United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 28, 2022

2020006036 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2022)

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. 14/571,737 12/16/2014 Daniel Bernard Kupratis 63983US03; 67097-2340PUS3 8773 54549 7590 01/28/2022 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER VERDIER, CHRISTOPHER M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/28/2022 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 DANIEL BERNARD KUPRATIS and KARL L. HASEL ____________ Appeal 2020-006036 Application 14/571,737 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE. Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision in the Final Office Action (dated Mar. 26, 2019, hereinafter “Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1, 7-10, and 16-18.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal 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. United Technologies Corp. is identified as the real party in interest in Appellant’s Appeal Brief (filed Mar. 13, 2020, hereinafter “Appeal Br.”). Appeal Br. 1. 2 Claims 2-6, 11-15, and 19-24 are canceled. Appeal Br. 11-13 (Claims App.). Appeal 2020-006036 Application 14/571,737 2 SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM. INVENTION Appellant’s invention relates “to a balanced stage count in a turbofan engine having a high bypass ratio.” Spec., para. 1. Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A turbine engine comprising: a fan; a compressor section having at least a first portion and a second portion, wherein said first portion is at a high pressure relative to said second portion, and wherein said second portion of the compressor section comprises a low pressure compressor; a combustor in fluid communication with the compressor section; a turbine section in fluid communication with the combustor, wherein said turbine section includes at least a first portion and a second portion and wherein said first portion is at a high pressure relative to said second portion, wherein said second portion of the turbine section comprises a low pressure turbine, and wherein said low pressure turbine drives said fan via an epicyclic geared architecture, the epicyclic geared architecture including a speed reduction greater than about 2.3; wherein each of said compressor section second portion and said turbine section second portion include a plurality of stages; wherein a ratio of turbine section second portion stages to compressor section second portion stages is less than 1; a fan bypass ratio of the turbine engine is greater than or equal to 11; and a configuration complexity metric of the low pressure compressor and low pressure turbine is in the range of about 3.55464 to about 4.27, wherein the configuration complexity Appeal 2020-006036 Application 14/571,737 3 metric of the low pressure compressor and low pressure turbine =([1+N][1+[1/Nx(SLPT)+Nx(SLPc)]])/([N+(SLPc)/(SLPT)][2N]) where, SLPT is the number of turbine second portion stages, and is a whole number; SLPC is the number of compressor second portion stages, and is a whole number; SLPc/SLPT is a reciprocal of the ratio of the number of turbine second portion stages to the number of compressor second portion stages; and N is approximately 1.618034. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS3 I. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 7-10, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. II. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 7-10, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. III. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 7-10, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. 3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections on the ground of non-statutory double patenting of claims 1 and 10 as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of co-pending U.S. Application No. 14/143,342 and of claims 7-9 and 16-18 as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of co-pending U.S. Application No. 14/143,342 and Lardellier (US 5,058,379, issued Oct. 22, 1991). Examiner’s Answer (dated June 25, 2020, hereinafter “Ans.”) 4; Final Act. 15-18. Appeal 2020-006036 Application 14/571,737 4 ANALYSIS Rejection I The Examiner finds that the limitation “the range of about 3.55464 to about 4.27” is not supported by Appellant’s original disclosure because it “unduly narrow[s] the range of the claimed complexity metric from about 2.63 to about 4.27 down to about 3.55464 to about 4.27.” Final Act. 9-10. According to the Examiner, Appellant’s “original disclosure fails to provide specific support for the narrower currently claimed range nor does it provide a specific example that would establish the now claimed start/end point of the range at the value of 3.55464.” Id. at 10 (citing In re Wertheim, 541 F. 2d 257 (CCPA 1976)). The Examiner explains “that the only presentation of a preferred value or range of outcomes for the complexity metric . . . [is] approximately 2.634 to 4.262.” Id. (citing Spec., para. 49). Moreover, the Examiner notes that the Table on page 11 of the Specification (hereinafter “Table”) does not include an example of the described range of 2.634 to 4.262, and, moreover, “more than half of the ‘examples’ show[n] in the [T]able are themselves not within the applicable range.” Id. at 11. Thus, the Examiner takes the position “that the [T]able is not illustrative of specific examples of the invention itself but rather a showing of the resulting computation of the complexity metric.” Id. In response, Appellant argues that “the narrowed range of the claim is entirely within the originally claimed range, and thus was originally claimed subject matter.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant explains that “[t]he initial filing claimed the range of 2.63 to 4.27” and the Table includes the “currently claimed lower bound of ‘3.55464’, as well as multiple engine configurations which fall within the currently claimed range.” Id. at 8. Appellant further Appeal 2020-006036 Application 14/571,737 5 contends that the Table “provid[es] actual, concrete, examples of complexity metrics for conceived . . . engines.” Id. “The test for the sufficiency of the written description ‘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.’” Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 682 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)). In this case, each of Appellant’s original claims 3 and 12 recites that the “configuration complexity metric of the low pressure compressor and low pressure turbine is in the range of 2.63 to 4.27.” See Spec. 13, 15 (Claims). Appellant’s original disclosure further describes a configuration complexity metric of 3.55464 based upon compressor and turbine stage numbers SLPC and SLPT of 7 and 4. See Spec. 11, Table. As such, because Appellant’s original disclosure supports the endpoints of 3.55464 and 4.27, the original disclosure also supports a “range of about 3.55464 to about 4.27,” as recited by each of independent claims 1 and 10. Furthermore, we do not agree with the Examiner’s position that the Table is merely an example of calculations of various configuration complexity metrics. See Final Act. 10-11. Rather, we agree with Appellant that “each entry in the [T]able that includes the claimed complexity metric is a practical example of an engine having a complexity metric within the claimed range.” Appeal Br. 9. Although we appreciate that many of the examples in the Table are not within the claimed range of the configuration complexity metric, that in itself does not mean that “the examples that do have the claimed complexity metric are not practical examples of engines Appeal 2020-006036 Application 14/571,737 6 that include the claimed feature.” Id. The Examiner has not adequately explained why a skilled artisan would not consider the examples in the Table to be practical examples of engines. In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s original disclosure supports the limitation of “a configuration complexity range” in a “range of about 3.55464 to about 4.27,” as recited by each of independent claims 1 and 10. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) of claims 1, 7-10, and 16-18 as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Rejection II The Examiner finds that Appellant’s Specification does not enable the numbers of the compressor and turbine stage numbers SLPC and SLPT, respectively, “being fractional or decimal numbers.” Final Act. 13. According to the Examiner, the claimed “range of the configuration complexity metric of about 3.55464 to about 4.27 . . . includes fractional or decimal numbers” for the compressor and turbine stage numbers SLPC and SLPT, respectively. Id. at 13-14. In response, for the first time in the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that the claims define the compressor and turbine stage numbers SLPC and SLPT, respectively, as whole numbers, and, thus, “[w]hether the specification enables fractional or partial compressor stages is irrelevant.” Reply Brief (filed Aug. 24, 2020, hereinafter “Reply Br.”) 2-3. Appellant’s argument is untimely and not in response to an argument raised by the Examiner for the first time in the Examiner’s Answer. See Final Act. 13-14; Ans. 6-9. It will not be considered as Appellant offers no reason why the argument was not Appeal 2020-006036 Application 14/571,737 7 raised in the Appeal Brief. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (“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 . . . will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown.”); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) of claims 1, 7-10, and 16-18 as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Rejection III The Examiner finds that the claimed range of the configuration complexity metric of “about 3.55464 to about 4.27” is indefinite because it requires fractional or decimal numbers for the compressor and turbine stage numbers SLPC and SLPT, respectively. Final Act. 14-15. In other words, the Examiner finds that a complexity metric of 4.27 cannot be achieved using whole numbers for SLPC and SLPT. According to the Examiner, a configuration complexity metric of 4.13254 requires compressor and turbine stage numbers SLPC and SLPT of 7 and 5, respectively, and a configuration complexity metric of 4.28248 requires compressor and turbine stage numbers SLPC and SLPT of 8 and 5, respectively. Id. at 15. Once more, for the first time in the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that the claims define the compressor and turbine stage numbers SLPC and SLPT, respectively, as whole numbers, and, thus, “[t]he limitations are explicit, and the metes and bounds of the claims are clearly defined.” Reply Br. 3. Thus, as Appellant’s argument is untimely and not in response to an argument raised by the Examiner for the first time in the Examiner’s Answer, the Appeal 2020-006036 Application 14/571,737 8 argument will not be considered as Appellant offers no reason why the argument was not raised in the Appeal Brief. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of claims 1, 7-10, and 16-18 as being indefinite. CONCLUSION Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 7-10, 16-18 112(a) Written description 1, 7-10, 16-18 1, 7-10, 16-18 112(a) Enablement 1, 7-10, 16-18 1, 7-10, 16-18 112(b) Indefiniteness 1, 7-10, 16-18 Overall outcome 1, 7-10, 16-18 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