UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 4, 2021

2020002219 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 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.
14/430,606 03/24/2015 Frederick M. Schwarz 64770US02;
67097-2248PUS1
4448
54549 7590 01/04/2021
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
ELLIOTT, TOPAZ L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2021 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 FREDERICK M. SCHWARZ and ANTHONY R. BIFULCO
____________

Appeal 2020-002219
Application 14/430,606
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “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, formerly United Technologies Corporation. See
Miscellaneous Incoming Letter (filed Apr. 23, 2020).
Appeal 2020-002219
Application 14/430,606

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A gas turbine engine comprising:
a fan rotating structure including a plurality of fan blades
supported on a hub, wherein a diameter of the plurality of fan
blades is greater than 56 inches;
a turbine section; and
a geared architecture driven by the turbine section for
rotating the fan about the axis, wherein a ratio of a weight of the
fan rotating structure relative to a frontal area of the fan rotating
structure is between 5 lbs/ft2 and 13.1 lbs/ft2.

EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Rhoda US 5,137,426 Aug. 11, 1992
Beckford US 2007/0231153 A1 Oct. 4, 2007
McVey US 2010/0000199 A1 Jan. 7, 2010
Loehle US 7,758,311 B2 July 20, 2010
Das US 2011/0129600 A1 June 2, 2011
C.A. Steinhagen, et al., Study of the Costs and Benefits of Composite
Materials in Advanced Turbofan Engines, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, Final Report (1973) (“Steinhagen”).

THE REJECTIONS
I. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act.
2–4.
II. Claims 1–4 and 6–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over McVey and Steinhagen, as evidenced by Loehle
and Rhoda. Id. at 5–16.
Appeal 2020-002219
Application 14/430,606

3
III. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
McVey, Steinhagen, and Das, as evidenced by Loehle and Rhoda. Id.
at 14–15.
IV. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over McVey, Steinhagen, and Beckford, as evidenced by Loehle and
Rhoda. Id. at 15–16.
OPINION
Rejection I – Written Description
The Examiner finds that Appellant’s Specification fails to provide
adequate written description support for the limitation in dependent claim 19
reciting that “the ratio of the weight of the fan rotating structure relative to
the frontal area of the fan rotating structure is 8 lbs/ft2.” Final Act. 2–4.
In particular, the Examiner finds that the Specification discloses a ratio of
“as low as about 8 lbs/ft2.” Id. at 2–3 (quoting Spec. ¶ 46). However, the
Examiner finds that the Specification “does not provide support for an
embodiment with a frontal area to weight ratio of 8 (or about 8) in
conjunction with the claim 1 limitation ‘a diameter of the plurality of fan
blades is greater than 56 inches.’” Id. at 3.
Appellant argues “that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood [Appellant] to be in [possession] of the features as recited in
claim 19.” Appeal Br. 6 (citing Spec. ¶ 46). Appellant asserts that the
“[S]pecification discloses a range that includes the specific point recited in
claim 19. Moreover, the specific value recited in claim 19 is disclosed in the
[S]pecification alone and not part of any range.” Id. at 4. Appellant asserts
that “[t]he Examiner has not provided any factual basis or evidence as to
Appeal 2020-002219
Application 14/430,606

4
why one skilled in the art would not understand the value of ‘8 lbs/ft2’ to be
included in the originally recited ‘about 8 lbs/ft2.’” Id.
The Examiner responds that “the value ‘as low as about 8 lbs/ft2’ in
¶46 [of the Specification] is not associated with any particular area,
diameter, or weight.” Ans. 5 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner explains
that “[t]he table of examples after ¶42 does not include any examples of a
ratio lower than 10, [and] thus gives no indication of what diameter or
weight might be associated with a ratio of 8.” Id. The Examiner also
explains that “a fan with a diameter of 56 inches and a weight to frontal area
ratio of 8 has a weight of only 137 pounds, [which] does not meet the
limitations of claim 18.” Id.
We determine that Appellant has the better position. The
Specification describes that “[s]everal example gas turbine engine
embodiments and features of corresponding fan rotating structures 76 are
provided in Table 1.” Spec. ¶ 45 (emphasis added).2 In particular, Table 1
describes various exemplary engines with fan rotating structures having
diameters between 56 inches and 112 inches, weights between 224 pounds
and 1317 pounds, and frontal fan area to weight ratios between 10 and 21.5
lbs/ft2. Id. at Table 1. Given the description that these engine embodiments
are “examples,” Appellant’s disclosure is not limited to the specific
combinations of fan rotating structure diameter, weight, and ratio provided
in Table 1. The Specification also describes that a “geared turbofan engine
within the contemplation of this disclosure is within a range of weight to

2 The table appearing between paragraphs 42 and 43 of the Specification is
the only table provided in the Specification. Accordingly, we understand
this table to be “Table 1.”
Appeal 2020-002219
Application 14/430,606

5
frontal area between about 6 lbs/ft2 and about 18 lbs/ft2. In another disclosed
range, the fan rotating structure 76 includes a weight to frontal area
relationship as low as about 8 lbs/ft2.” Id. ¶ 46. These disclosures provide
adequate support for a fan rotating structure having a weight to frontal area
ratio of 8 lbs/ft2. In particular, the Specification describes a range within
which the claimed ratio of 8 lbs/ft2 falls. Further, given that the term
“about” encompasses values somewhat above and below, the Specification’s
description of “about 8 lbs/ft2” encompasses values somewhat above and
below 8 lbs/ft2, as well as 8 lbs/ft2.
Moreover, with respect to the limitation in claim 17, from which
claim 19 indirectly depends, that the fan rotating structure diameter is
“between 56 inches and 81 inches” (Appeal Br. 13, Claims App.) and the
limitation in claim 18, from which claim 19 directly depends, that the fan
rotating structure weight is “between 224 lbs and 360 lbs” (id.), the
Examiner correctly observes that, for a weight to frontal area ratio of
8 lbs/ft2, a 56 inch diameter fan would weigh 137 pounds, outside the range
required by claim 18 (Ans. 5). However, as demonstrated by the Examiner’s
table provided on page 5 of the Answer, a 71.56 inch diameter fan would
weigh 224 pounds in order to have a weight to frontal area ratio of 8 lbs/ft2.
In other words, the limitation in claim 19 reciting that the weight to frontal
area ratio is 8 lbs/ft2 is entirely consistent with the limitations in claims 17
and 18 that the fan diameter is between 56 inches and 81 inches and the
weight is between 224 lbs and 360 lbs. Moreover, such exemplary
dimensions are similar to exemplary dimensions provided in Table 1 of the
Specification.
Appeal 2020-002219
Application 14/430,606

6
For the above reasons, the disclosure of the Specification reasonably
conveys to one having ordinary skill in the art, as of the filing date, that
Appellant possessed the subject matter of “the ratio of the weight of the fan
rotating structure relative to the frontal area of the fan rotating structure is 8
lbs/ft2,” as recited in claim 19. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (The fundamental factual
inquiry for ascertaining sufficient written description is whether the
specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that,
as of the filing date sought, the inventor was in possession of the invention
as presently claimed.). Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement.

Rejection II – Obviousness based on McVey and Steinhagen, as
evidenced by Loehle and Rhoda
In contesting the rejection of claims 1–4 and 6–20, Appellant presents
arguments for independent claims 1 and 11 together, and does not separately
argue dependent claims 2–4, 6–10, and 12–20. See Appeal Br. 7–10. We
select independent claim 1 as representative, and claims 2–4 and 6–20 stand
or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
The Examiner finds that McVey discloses a gas turbine engine,
substantially as recited in claim 1, including “a fan rotating structure
including a plurality of fan blades (20) supported on a hub (see Fig 1); a
turbine section (28, 18); and a geared architecture (22) driven by the turbine
section for rotating the fan about the axis.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner
finds that “McVey does not disclose that a diameter of the plurality of fan
blades is greater than 56 inches, wherein a ratio of a weight of the fan
Appeal 2020-002219
Application 14/430,606

7
rotating structure relative to a frontal area of the fan rotating structure is
between about 5 lbs/ft2 and about 13.1 lbs/ft2.” Id.; see also id. (“McVey is
silent on the details of the fan.”). However, the Examiner finds that
“Steinhagen teaches a variety of 68.5 inch diameter (p.51, p.52, p.54) fans
for a turbofan engine. Use of different structures and materials produces
fans of varying weights, including lighter weights than previous fans (p.39,
Table VIII).” Id. at 7. The Examiner also finds that “Loehle (col 6 lines
22–41: composite fan blades with individual shrouds) and Rhoda (col 5 lines
12–19: composite fan blades with individual shrouds) provide evidence that
technology has advanced sufficiently to provide composite blades with
individual shrouds.” Id. at 8. The Examiner finds that Steinhagen’s
“titanium spar blade tip shrouded”, which has an outer shell
made of graphite/epoxy (according to § symbol)[,] includes a
metal spar and should have sufficient strength to withstand bird
impact (Steinhagen p.41, 4th bullet). Taking into consideration
the evidence of advances in composites since the publication of
this reference, this report presents at least 5 embodiments that
meet the limitations of claim 1: titanium spar blade tip
shrouded, hybrid with boron tip, solid graphite epoxy
cantilevered, hybrid flex root with AU cantilever (see Fig 16,
p.40), and the hybrid flex root with boron cantilever.
Id. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify
McVey’s gas turbine engine
using any of the titanium spar blade tip shrouded, hybrid with
boron tip, solid graphite epoxy cantilevered, hybrid flex root
with AU cantilever, and the hybrid flex root with boron
cantilever taught by Steinhagen in order to provide a
lightweight fan rotor, thus providing a frontal area to weight
ratio, measured in lb/ft2 of 7.89 (titanium spar blade tip
shrouded), 7.46 (hybrid with boron tip), 12.0 (solid graphite
epoxy cantilevered), 11.4 (hybrid flex root with AU cantilever),
or 11.8 (hybrid flex root with boron cantilever).
Appeal 2020-002219
Application 14/430,606

8
Id.; see also id. at 6–7 (the Examiner reproducing Table VIII of Steinhagen
with added calculations for fan weight to frontal area ratio for each type of
fan blade material).
Appellant argues that Steinhagen does not teach “a ratio between fan
and rotor weight and forward fan area.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant assets that
“that there is nothing [in Steinhagen] that ties the size of the fan blade shown
in pages 51, 52, and 54 to the values set out in the table on page 39.” Id.
Appellant asserts that “[a]ll that Steinhagen teaches is an extremely broad
range of individual values for materials that include material admitted to
have not been practical nor available at the time of the Steinhagen reference
(See second paragraph of the Summary in Steinhagen).” Id. at 8. According
to Appellant,
nothing in Steinhagen teaches or suggests the specific range of
ratios required by the claims. All that the Office has done is
picked select points across many different possible parameters
to calculate parameters that fall with the recited ranges.
Nothing in any of the cited references discloses a range of ratios
of weight to front[al] area of a fan.
Id. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument.
The Examiner responds that “Steinhagen is a study of modifying a
specific baseline engine to reduce the weight by using composite materials
(p.4 ¶1, p.5).” Ans. 6. The Examiner explains that Steinhagen’s “baseline
[engine] rotor and fan blades have a diameter of 68.5 inches. To assess the
effect of material on weight, the rotors must necessarily be the same in other
aspects, so it follows that the other rotors have a diameter of 68.5 inches.”
Id. at 6–7 (citing Steinhagen 51–52, 54, Tables IX–XI); see also id. at 7
(noting that Steinhagen 139, Table LV shows a baseline engine fan diameter
of 68.9 inches, but “[t]his discrepancy would have a minimal effect on the
Appeal 2020-002219
Application 14/430,606

9
area to weight ratios calculated for Steinhagen’s rotors, and the ratios would
still be within the claimed ranges”). The Examiner explains that
Steinhagen discloses four fan rotors that are enabled as of the
1973 publication and meet the rotor limitations of claim 1. The
fifth, the titanium spar blade tip shrouded rotor, requires
advances in composite blades with individual shrouds, and
Examiner has provided evidence (Loehle, Rhoda) that
composite blades with individual shrouds have been enabled in
the 40+ years since Steinhagen was published.
Id. at 8 (emphasis omitted). In this regard, Appellant does not persuasively
refute the Examiner’s position.
Steinhagen teaches “the results of a program for the ‘Study of the
Costs and Benefits of Composite Materials in Advanced Turbofan
Engines.’” Steinhagen 1. “In order to provide a basis of comparison for the
composite components, the baseline engines, as defined in Section 3.1.2,
were used.” Id. at 16; see also id. at 5 (“The engines selected for this study
were a current technology engine and two advanced engines which were
evolutions of the ATT engines described in Reference 1.”). Steinhagen
teaches that “[t]he fan blade design study consisted of evaluating, primarily
from a weight and cost standpoint, several fan blade mechanical designs,
both metal and composite.” Id. at 34. Steinhagen also teaches a fan
diameter of 68.5 inches (Steinhagen 51, 52, 54, Tables IX–XI) and 68.9 (id.
at 39, Table LV). Steinhagen also provides total rotor weight for various
composite materials. Id. at 39, Table VIII; see also id. at 38 (“A summary of
the 14 blade configurations evaluated in this program is provided in Table
VIII. The first configuration represents the baseline titanium blade design
having 46 blades with tip shrouds. All other designs are compared to this
design for overall rotor weight savings.”). In view of Steinhagen’s
Appeal 2020-002219
Application 14/430,606

10
disclosure that baseline engines are used to provide a basis of weight
comparison for composite blade materials, we are unpersuaded by
Appellant’s contention that there is no link between the total rotor weights
provided in Steinhagen’s Table VIII and the 68.5 inch fan diameter provided
in Tables IX–XI. See Reply Br. 4 (arguing that “none of the discussions
relating to the base engine describes the fan diameter. . . . The fan diameter
in the Tables IX, X and XI is not linked [to] that of those shown in the table
on page 39 in a manner that can support the rejections.”). Given that
Steinhagen teaches fan rotating structures having a known diameter
(Steinhagen 51–52, 54, Tables IX–XI) and known weights (id. at 39, Table
VIII), a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that
Steinhagen teaches at least one fan rotating structure having a fan diameter
and total rotor weight that results in a ratio of frontal area to weight falling
within the claimed range recited in claim 1. That Steinhagen may not
explicitly recite a ratio between weight and frontal area for a fan rotating
structure does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings or
reasoning.
Appellant argues that “the Examiner has not provided evidence that
establishes a prima faci[e] case that the recited ranges of ratios are known
result effective variables.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant also argues that “[t]he
Examiner here has failed to provide the necessary predicate to show the
claimed ratios are an obvious design choice.” Id. These arguments are
unpersuasive because they are not responsive to the rejection as presented.
As the Examiner notes, the rejection does not conclude that a fan rotating
structure having a weight to frontal area ratio in the claimed range would
have been obvious as a matter of design choice or routine optimization of a
Appeal 2020-002219
Application 14/430,606

11
result effective variable. Ans. 10. Instead, as discussed above, the Examiner
finds that Steinhagen teaches various fan rotating structures having a weight
to frontal area that falls within the range recited in claim 1 due to the
explicitly disclosed fan diameter and weights. See Final Act. 6–8; Ans. 6
(“Steinhagen does teach a fan rotating structure (rotor) for a gas turbine
engine, the rotor having a total rotor weight of 191 pounds (hybrid with
boron tip, p.39, Table VIII) and a diameter of 68.5 inches (p.51, p.52, p.54),
which results in a weight to frontal area ratio of 7.46 pounds per square
foot.”). Given the teachings of Steinhagen, Loehle, and Rhoda, the
Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify McVey’s
geared turbofan engine to utilize a fan having a diameter and weight
combination explicitly disclosed by Steinhagen such that the weight to
frontal area ratio for the fan rotating structure falls within the claimed range
of 5 lbs/ft2 and 13.1 lbs/ft2. In this regard, Appellant does not persuade us of
a deficiency in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 1. Accordingly,
we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2–4 and 6–20 falling
therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McVey and
Steinhagen, as evidenced by Loehle and Rhoda.
Rejections III and IV – Obviousness based on McVey,
Steinhagen, and one of Das and Beckford, as evidenced by
Loehle and Rhoda
With respect to Rejections III and IV, Appellant’s Appeal Brief does
not set forth any additional substantive arguments separate from the
arguments discussed supra; instead adding only that Das and Beckford do
not cure the asserted deficiencies in Rejection II. Appeal Br. 10. For the
Appeal 2020-002219
Application 14/430,606

12
reasons discussed above, we are not apprised of a deficiency with respect to
Rejection II, and likewise Appellant’s arguments do not apprise of a
deficiency with respect to Rejections III and IV.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant presents a new argument that was not
raised in the Appeal Brief. See Reply Br. 5 (arguing that the Examiner’s
citing additional references “to essentially bump up the weight of the fan
rotation structure to allegedly meet the recited ratio is the very definition of
hindsight reasoning and using Applicant’s specification as a guide”). Our
rules provide:
Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in
the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in
the examiner’s answer, including any designated new ground of
rejection, will not be considered by the Board for purposes of
the present appeal, unless good cause is shown.
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Here, the argument raised for the first time in the
Reply Brief was not responsive to an argument raised in the Examiner’s
Answer, and Appellant has not shown good cause why this argument could
not have been raised earlier and should be considered now. See Ex parte
Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (designated informative)
(“[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could
have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s
rejections, but were not.”).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claim 5 as unpatentable over McVey, Steinhagen, and Das, as evidenced by
Loehle and Rhoda, and claim 19 as unpatentable over McVey, Steinhagen,
and Beckford, as evidenced by Loehle and Rhoda.

Appeal 2020-002219
Application 14/430,606

13
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
19 112, first
paragraph
Written Description 19
1–4, 6–20 103(a) McVey, Steinhagen,
Loehle, Rhoda
1–4, 6–20
5 103(a) McVey, Steinhagen,
Loehle, Rhoda, Das
5
19 103(a) McVey, Steinhagen,
Loehle, Rhoda,
Beckford
19
Overall
Outcome
1–20
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