United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2020

2020001285 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 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.
14/187,612 02/24/2014 Gabriel L. Suciu 67097-2156PUS1;62914US02 2192
54549 7590 09/30/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
PETERS, BRIAN O
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2020 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 GABRIEL L. SUCIU and BRIAN D. MERRY
___________________

Appeal 2020-001285
Application 14/187,612
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAUFFMAN, 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, 12–14, 16–20, and 23–25. Final
Act. 6–18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

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. “Update to Real Party in Interest,” dated April
23, 2019. United Technologies Corporation was identified as the applicant
under 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 in an Application Data Sheet dated February 24,
2014. A change of name of United Technologies Corporation to Raytheon
Technologies Corporation was recorded on April 22, 2020, at Reel 052472,
Frame 0871.
Appeal 2020-001285
Application 14/187,612

2
We affirm in part.
The claims are directed to a gas turbine engine designed to reduce
flutter in the airfoils of the fan section while limiting overall engine weight.
Spec. ¶¶ 2–3. Claims 1, 2, and 12 are independent. We reproduce claims 1
and 12 below.
1. A gas turbine engine comprising:
a fan section including a fan rotatable about an engine axis
with a plurality of fan blades rotatable about a fan blade axis,
wherein at least a portion of each of the plurality of fan blades is
radially aligned with a portion of a core flow path, each of the
plurality of fan blades are rotatably attached to a central disk, a
radially inner end of each of the plurality of fan blades are
attached to a rotatable mount on to the central disk, and each of
the plurality of fan blades rotate no more than 20 degrees;
a geared architecture in communication with the fan and
driven by a turbine section,
wherein the fan rotates at a first speed and the turbine
section rotates at a second speed different from the first speed;
and
a fixed area fan nozzle in communication with the fan
section.

12. A method of operating a gas turbine engine comprising the
steps of:
rotating a fan section including a plurality of fan blades at
a first speed, wherein the plurality of fan blades direct air into a
core flow path of the gas turbine engine;
rotating the plurality of fan blades about a fan axis no more
than 20 degrees to change each of the fan blades from a common
first pitch to a common second pitch; and
rotating a low pressure turbine section at a second speed,
wherein the first speed is different from the second speed,
wherein the gas turbine engine includes a fan section having a
fan rotatable about an engine axis with a plurality of fan blades
rotatable about a fan blade axis, at least a portion of each of the
Appeal 2020-001285
Application 14/187,612

3
plurality of fan blades is radially aligned with a portion of a core
flow path, each of the plurality of fan blades are rotatably
attached to a central disk, a radially inner end of each of the
plurality of fan blades are attached to a rotatable mount on to the
central disk.

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 23–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to
comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 6–7.
II. Claims 23–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to
comply with the enablement requirement. Final Act. 7–10.
III. Claims 12–14, 16, 20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) as indefinite. Final Act. 10.
IV. Claims 1–3, 6–8, 12, 13, and 16–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Kasmarik2 and Wright.3 Final Act. 11–17.
V. Claims 4, 5, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kasmarik, Wright, and Johnston.4 Final Act. 17–18.

2 Kasmarik (US 4,112,677, issued Sept. 12, 1978).
3 Wright (US 4,810,164, issued Mar. 7, 1989).
4 Johnston (US 3,900,274, issued Aug. 19, 1975).
Appeal 2020-001285
Application 14/187,612

4
ANALYSIS5
Rejection I
Although claims 23, 24, and 25 each depend from a different
independent claim, the claims are similar in that each recites that “the central
disk includes a single actuator directly attached to the rotatable mount for
rotating each of the plurality of fan blades” (emphasis added).
The Examiner rejected claims 23–25 for failure to comply with the
written description requirement. Final Act. 6–7; Ans. 3. In support, the
Examiner finds that, other than in claims 23–25, the Specification does not
describe or depict that the actuator is “directly attached” to the rotatable
mount.6 Final Act. 6; Ans. 3. Rather, the Specification only describes that
the actuator is in “mechanical communication” with the rotating mount. Id.
(citing Spec. ¶ 39).
As an initial matter, the Examiner does not interpret the words
“directly attached” to require the two components to be unitary, as Appellant
suggests. See Reply Br. 2.7 Rather, the Examiner’s determination is
premised on a claim interpretation that “directly attached” means the
attachment is without an intermediary member while, in contrast,

5 The first and second rejections both pertain to claims 23–25. The first
rejection relates to written description and the second relates to enablement.
We apply the appropriate standard for each. Despite the different standards,
the inquiries overlap to some extent, as reflected in both the Examiner’s
findings and Appellant’s arguments for each rejection. Consequently, our
analysis below of these two rejections, at times, references information
identified by the Examiner or Appellant as applicable to the other rejection.
6 Notably, claims 23–25 were not part of Appellant’s original disclosure.
7 We note Appellant concedes that two components may be directly attached
by means of a fastener, such as a pin, that passes through aligned openings
in the components. See id
Appeal 2020-001285
Application 14/187,612

5
“mechanical connection,” such as recited in the Specification, only requires
mechanical communication between the two components. Final Act. 2; Ans.
3.
Appellant makes two arguments against this rejection. First,
Appellant quotes a portion of the paragraph of the Specification cited by the
Examiner and asserts that the disclosure permits a person of ordinary skill in
the art to recognize Appellant invented what is claimed. Appeal Br. 4
(quoting Spec. ¶ 39). Appellant’s conclusion is not supported by a cogent
explanation. Specifically, Appellant does not explain how the disclosure
that the actuator is in “mechanical communication” with the rotating mount
demonstrates possession of a “direct connection” between the actuator and
the rotating mount. See Appeal Br. 4; Spec. ¶ 39.
Appellant’s second argument is based on Figure 3. Appellant asserts
that a figure alone can provide adequate written description support, and
asserts that Figure 3 illustrates single actuator mechanism 70 “mechanically
attached” to rotating mount 68 for rotating fan blade 62. Appeal Br. 4. We
reproduce Figure 3 below.
Appeal 2020-001285
Application 14/187,612

6

Figure 3 above is a partial cross sectional view of fan 42, including actuator
70 and rotating mount 68. Spec. ¶¶ 22, 39. The Examiner responds that the
actuator in Figure 3 is the rectangular box near the point of the arrow. Ans.
4. Appellant responds in turn that Figure 3 utilizes an arrow rather a lead
line because the actuator is comprised of more than just the box identified by
the Examiner. Reply Br. 1–2.
Appeal 2020-001285
Application 14/187,612

7
Appellant’s argument misses the point in two respects. One, whether
actuator 70 consists of the rectangular box alone, or consists of more
components is not the salient point. The dispositive question is whether
Appellant’s disclosure demonstrates possession of an actuator directly
connected to a rotating mount. Ariad Pharmas., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598
F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (The test for sufficiency under the written
description requirement is “whether the disclosure of the application relied
upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had
possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”). Appellant’s
argument sheds no light on that inquiry.
Two, Appellant refers to Figure 3 as depicting actuator mechanism 70
“mechanically attached” to rotating mount 68, while the claims at issue refer
to “direct attachment.” Therefore, even if Figure 3 depicts “mechanical
attachment,” as Appellant contends, that does not demonstrate “direct
attachment” between the actuator and the rotating mount.
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the Specification
fails to convey possession of an actuator “directly attached” a rotatable
mount, as recited in claims 23–25.

Rejection II
The Examiner rejected claims 23–25 for lack of enablement. In
support, the Examiner made findings addressing the Wands factors. Final
Act. 8–10; In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Weighing
these findings, the Examiner concluded that there exists a reasonable basis to
question whether the Specification enabled, as of the filing date, “a single
actuator directly attached to the rotatable mount for rotating each of the
Appeal 2020-001285
Application 14/187,612

8
plurality of fan blades,” as recited in claims 23–25. Final Act. 10. This
conclusion shifted the burden to Appellant “to provide suitable proofs
indicating that the specification is indeed enabling.” In re Wright, 999 F.2d
1557, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As detailed below, Appellant has not met that
burden.
Appellant contends that, “in the Examiner’s analysis of the Wands
factors, the Examiner identified several possibilities that could achieve the
claimed goal that would not require undue experimentation.” Appeal Br. 4
(citing Final Act. 7–9). Appellant’s contention lacks specificity in that it
does not identify which possibility could be achieved without undue
experimentation. More importantly, Appellant mischaracterizes the
Examiner’s analysis. The Examiner did not identify any example of an
actuator directly attached to a rotating member as claimed. Rather, the
Examiner explained that two facts impacted several Wands factors and
contributed to the need for undue experimentation: one, the actuator could
be any of a variety of types (e.g., electric, hydraulic, pneumatic); and two, it
could have any of a variety of configurations (e.g., linear extension,
telescopic extension, rotary).
Appellant contends, as mentioned in the analysis of the prior rejection,
that the Examiner is interpreting that the attachment must be unitary. Reply
Br. 2. However, as explained above, that is not how the Examiner is
interpreting the claims.
Appellant has not made suitable proofs indicating that the
Specification is enabling. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 23–25
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for failure to comply with the enablement
requirement.
Appeal 2020-001285
Application 14/187,612

9
Rejections III
The Examiner concludes that claims 12–14, 16, 20, and 25 are
indefinite because certain elements are repeated. Final Act. 10. For
example, claim 12 recites each of the phrases “a fan section” and “a plurality
of fan blades” twice. Although each second recitation should include “the”
or “said,” the scope of these claims is ascertainable. See Energizer
Holdings, Inc. v. International Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (recitation of an element without proper antecedent basis, while
disfavored, does not necessarily indicate that the claim as a whole is
indefinite). For example, the Specification does not describe a gas turbine
engine having two fan sections. Consequently, we agree with Appellant that
the meanings of the claims at issue is reasonably clear despite the lack of
antecedent basis for certain terms. Appeal Br. 4–5. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 12–14, 16, 20, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. §
112(b) as indefinite.

Rejections IV
The issue with regard to this rejection is whether the proposed
modification is properly justified as a simple substitution. For the reasons
that follow, we determine that it is not.
The Examiner concludes that the subject matter of claims 1–3, 6–8,
12, 13, and 16–20 would have been obvious from the combined teachings of
Kasmarik and Wright. Final Act. 11–17. Specifically, the Examiner finds
that Kasmarik discloses a gas turbine engine as claimed, except that
Kasmarik’s fan section lacks rotatable fan blades as claimed. Final Act. 10–
11. The Examiner finds that Wright discloses a gas turbine engine including
Appeal 2020-001285
Application 14/187,612

10
a fan section having rotatable (pitchable) fan blades. Id. at 11–12. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to simply substitute
Wright’s fan section for Kasmarik’s. Id.
Appellant contends, and we agree, that the proffered rationale is
conclusory, in that, under the Examiner’s logic, any gas turbine engine fan
section may be substituted for any other gas turbine engine fan section.
Appeal Br. 5–6. Here, there are significant differences between the structure
and function of the fan sections of Kasmarik and Wright. In Kasmarik’s
engine 10, fan stage 16 accelerates air for two uses: one, primary air going
via passageway 22 to the compressor, and two, secondary air going via
annular duct 27 to discharge at nozzle 26 as bypass. Kasmarik 2:42–55,
3:7–10, Fig. 1. In contrast, in Wright’s engine 10, fan assembly 24 includes
variable pitch fan blades 44 that accelerate air into a single passageway,
namely, fan duct 28. Wright 3:20–22, 3:30–34, Fig. 1. Wright’s fan
assembly 24 does not accelerate air entering core engine 12 because fan
assembly 24 is located radially outward of core engine 12. Wright 3:3–4,
3:27–38, 3:57–62, Fig. 1 (intake duct 36 supplies air to core engine 12, fan
rotor 42 is positioned radially outward of duct 36, and is the base of variable
pitch fan blades 44). In sum, Kasmarik’s fan accelerates air into the
compressor and as bypass, while Wright’s fan only accelerates bypass air.
If, as the Examiner proposes, Wright’s fan section is simply substituted for
Kasmeric’s fan section, the fan section of the modified device would no
longer accelerate air for the compressor. The Examiner neither addresses
this difference in operation, nor proposes further modification to compensate
for this difference in structure and operation.
Appeal 2020-001285
Application 14/187,612

11
In view of these structural and functional differences, we are not
persuaded the Examiner has adequately demonstrated that the proposed
modification is a simple substitution. We do not sustain the rejection of
claims 1–3, 6–8, 12, 13, and 16–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Kasmarik and Wright.

Rejections V
The Examiner concludes that the subject matter of independent claims
4, 5, and 14 would have been obvious from the combined teachings of
Kasmarik, Wright, and Johnston. Final Act. 17–18. Claims 4 and 5 depend
from claim 2, and claim 14 depends from claim 12. The Examiner does not
rely on Johnston to remedy the deficiencies in the combined teachings of
Kasmarik and Wright as applied to parent claims 2 and 12. See Final
Act. 17. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5, and 14 as
unpatentable over Kasmarik, Wright, and Johnston.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
23–25 112(a) Written
Description
23–25
23–25 112(a) Enablement 23–25
12–14, 16,
20, 25
112(b) Indefiniteness 12–14, 16,
20, 25
1–3, 6–8,
12, 13, 16–
20
103 Kasmarik,
Wright
1–3, 6–8,
12, 13, 16–
20
4, 5, 14 103 Kasmarik,
Wright, Johnston
4, 5, 14
Appeal 2020-001285
Application 14/187,612

12
Overall
Outcome
23–25 1–8, 12–14,
16–20

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 IN PART