rocket engine, comprising:
an aerospike nozzle having a first end, a second end and
an outer surface;
a solid-propellant gas generator that includes a solid
propellant that produces a fuel-rich gas;
a first manifold fluidly connected to the solid-propellant
gas generator and receiving the fuel-rich gas therefrom;
an oxidizer tank containing a liquid oxidizer;
an array of modular thrust chambers arranged around the
outer surface of the aerospike nozzle at the first end;
a second manifold fluidly connected to the oxidizer tank
and located entirely within a space defined by the array of
modular thrust chambers;
wherein each of the modular thrust chambers includes:
a combustion chamber that combusts a mixture of
the fuel-rich gas and an oxidizer gas produced from the
liquid oxidizer;
an expansion nozzle connected to the combustion
chamber downstream of, and in fluid communication
with, the combustion chamber through which combustion
products from the combustion chamber are expanded, the
expansion nozzle includes an outlet through which the
expanded combustion products are discharged along the
outer surface of the aerospike nozzle to produce thrust;
Appeal 2018-002346
Application 14/212,974

3
an injector that is in fluid communication with the
first manifold and the combustion chamber, and wherein
the injector is upstream of the combustion chamber; and
an injection manifold, the injection manifold is in
fluid communication with the second manifold and the
injector.

EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Adamson US 3,112,612 Dec. 3, 1963
Knuth US 5,010,730 Apr. 30, 1991
Adzhian US 6,244,040 B1 June 12, 2001
Cesaroni US 2005/0241294 A1 Nov. 3, 2005
Woodruff US 2009/0260343 A1 Oct. 22, 2009
Philip Bono & Kenneth Gatland, Frontiers of Space, Macmillan
Publishing Co., Inc., New York, 1976, pp. 62–73 (“Frontier”)2

REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. Claims 4, 6, and 12–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Frontier, Cesaroni, Woodruff,
Adamson, and Knuth. Non-Final Act. 4–26.

2 We note that the Examiner identifies this reference as “Frontier” in
the rejections of record. In the interest of consistency, we adopt the same
label herein.
Appeal 2018-002346
Application 14/212,974

4
II. Claims 7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Frontier, Cesaroni, Woodruff, Adamson,
Knuth, and Adzhian. Id. at 26–29.

ANALYSIS
All the claims recite a hybrid rocket engine that includes “a first
manifold fluidly connected to” the engine’s solid-propellant gas generator
and “a second manifold fluidly connected to” the engine’s oxidizer tank.
Appeal Br., Claims App. The claims further recite that the second manifold
is “located entirely within a space defined by the array of modular thrust
chambers.” Id. Resolution of this appeal turns on whether a second
manifold so located is accounted for in the prior art cited by the Examiner.
Upon review of Appellant’s arguments, we agree with Appellant that it is
not. See Appeal Br. 9–13.
In the rejections on appeal, the Examiner relies on Adamson and
Knuth as disclosing a hybrid rocket engine with a second manifold located
entirely within the space defined by the rocket’s modular thrust chambers, as
claimed. The Examiner indicates that Figures 3 and 4 of Adamson disclose
a second manifold with the claimed location. Non-Final Act. 12–14
(including annotated reproductions of Adamson’s drawing figures). And the
Examiner annotates and adds to Adamson’s Figure 1 (labeled as “Fig. A”),
asserting that “it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention, that the array of the modular thrust chambers of
Adamson” would have required a second manifold so located “to distribute
oxidizer . . . to the injection manifold . . . of each one of the modular thrust
chambers.” Id. at 11–12. The Examiner relies on Knuth to similarly teach a
Appeal 2018-002346
Application 14/212,974

5
second manifold “fluidly connected to the oxidizer tank and located entirely
within a space . . . defined by the array of modular thrust chambers.” Id.
at 15.
Given these findings, the Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to “substitute[] the second
manifold arrangement and injection manifold,” which the Examiner asserts
to be in Adamson and Knuth, into the other cited prior art “with no change
in their respective functions, to yield predictable results.” Id. at 17. That is,
according to the Examiner, having the “second manifold located entirely
within the space defined by the annular array of modular thrust chambers
would have distributed oxidizer to the injection manifold of each one of the
modular thrust chambers to generate thrust by combusting a mixture of the
oxidizer and the fuel-rich gas.” Id.
Appellant persuasively argues, however, that neither Adamson nor
Knuth discloses a second manifold connected to an oxidizer tank entirely
within an array of modular thrust chambers. See Appeal Br. 9–13. First,
we agree with Appellant that Adamson does not appear to disclose a second
manifold. Notably, the drawing figures of Adamson relied on by the
Examiner depict a single manifold 10 fluidly connected to the engine’s
thrust chambers, located above and outside the spaced defined by the thrust
chambers. The Examiner’s statement that various unmarked structures in
Adamson could be a second manifold is entirely speculative and is not
supported by Adamson’s disclosure. Further, even if Adamson were to
disclose a second manifold connected to an oxidizer, as the Examiner
indicates, nothing in Adamson discloses that such a manifold would be
Appeal 2018-002346
Application 14/212,974

6
located entirely in the area defined by the engine’s thrust chambers, as
required in the claims.
Likewise, the Examiner’s finding that Knuth discloses the second
manifold located entirely within the area defined by the thrust chambers is
similarly unsupported by the record. As with Adamson, the structure in
Knuth relied on by the Examiner as a second manifold is neither referenced
nor discussed in Knuth’s specification. Knuth teaches an oxidizer tank 3
connected to a multiplicity of turbo pumps, each of which distributes the
oxidizer to a bypass valve 8 that then directs the oxidizer to a motor casing 9
or an inlet manifold 37. As in Adamson, this distribution system extends
outside the space defined by the thrust chambers.
Rejections based on obviousness must rest on a factual basis; in
making such a rejection, the Examiner has the initial burden of supplying the
requisite factual basis and may not, because of doubts that the invention is
patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions, or hindsight
reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factual basis. See In re Warner,
379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). Given the disclosures in Adamson and
Knuth, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not supplied a factual
basis that either Adamson or Knuth teaches “a second manifold fluidly
connected to the oxidizer tank and located entirely within a space defined by
the array of modular thrust chambers,” as claimed.
We note that the Examiner expounds on the rejections, particularly
with respect to possibilities of what Adamson and Knuth could teach (see,
e.g., Ans. 12–41), which Appellant urges rise to effectively being “new
grounds of rejection that are being presented for the first time” (Reply Br. 2).
After considering these additional explanations, although we are not
Appeal 2018-002346
Application 14/212,974

7
convinced that they constitute new grounds of rejection, we nonetheless
agree with Appellant that the rejection of record (from which this appeal was
taken) remains deficient for the reasons discussed above. See also Reply
Br. 6–13. Specifically, the Examiner’s reliance on Adamson and Knuth as
disclosing a second manifold “located entirely within a space defined by the
array of modular thrust chambers,” as claimed, depends on speculation
insufficiently supported in the record before us.
In short, the rejections before us relying on Adamson and Knuth are
premised on a finding not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Accordingly, we do not sustain them.

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4, 6, and
12–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Frontier,
Cesaroni, Woodruff, Adamson, and Knuth.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7 and 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Frontier, Cesaroni,
Woodruff, Adamson, Knuth, and Adzhian.

Appeal 2018-002346
Application 14/212,974

8
CONCLUSION

Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
4, 6, 12–17 103(a)
Frontier, Cesaroni,
Woodruff, Adamson,
Knuth
4, 6, 12–17
7, 9 103(a)
Frontier, Cesaroni,
Woodruff, Adamson,
Knuth, Adzhian
7, 9
Overall
Outcome
4, 6, 7, 9, 12–17

REVERSED