United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 26, 2021

2021000650 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2021)

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.
16/031,202 07/10/2018 Dmitriy B. Sidelkovskiy 77363US03;
67097-3013PUS2
1020
54549 7590 07/26/2021
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
WALTHOUR, SCOTT J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/26/2021 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 DMITRIY B. SIDELKOVSKIY, OLEG PETRENKO,
ROBERT E. MALECKI, and STEVEN H. ZYSMAN
Appeal 2021-000650
Application 16/031,202
Technology Center 3700
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, LISA M. GUIJT, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOOD, 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 1–9. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Raytheon Technologies
Corp. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2021-000650
Application 16/031,202

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a convergent divergent exit nozzle for a gas
turbine engine. Sole independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A gas turbine engine comprising:
an engine core and a fan driven by the engine core;
a nacelle radially surrounding the engine core and the fan;
a bypass passage including a convergent-divergent exit
nozzle, the bypass passage being defined by the nacelle at an
outer diameter of the bypass passage and by an outer diameter
of the engine core at an inner diameter of the bypass passage,
wherein the convergent-divergent exit nozzle includes:
a primary passage and a secondary passage radially exterior
to the primary passage, wherein the secondary passage includes
a secondary passage inlet disposed in a convergent region of the
convergent-divergent exit nozzle, a secondary passage outlet
disposed in a divergent region of the convergent-divergent exit
nozzle, and wherein the secondary passage includes a
circumferential ring duct and a plurality of isolated airflow
passages.

REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Letay US 2011/0127353 A1 June 2, 2011
Sidelkovskiy US 10,371,092 B2 Aug. 6, 2019
REJECTIONS
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference/Basis
1–9 102 Letay
1–9 Double Patenting Sidelkovskiy, claims 1–13

Appeal 2021-000650
Application 16/031,202

3
OPINION
Claims 1–9—§ 102—Letay
Appellant argues claims 1–6 and 8 as a group, and argues claims 7
and 9 separately. Appeal Br. 4–7. We select claim 1 as representative of the
group. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claims 7 and 9 will be discussed
separately.
Claim 1
The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Letay discloses a bypass passage
(the annular space between inside surface 44 of nacelle 30 and external
surface 46 of power plant 32), including a convergent-divergent exit nozzle
(the portion of the bypass passage “extending from an axial position at the
leading edge of ring 50 to the trailing edge of nacelle 30 and including ring
50 itself”). Final Act. 3–4 (citing Letay, Figs. 3A, 6A). The Examiner
further finds that the convergent-divergent exit nozzle includes a primary
passage and a secondary passage radially exterior to the primary passage,
specifically finding that: (1) the primary passage is the portion of the bypass
passage “extending from leading edge of ring 50 to trailing edge of ring 50”;
and (2) the secondary passage is “radially exterior to the primary passage . . .
from leading edge of ring 50 to trailing edge of ring 50 . . . between surface
44 and ring 50.” Id. at 4 (citing Letay, Figs. 3A, 6A). Finally, the Examiner
finds that the convergent-divergent exit nozzle includes “a circumferential
ring duct” (the portion of the secondary passage “extending axially from the
aft edges of junctions [partitions] 48 to the trailing edge of ring 50”) and “a
plurality of isolated airflow passages” (“two isolated airflow passages
defined from secondary passage discussed above and circumferentially
between junctions [partitions] 48”). Id. (citing Letay, Figs. 3A, 3B).
Appeal 2021-000650
Application 16/031,202

4
Appellant disputes that Letay discloses “a plurality of isolated airflow
passages.” Appeal Br. 4. Appellant asserts that the plain meaning of
“isolated” is “separated from other persons or things; alone; solitary,” and
“there is nothing in Letay that supports the assumption that the bifurcations
48 actually separate the air streams passing through the allegedly isolated
airflow passages.” Id. In fact, according to Appellant, the two passages
“includ[e] crossover flows and intermingling flows,” and therefore cannot
“reasonably be interpreted as being ‘isolated’ from each other.” Id.
The Examiner responds that “Appellant does not claim that the
airflows within the passages are isolated from each other, but rather the
airflow passages (i.e. the structures themselves) are isolated.” Ans. 3. The
Examiner explains that “Letay’s junctions 48 extend the entire distance
between the outside surface 46 of the power plant and the inside wall 44 of
the outer portion of the nacelle 30,” thus “separating the two airflow
passages.” Id. at 4 (citing Letay ¶ 28).
We agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s argument is based on
the incorrect premise that claim 1 requires isolated “airflows” (or “air
streams”).2 As the Examiner states, claim 1 requires that the secondary
passage include isolated airflow passages. Ans. 3. Indeed, claim 1 is
directed to a gas turbine engine itself, and not a method of using it, and

2 Appellant’s contention that the Examiner has made an insufficient showing
of inherency also appears to be based on the incorrect premise that claim 1
requires isolated airflows. Appeal Br. 5–6. Because claim 1 requires
isolated airflow passages and not isolated airflows, the Examiner need not
show that Letay’s isolated airflow passages inherently result in isolated
airflows.
Appeal 2021-000650
Application 16/031,202

5
therefore applies to a gas turbine engine that may not be operating and
therefore not experiencing any “airflows.” Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.).
Appellant asserts that “Letay provides no indication that the alleged
passages are isolated.” Reply Br. 6. But Appellant does not address, much
less show error in, the Examiner’s reliance on paragraph 28 of Letay in
finding that “Letay’s junctions 48 extend the entire distance between the
outside surface 46 of the power plant and the inside wall 44 of the outer
portion of the nacelle 30, thus “separating the two airflow passages.”
Ans. 4. Based on our review, this provision provides ample support for the
Examiner’s finding.
Because Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as of claims 2–6 and 8,
as anticipated by Letay.
Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and additionally recites, in relevant
part, “wherein the plurality of isolated airflow passages are aft of the
circumferential ring duct, relative to a fluid flow through the secondary
passage.” Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that “if the
engine is not operating, a flow of air – e.g., wind – may proceed from
exhaust 50 to intake 34, and relative to such a flow, the airflow passages
defined between junctions 48 are located aft of the circumferential ring duct
discussed for claim 1 above.” Final Act. 5–6 (citing Letay, Figs. 3A, 3B).
Appellant responds that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
interpret “aft” in this manner, because “[f]orward and aft are well
understood terms of art within the context of gas turbine engines, with the
forward end being the upstream end relative to expected flows during engine
Appeal 2021-000650
Application 16/031,202

6
operating and the aft end being the downstream end relative to expected
flows during engine operation.” Appeal Br. 6. The Examiner replies that
“[t]he claimed fluid flow could be any fluid flow,” and “Appellant does not
claim a fluid flow through the secondary passage during engine operation,
which would exclude transient flows moving in either direction through the
secondary passage.” Ans. 9.
Although the Examiner is correct that claim 7 does not specify that
that the fluid flow relative to which “aft” is determined is during engine
operation, the term “aft” is well known to refer to the back of a structure
(and, likewise, “forward” is well known to refer to the front), such that one
of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the fluid flow to be
during normal operation. There appears to be no dispute that Letay’s
plurality of isolated airflow passages are not aft of the circumferential ring
duct when “aft” is construed with this understanding. Therefore, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 as anticipated by Letay.
Claim 9
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and additionally recites, “wherein the
secondary passage outlet of the secondary passage and an outlet of the
convergent-divergent exit nozzle are axially aligned, relative to an axis
defined by the gas turbine engine.” Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.). The
Examiner construes “align” to mean “to adjust to produce a proper
relationship or orientation.” Final Act. 6 (citing thefreedictionary.com).
The Examiner finds that “the outlet at the trailing edge of ring 50 and the
outlet of the convergent-divergent exit nozzle, interpreted as the trailing
edge of nacelle 30, are assembled to produce the proper axial relationship of
each component with respect to the other along a central axis of the engine,”
Appeal 2021-000650
Application 16/031,202

7
and, additionally, “a line can be drawn connecting the trailing edges of ring
50, nacelle 30, and some point on the gas turbine axis necessitating a finding
that the respective outlets are aligned.” Id.
Appellant responds that in the context of claim 9, “align” is more
properly construed as “to arrange in a line or so as to be parallel.” Appeal
Br. 7 (citing thefreedictionary.com). Appellant submits that the Examiner’s
construction renders the term “meaningless.” Id.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s construction of “align”
is overly broad. The Examiner essentially substitutes “proper” for “align,”
but does not adequately explain what makes the arrangement of the trailing
edge of ring 50 with respect to the trailing edge of nacelle 30 “proper.”
Further, a line can be drawn between two points on Letay’s gas turbine
engine and the longitudinal axis of the engine—assuming the axis can be
sufficiently extended in either direction, if necessary—which means that any
two points on Letay’s engine could be considered “aligned” under this
construction. Thus, the Examiner’s interpretation renders the term virtually
meaningless. Because the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 is based on an
overly broad construction of “align,” we do not sustain this rejection.
Claims 1–9—Double Patenting—Sidelovskiy, claims 1–13
Appellant has not substantively responded to the Examiner’s non-
statutory double patenting rejection of claims 1–9 over claims 1–13 of
Sidelovskiy. See Appeal Br. 4. We therefore summarily sustain the
Examiner's non-statutory double patenting rejection. See MPEP § 1205.02
(“If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the
appellant's brief, appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of
rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it.”); Ex parte Frye, 94
Appeal 2021-000650
Application 16/031,202

8
USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (“If an appellant fails to
present arguments on a particular issue--or more broadly, on a particular
rejection--the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those
uncontested aspects of the rejection.”).
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are decided as follows:
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–9 102 Letay 1–6, 8 7, 9
1–9 Non-Statutory
Double Patenting,
Sidelovskiy
1–9
Overall
Outcome
1–9

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED