UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 21, 2021

2021001420 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 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.
14/433,444 04/03/2015 Glenn Levasseur 67097-2256PUS1;64859US03 1164
54549 7590 10/21/2021
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, ANDREW H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/21/2021 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 GLENN LEVASSEUR, GABRIEL L. SUCIU,
and GARY M. STETSON

Appeal 2021-001420
Application 14/433,444
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, JAMES A. WORTH, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHOPFER, 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, 4, 6–8, 12–14, and 17–21. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

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 2021-001420
Application 14/433,444

2
BACKGROUND
The Specification describes embodiments of:
a gas turbine engine [including] a fan which includes a plurality
of fan blades that are rotatable about an axis, and a compressor
section, where the combustor section includes a first compressor
and a second compressor aft of the first compressor. At least one
first variable guide vane controls operation of the first
compressor and at least one second variable guide vane controls
operation of the second compressor. A combustor is in fluid
communication with the compressor section and a turbine
section is in fluid communication with the combustor. A geared
architecture is driven by the turbine section for rotating the fan
about the axis.
Spec. ¶ 5.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal and recites:
1. A gas turbine engine comprising:
a fan including a plurality of fan blades rotatable about an
axis;
a compressor section, wherein the compressor section
includes a first compressor and a second compressor aft of the
first compressor with at least one first variable guide vane
controlling operation of the first compressor and at least one
second variable guide vane controlling operation of the second
compressor, wherein the pressure ratio of the first compressor is
in the range of 4:1 to 7: 1, and the pressure ratio of the second
compressor is in the range 8:1 to 15:1;
a combustor in fluid communication with the compressor
section and a turbine section in fluid communication with the
combustor, wherein the turbine section includes a first turbine
and a second turbine arranged aft of the first turbine; and
a geared architecture driven by the turbine section for
rotating the fan about the axis; and
Appeal 2021-001420
Application 14/433,444

3
wherein the fan has a total number of the fan blades, the
total number of the fan blades being less than 20, and a ratio
between the total number of the fan blades and a total number of
turbine rotors of the second turbine is between 3.3 and 8.6.
Appeal Br. 12.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 6–8, 12–14, and 17–21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Suciu2 in view of Merry,3 Hasel,4
Wassynger,5 and Decker.6
2. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 6–8, 12–14, and 17–21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Suciu in view of Merry, Patton,7
Wassynger, and Decker
3. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 12–14, and 17–21 on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1–6 and 15–20
of U.S. Patent No. 8,337,149 in view of Suciu, Wassynger, and Decker.
4. The Examiner rejects claims 6–8 on the ground of nonstatutory double
patenting as unpatentable over claims 1–6 and 15–20 of U.S. Patent No.
8,337,149 in view of Suciu, Wassynger, Decker, and Merry

2 Suciu et al., US 2009/0317229 A1, pub. Dec. 24, 2009.
3 Merry et al., US 2009/0188334 A1, pub. July 30, 2009.
4 Hasel et al., US 2012/0171018 A1, pub. July 5, 2012.
5 Wassynger et al., US 2011/0176913 A1, pub. July 21, 2011.
6 Decker et al., US 2006/0228206 A1, pub. Oct. 12, 2006.
7 Patton et al., US 4,841,721, iss. June 27, 1989.
Appeal 2021-001420
Application 14/433,444

4
DISCUSSION
Obviousness
We are persuaded of error in the rejections of claim 1 to the extent the
Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify the art of
record in view of Wassynger and Decker.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner first rejects the claim based on
the combination of Suciu, Merry, Hasel, Wassynger, and Decker. In this
rejection, the Examiner finds and determines, inter alia:
Suciu in view of Merry and Hasel fails to teach a total
number of fan blades less than 20 and a ratio between the number
of fan blades and a total number of the turbine rotors of the
second turbine between 3.3 and 8.6. However, it was well known
in the art to make a total number of fan blades less than 20, as
taught by Decker (para 85; 18 fan blades) and to make the total
number of turbine rotors in the second turbine five rotors, as
taught by Wassynger (Fig 1; 5 LPT turbine rotors). It would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to provide the gas turbine with a total number of fan
blades less than 20, a total number of turbine rotors of the second
turbine being five, and a ratio between the number of fan blades
and a total number of the turbine rotors of the second turbine
between 3.3 and 8.6, as taught by Decker and Wassynger
(18/5=3.6). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering
the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the
art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, MPEP 2144.05 IIA. In this case,
fan blade count is a known results-effective variable, affecting
tip solidity and aerodynamic efficiency, as taught by Decker
(para 85-89). Discovering the optimum or workable ranges of
fan blade count (and therefore ratio of fan blade count to turbine
rotor count) involves only routine skill in the art. Furthermore,
it has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art
elements according to known methods to yield predictable
results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (Ill)). In
this case, making a total number for fan blades less than 20 and
Appeal 2021-001420
Application 14/433,444

5
a total number of turbine rotors in the second turbine five rotors
yields predictable results.
Final Act. 4. The Examiner also rejects claim 1 in view of the combination
of Suciu, Merry, Patton, Wassynger, and Decker. Final Act. 6. In this
rejection, the Examiner relies on substantially the same findings and
determination with respect to Wassynger and Decker as quoted above. Id. at
8–9. Thus, the Examiner ostensibly relies on two separate reasons to
support the proposed combinations with Wassynger and Decker, i.e., 1) that
it would have been obvious to discover the optimum and workable range of
fan blade count, and 2) that it would have been obvious to provide a fan
blade count and turbine count to result in the claimed ratio as a simple
substitution that would yield predictable results.
To the extent the Examiner first determines that providing a total
number of fan blades that is less than 20 would have been an obvious
optimization of a result-effective variable, such reasoning does not
adequately support the proposed combination with both Decker and
Wassynger. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the
prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by
routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955).
Even under such reasoning, the rejection must be supported by “some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Such
reasoning might include a showing that the parameter to be optimized was
recognized in the art to be a result-effective variable. See In re Antonie, 559
F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977); MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B).
Appeal 2021-001420
Application 14/433,444

6
Here, the Examiner relies on Wassynger only to the extent that
Wassynger teaches the use of five turbines, and the Examiner has not
established, that the number of turbine rotors or the ratio of fan blades to
turbine rotors would have been obvious based on routine optimization of a
recognized result-effective variable. Rather, the Examiner finds that
Wassynger teaches the use of a fixed quantity of five turbines and that it
would have been obvious to optimize the number of fan blades based on
Decker to arrive at the claim requirements. See, e.g., Final Act. 20. We note
that the Examiner asserts that the claimed ratio is a result-effective variable
because it is based on fan blade count, which is recognized as result-
effective in view of Decker. Ans. 11. However, the fact that fan blade count
may be a result-effective variable does not, without further findings or
explanation, show that the claimed ratio, which relies on both fan blade
count and turbine rotor count, was itself recognized as a result-effective
variable. Thus, we find that the Examiner has not established that the
claimed ratio was recognized as a result-effective variable, and because the
Examiner provides no further reasoning on this point, we determine that this
rationale lacks the requisite rational underpinning to the extent the Examiner
seeks to rely on it as reason to modify the art in view of Wassynger’s use of
five turbine rotors.
Regarding the Examiner’s reasoning that the combination with Decker
and Wassynger represents a simple substitution that would yield predictable
results, we determine that the Examiner’s reasoning is not supported by
“some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Appeal 2021-001420
Application 14/433,444

7
With respect to this reasoning, the Examiner finds that it was known in the
art “to make the total number of turbine rotors in the second turbine five
rotors, as taught by Wassynger.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner also finds that
it was known in the art to use less than 20 fan blades, as taught by Decker,
and that providing 18 fan blades as taught by Decker and 5 turbine rotors as
taught by Wassynger would result in a ratio in the range claimed. Id.
Although such a combination may result in the claimed configuration, the
Examiner provides no explanation in the rejection showing that the
substitutions contemplated would be simple based on the application of
known methods or that they would yield predictable results.
Beyond the finding that the use of 18 fan blades and 5 turbine rotors,
were known in the art, the Examiner explains only that none of the
references teaches away from the combination proposed. See, e.g., Final
Act. 17. Yet the Examiner fails to explain how this fact shows that the result
of the combination would have been predictable. We agree with Appellant
that even if the art does not teach away from the combination “the rejection
proposes substituting fan blade counts, turbine rotor counts and compressor
pressure ratios into Suciu’s engine, without establish[ing] that the respective
engines of Decker, Wassynger and Hasel have the same engine architecture
including any of the same fan blade counts, turbine rotor counts, compressor
pressure ratios, or compressor stages as those of Suciu’s engine.” Appeal
Br. 5.
We also agree with Appellant that “[m]ore than mere assertions that
the alleged quantities are not ‘incompatible’ is required to establish” a
reason to combine the art as proposed. Id. at 6. On this point, we note that
the Examiner does make certain findings regarding the engine architecture
Appeal 2021-001420
Application 14/433,444

8
of Suciu in the Answer, i.e., the Examiner finds that Suciu teaches that it
was known to modify turbine rotor count in a geared architecture. Ans. 7.
Although these findings may provide some support for the modification
based on Wassynger alone, the combination proposed requires a specific
modification of both the number of fan blades based on Decker and the
number of turbine rotors based on Wassynger to arrive at the claimed ratio.
In response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner also asserts that
“Appellant has provided no evidence of unpredictability or criticality of any
of the relationships between gearing, fan blade count, turbine rotor count,
and compressor ratio.” Ans. 8. Although a showing of criticality can be
useful to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner must first
establish a prima facie case. Here, the Examiner provides only conclusory
assertions that the substitution of 18 fan blades in conjunction with five
turbine rotors would have been routine and predictable. We determine that
the Examiner’s reasoning in this regard lacks the requisite rational
underpinnings, and thus, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been
established.
Based on the foregoing and because the Examiner relies on the same
reasoning with respect to both rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we are
persuaded of error in both obviousness rejections of claim 1. For the same
reasons, we are persuaded of error in the rejections of the dependent claims.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Double Patenting
In rejecting the claims under the doctrine of non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting, the Examiner relies on substantially
similar reasoning for the combination with Wassynger and Decker as
Appeal 2021-001420
Application 14/433,444

9
discussed above with respect to the statutory rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. See, e.g., Final Act. 14–15. For the reasons discussed above, we are
also persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reasoning with respect to the
double patenting rejections. Accordingly, we do not sustain the double
patenting rejections of claims 1, 4, 6–8, 12–14, and 17–21.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1, 4, 6–8, 12–14, and 17–21.

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 6–8, 12–
14, 17–21
103 Suciu, Merry,
Hasel,
Wassynger,
Decker
1, 4, 6–8,
12–14,
17–21
1, 4, 6–8, 12–
14, 17–21
103 Suciu, Merry,
Patton,
Wassynger,
Decker
1, 4, 6–8,
12–14,
17–21
1, 4, 12–14,
17–21
Nonstatutory
Double
Patenting
8,337,149
1, 4, 12–
14, 17–
21
6–8 Nonstatutory
Double
Patenting
8,337,149
6–8
Overall
Outcome
1, 4, 6–8,
12–14,
17–21

REVERSED