United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 1, 2020

2020000644 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 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.
15/943,100 04/02/2018 Gabriel L. Suciu 67097-841PUS4;
50851US04
3584
54549 7590 10/01/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
SUNG, GERALD LUTHER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2020 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, BRIAN MERRY, and
CHRISTOPHER M. DYE
Appeal 2020-000644
Application 15/943,100
Technology Center 3700
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, PAUL J. KORNICZKY, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2020-000644
Application 15/943,100

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 10, 11, 17–23, and 28–30. See
Final Act. 1; Ans. 3, 13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a gas turbine engine. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is the only pending independent claim:
1. A turbine engine comprising:
a fan case surrounding a fan rotatable about an axis;
a core supported relative to the fan case by a support
structure and arranged downstream from the fan, the core
including a core housing having an inlet case arranged to receive
airflow from the fan, a compressor case axially adjacent to the
inlet case and surrounding a compressor stage having a rotor
blade with a blade trailing edge, wherein an intermediate case is
arranged between the compressor case and a high pressure
compressor case; and
wherein the support structure includes a support structure
leading edge facing the fan and a support structure trailing edge
on a side opposite the support structure leading edge, and the
support structure trailing edge arranged axially forward of the
blade trailing edge, wherein a forward attachment extends from
the support structure to the inlet case, wherein the forward

1 In this Decision, we refer to (1) the Examiner’s Final Office Action dated
March 7, 2019 (“Final Act.”), Advisory Action dated May 23, 2019 (“Adv.
Act.”), and Answer dated September 9, 2019 (“Ans.”), and (2) Appellant’s
Appeal Brief dated August 7, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) and Reply Brief dated
November 5, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 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 (formerly United Technologies Corporation).
Update to Real Party in Interest, dated April 23, 2020.
Appeal 2020-000644
Application 15/943,100

3
attachment extends radially outward and rearward from the inlet
case.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name References Date
Orlando US 2008/0098714 A1 May 1, 2008
Adamson US 4,055,041 Oct. 25, 1977
Hawkins US 6,183,388 B1 Feb. 6, 2001
Breeze-Stringfellow US 6,325,595 B1 Dec. 4, 2001
Clark US 3,797,561 Mar. 19, 1974
Koertge US 5,197,856 Mar. 30, 1993
Ress US 6,076,835 June 20, 2000

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 3–7, 10, 11, 17–23, and 28 stand rejected on the ground
of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–12 of
U.S. Patent No. 9,957,918.
2. Claims 1, 2, and 5–7 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Orlando.
3. Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Orlando and Adamson.
4. Claims 10, 11, and 17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Orlando, Hawkins, and Breeze-
Stringfellow.
5. Claims 17 and 21–23 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Orlando, Adamson, Hawkins, and
Breeze-Stringfellow.
Appeal 2020-000644
Application 15/943,100

4
6. Claim 28 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Orlando and Clark.
7. Claims 29 and 30 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Orlando, Koertge, or Ress.
Appellant seeks our review of these rejections.
OPINION
Claims 1, 3–7, 10, 11, 17–23, and 28––Nonstatutory Double Patenting
Claims 1, 3–7, 10, 11, 17–23, and 28 stand rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–12 of
U.S. Patent No. 9,957,918. Final Act. 3. Appellant states that, if all other
issues are deemed resolved, Appellant will review the then-pending claims
to determine whether a terminal disclaimer is warranted and, if so, will file a
terminal disclaimer over the cited patent. Appeal Br. 2–3. Thus, in view of
Appellant’s lack of argument over the rejection, it is summarily sustained.

Claims 1, 2, and 5–7–– Anticipated by Orlando
The Examiner finds that Orlando discloses all of the limitations of
claims 1, 2, and 5–7. Final Act. 7–8; Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 13–19. Appellant
argues these claims as a group. Appeal Br. 3. We select independent
claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2 and 5–7 stand or fall with
claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claim 1 recites that “a forward attachment extends from the support
structure to the inlet case, wherein the forward attachment extends radially
outward and rearward from the inlet case.” To support the finding that
Orlando taught this limitation, the Examiner provided two annotated figures
Appeal 2020-000644
Application 15/943,100

5
from Orlando. Final Act. 7, Ans. 16, 17. The Examiner’s first annotated
Figure 1 of Orlando is reproduced below.

Annotated Figure 1 of Orlando above “is a cross-sectional view of a
turbofan engine assembly.” Orlando ¶ 5. According to the Examiner, this
first annotated Figure 1 of Orlando above illustrates the limitations in
claim 1.
The Examiner’s second annotated Figure 1 is reproduced below.
Appeal 2020-000644
Application 15/943,100

6

In this second annotated Figure 1 of Orlando above, the Examiner relabeled
certain elements to illustrate his understanding of Orlando and to clarify that
the forward attachment is the small flange extending from the support
structure. Ans. 17.
The Examiner finds that these figures show that the forward
attachment (1) “extends from the support structure to the inlet case” and (2)
“extends radially outward and rearward from the inlet case” as recited in
claim 1. Final Act. 7–8; Ans. 17–18. The Examiner also finds that
Orlando’s forward attachment is analogous to the forward attachment 78
disclosed in the Specification. Ans. 14, 17–18.

Appeal 2020-000644
Application 15/943,100

7
Figure 4 of Appellant’s Drawings is reproduced below.

Figure 4 above illustrates an enlarged cross-sectional view of a case
mounting arrangement at an intersection between an inlet case and a low
pressure compressor case. Spec. ¶ 11. According to the Examiner, the
claimed forward attachment is element 78 and the inlet case is element 64.
Id. at ¶¶ 16–17; Ans. 14, 17–18.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is erroneous for several
reasons. First, Appellant argues that Orlando does not have a component
that is analogous to Appellant’s forward attachment 78. Reply Br. 1.
According to Appellant, the “structure of Orlando that the Examiner
identifies that is outside the core flow does not ‘extend from’ the support
structure, as required of the claims. Instead, the structure of Orlando is
entirely within the support structure.” Id. Appellant’s argument is not
persuasive. Claim 1 recites that the “forward attachment extends from the
Appeal 2020-000644
Application 15/943,100

8
support structure to the inlet case.” Neither claim 1 nor the Specification
prohibit the forward attachment from being within the support structure.
Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1.
Second, Appellant argues that, to “the extent the Examiner points to
the flange forward of the support structure, this does structure does not
‘extend radially outward and rearward’ as required of the claims.” Id. at 2.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because Orlando’s enlarged Figure 1
above discloses that the flange (i.e., the “forward attachment” as annotated
by the Examiner) extends outward and rearward, as recited in claim 1.
For the reasons above, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is
sustained. Claims 2 and 5–7 fall with claim 1.

Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, 21–23, and 28–30––
Obviousness over Orlando and any of Adamson, Hawkins,
Breeze-Stringfellow, Clarke, Koertge, and/or Ress
Appellant merely states that “[t]he addition of the teachings of
Adamson does not cure the above noted deficiencies with respect to Orlando
and base claim 1.” Appeal Br. 4. As such, Appellant does not apprise us of
error in the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, 21–23, and 28–30 as being unpatentable over
Orlando and any of Adamson, Hawkins, Breeze-Stringfellow, Clarke,
Koertge, and/or Ress.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of the claims are AFFIRMED.
Appeal 2020-000644
Application 15/943,100

9
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–7, 10,
11, 17–23,
28
Nonstatutory
double patenting
1, 3–7, 10,
11, 17–23,
28

1, 2, 5–7 102(e) Orlando 1, 2, 5–7
3, 4 103(a) Orlando, Adamson 3, 4
10, 11, 17 103(a) Orlando, Hawkins,
Breeze-
Stringfellow
10, 11, 17
17, 21–23 103(a) Orlando,
Adamson,
Hawkins, Breeze-
Stringfellow
17, 21–23
28 103(a) Orlando, Clarke 28
29, 30 103(a) Orlando, Koertge,
Ress
29, 30
OVERALL
OUTCOME
1–7, 10, 11,
17–23, 28–
30

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