UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 9, 2021

2021000358 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 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.
15/138,269 04/26/2016 Gabriel L. Suciu 93493US01;
67097-3383US1
2849
54549 7590 08/09/2021
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
SEBASCO CHENG, STEPHANIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/09/2021 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 GABRIEL L. SUCIU, BRIAN D. MERRY, and
JESSE M. CHANDLER

Appeal 2021-000358
Application 15/138,269
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 5–8. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Raytheon
Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2021-000358
Application 15/138,269

2
BACKGROUND
The Specification discloses that the application “relates to
improvements in providing cooling air from a compressor section to a
turbine section in a gas turbine engine and to providing environmental air to
an aircraft cabin.” Spec. ¶ 1.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal and recites:
1. A gas turbine engine comprising:
a main compressor section having a high pressure
compressor with a downstream discharge, and more upstream
locations;
a turbine section having a high pressure turbine;
a first tap tapping air from at least one of the more
upstream locations in the main compressor section, passing the
tapped air through a heat exchanger and then to a cooling
compressor, the cooling compressor compressing air
downstream of the heat exchanger, and delivering air into the
high pressure turbine;
a second tap tapping air from said compressor section,
passing said air across a cabin air pump, and delivering air from
said cabin air pump for use on an aircraft receiving the gas
turbine engine; and
the cooling compressor including a rotor, and said cabin
air pump including a rotor; and
said turbine section driving a drive shaft which drives a
first drive gear for one of said cooling compressor rotor and said
cabin air pump, and said first drive gear driving a second drive
gear for the other of said cooling compressor rotor and said cabin
air pump.
Appeal Br. 7.
Appeal 2021-000358
Application 15/138,269

3
REJECTION2
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, and 5–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Foutch3 in view of Suciu ’0474 and Suciu ’966.5
DISCUSSION
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Foutch discloses a
gas turbine engine with a main compressor section, a turbine section, a first
tap, a second tap, a cooling compressor, and a drive. Final Act. 13–14
(citing Foutch Fig. 2; ¶¶ 42, 43, 45). The Examiner acknowledges,
Foutch does not teach passing the tapped air from the
second tap across a cabin air pump (e.g.[,] of the [Environmental
Control System “ECS”]); said cabin air pump including a rotor;
a single drive driven with said turbine section to in turn drive
both said cooling compressor rotor and said cabin air pump rotor,
and the turbine section drives a drive shaft which drives a first
drive gear for one of said cooling compressor rotor and said cabin
air pump, and the first drive gear driving a second drive gear for
the other of said cooling compressor rotor and said cabin air
pump.
Id. at 14 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner relies on Suciu ’047 as teaching a common drive for
both a cooling compressor and a cabin air pump, and determines that
incorporating the use of a single drive system into Foutch would have been
obvious “in order to provide cabin air through an ECS with decreased
packaging volume . . . while maintaining operational range.” Final

2 Additional rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 103 and 112(b) have been
withdrawn. See Ans. 3.
3 Foutch et al., US 2015/0275758 A1, pub. Oct. 1, 2015.
4 Suciu et al., US 2013/0098047 A1, pub. Apr. 25, 2013.
5 Suciu et al., US 2012/0159966 A1, pub. June 28, 2012.
Appeal 2021-000358
Application 15/138,269

4
Act. 14–15 (citing Suciu ’047 Figs. 10, 11; ¶¶ 2, 41, 45). The Examiner
further relies on Suciu ’966 as teaching “a gearbox (40) for a gas turbine
system (20) where a turbine section (30) drives a gas turbine compressor
(26) and a single drive (gearbox 40) for multiple accessory systems” such
that the turbine section drives a drive shaft that drives a first drive gear for a
first accessory system and a second drive gear for a second accessory
system. Final Act. 15–16 (citing Suciu ’966 Fig. 4). The Examiner
determines it would have been obvious to further modify Foutch to include a
gearbox as taught by Suciu ’966 to drive the compressor and pump “in order
to eliminate the long lay shafts (resulting in excess weight) and excessive
space requirements associated with conventional gearbox arrangements
(such as those in Foutch and Suciu [’047]).” Id. at 16 (citing Suciu ’966
¶ 3).
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
with respect to the rejection of claim 1. See Final Act. 13–16; see also
Ans. 3–12. As discussed below, we are not persuaded of any error by
Appellant’s arguments.
As an initial matter, we note that Appellant’s arguments appear to be
directed mostly to the Examiner’s withdrawn rejection of claim 1 over
Sengar6 in view of Foutch, Suciu ’047, and Suciu ’966. See Appeal Br. 3–5.
However, to the extent such arguments might also be relevant to the
remaining rejection on appeal, they will be addressed below.
Appellant first asserts that it is not clear “whether the Examiner wants
to rely upon the single compressor 266 [of Foutch] to be both the cooling

6 Sengar et al., US 2009/0196736 A1, pub. Aug. 6, 2009.
Appeal 2021-000358
Application 15/138,269

5
compressor and the cabin air pump, or whether the Examiner is pointing to
the pump/compressor that would be found remotely in the ECS 234 of
Foutch.” Appeal Br. 3. We do not see any ambiguity in the rejection. The
Examiner identifies the cooling compressor in Foutch as element 266. Final
Act. 14. The Examiner acknowledges that Foutch does not expressly
disclose passing tap air across a cabin air pump as claimed, and the
Examiner relies on Suciu ’047. Id. The Examiner reiterates this in the
Answer. See Ans. 5.
In Reply, Appellant asserts that “the Examiner apparently relies upon
some unillustrated compressor which may be in system 234 as meeting the
cabin air compressor.” Reply Br. 1. However, this statement
mischaracterizes the rejection. As discussed, the rejection does not rely on
Foutch as disclosing a cabin air pump or cabin air compressor. Although the
Examiner acknowledges that Foutch discloses an ECS system, the Examiner
relies on Suciu ’047 as providing a cabin air pump as claimed. Given this
mischaracterization, it is not clear that the rejection “ignores some facts with
regard to Foutch,” as asserted by Appellant or how those facts are related to
the rejection, and in particular, to the combination proposed. Id.
Appellant next argues:
All of the structure for cooling the engine on Foutch would be
mounted adjacent the engine. The ECS system is for providing
air to an aircraft cabin and would be typically mounted remote
from the engine. As such, having a common drive as proposed
by the Suciu ’047 reference would not be indicated.
Appeal Br. 3–4. We are not persuaded for the reasons provided by the
Examiner. Ans. 6. Further, we note that Appellant has not identified any
actual teaching or other evidence showing that the ECS system of Foutch
would be “mounted remote from the engine.” We agree with the Examiner
Appeal 2021-000358
Application 15/138,269

6
that Foutch’s Figures are presented schematically and do not show any
actual physical distance between the components. See, e.g., Foutch Fig. 2.
Appellant also does not explain adequately why any particular distance
would preclude or otherwise show the non-obviousness of the use of a
common drive as in the combination proposed.
Appellant’s next argument relevant to the rejection before us is that
the Examiner does not provide support for driving two pumps with different
gears. Appeal Br. 4. In support, Appellant asserts that Suciu ’047 discloses
pumps 86 and 90 that are driven at the same rotational speed and that
distinct shafts may drive the pumps. Id. (citing Suciu ’047 ¶¶ 39, 40). We
disagree for the reasons provided by the Examiner. See Ans. 7–8. Most
notably, we agree with the Examiner that the rejection relies on Suciu ’966
as teaching a gear arrangement in which two accessory systems are driven
by different gears. Final Act. 15. The Examiner proposes to combine this
gear arrangement with Foutch and Suciu ’047. Id. at 16. Appellant’s
argument does not appear to consider the combination proposed and appears
to be an argument against Suciu ’047 individually.
Appellant also argues:
A cooling compressor to provide turbine cooling air would
typically be intended to operate at very high speed. An air to oil
cooler would have little reason to do so. Further, the air supply
in Suciu ’047 to the ECS also would appear to be a relatively low
pressure application. Thus, there is no motivation to rely upon
Suciu ’047 in the manner the Examiner has done here.
Appeal Br. 4. We are not persuaded by this argument for the reasons
provided by the Examiner, i.e., we agree that Appellant does not provide any
objective evidence to support the factual bases of this argument. See
Ans. 8–9.
Appeal 2021-000358
Application 15/138,269

7
Next, Appellant argues that “[t]here is no disclosure across this record
of a first tap delivering air to a cooling compressor, which then passes to a
high pressure turbine . . . and a second tap delivering air to the cabin air
pump.” Appeal Br. 4. Appellant also indicates that the Examiner cannot
rely on the air oil cooler on Suciu ’047 as a cooling compressor. Id. Yet, we
agree with the Examiner that this argument only addresses the references
individually and does not account for the combination of reference, on
which the Examiner relies for these limitations. See Ans. 9–10.
Further, Appellant argues either a lack of reason for the combination
proposed or that the motivation for the combination only comes from
Appellant’s disclosure. Appeal Br. 5. We disagree. Appellant fails to
consider the reasons for the combination provided by the Examiner, which
are based on disclosures found in the art of record. See Final Act. 15–16
(citing Suciu ’047 ¶ 45; Suciu ’966 ¶ 3). To the extent Appellant addresses
the Examiner’s reasoning in the Reply Brief, these arguments are not
responsive to any new issue raised in the Answer and Appellant has not
shown good cause for why we should consider this new argument. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection
of independent claim 1. Appellant does not provide separate arguments
regarding the dependent claims, and thus, we are also not persuaded of error
in the rejection of dependent claims 2 and 5–8 for the same reasons.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5–8.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5–8.
In summary:
Appeal 2021-000358
Application 15/138,269

8
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5–8 103 Foutch, Suciu ’047,
Suciu ’966
1, 2, 5–8

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