United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 9, 2022

2021004179 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 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. 15/239,086 08/17/2016 Jesse M. Chandler 94347US01; 67097-3427PUS1 4576 54549 7590 02/09/2022 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER MEADE, LORNE EDWARD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/09/2022 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 JESSE M. CHANDLER and GABRIEL L. SUCIU Appeal 2021-004179 Application 15/239,086 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before DANIEL S. SONG, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, 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, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 20. See Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of these claims. 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 2021-004179 Application 15/239,086 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter pertains to a gas turbine engine having core components and a propulsor section aft of the core components driven by a free turbine. See Spec. ¶¶ 2-4. Apparatus claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below. 1. A gas turbine engine for an aircraft comprising: a core engine assembly including a compressor section communicating air to a combustor section where the air is mixed with fuel and ignited to generate a high-energy gas flow that is expanded through a turbine section, wherein the turbine section is coupled to drive the compressor section, the core engine assembly angled outward relative to an aircraft longitudinal axis; a free turbine configured to be driven by gas flow from the core engine assembly; a propulsor section aft of the core engine assembly and driven by the free turbine; a gear system driven by the free turbine for driving the propulsor section at a speed different than a speed of the free turbine; and an exhaust duct routing exhaust gases from the core engine assembly to the free turbine, wherein the free turbine is disposed aft of the propulsor section and the exhaust duct includes an outlet aft of the propulsor section communicating the exhaust gases to drive the free turbine, wherein the exhaust duct includes an inflow section that communicates exhaust gases radially inward to the outlet, and the outlet is a single annular duct that surrounds the shaft. EVIDENCE Name Reference Date Rowe US 3,033,492 May 8, 1962 Provost US 6,543,718 B2 Apr. 8, 2003 Appeal 2021-004179 Application 15/239,086 3 Maurell et al. (“Maurell”) US 7,987,678 B2 Aug. 2, 2011 Kosheleff US 8,382,030 B2 Feb. 26, 2013 Rolt US 2016/0010589 A1 Jan. 14, 2016 Suciu et al. (“Suciu”) WO 2014/074135 A1 May 15, 2014 Chandler et al. (“Chandler”) WO 2014/074149 A1 May 15, 2014 G. Wilfert AERO-ENGINE DESIGN: FROM STATE OF THE ART TURBOFANS TOWARDS INNOVATIVE ARCHITECTURES 1-26 (von Karman Inst. For Fluid Dynamics). 2008 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rolt, Kosheleff, Maurell, Chandler, Suciu, and Wilfert. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rolt, Kosheleff, Maurell, Chandler, Suciu, Wilfert, and Rowe. Claims 11, 14, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Provost, Chandler, Rolt, Kosheleff, and Maurell. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Provost, Chandler, Rolt, Kosheleff, Maurell, Suciu, and Wilfert. ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8 as unpatentable over Rolt, Kosheleff, Maurell, Chandler, Suciu, and Wilfert Appellant argues these claims together. See Appeal Br. 3-5. We select independent claim 1 for review, with the remaining dependent claims Appeal 2021-004179 Application 15/239,086 4 (i.e., claims 2, 5, 7, and 8) standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2020). Claim 1 recites a “core engine assembly” and a “free turbine.” Claim 1 also recites “an exhaust duct routing exhaust gases from the core engine assembly to the free turbine.” Claim 1 further recites “the exhaust duct includes an outlet . . . and the outlet is a single annular duct that surrounds the shaft.”2 The Examiner relies on the primary reference to Rolt for disclosing “a core engine assembly (12),” “a free turbine (22),” and “an exhaust duct (50, 26) routing exhaust gases from the core engine assembly (12) to the free turbine (22).” Final Act. 3, 4. The Examiner, however, acknowledges, “Rolt is silent on said exhaust duct outlet is a single annular duct that surrounds the shaft” as recited. Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 5. The Examiner notes that Kosheleff teaches “an exhaust duct . . . that communicated gases . . . that was a single annular duct that surrounded the shaft.” Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 6 (both referencing Kosheleff Fig. 2). The Examiner also provides an annotation (enlarged) of Figure 2 of Kosheleff identifying various components illustrated therein. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 6. Likewise, the Examiner notes that Maurell teaches “a similar exhaust duct . . . that communicated exhaust gases . . . to a single annular duct outlet (49) that surrounded a shaft (50).” Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 6. Again, the Examiner provides an annotation of Figures 1A and 1B (the latter 2 There is no antecedent basis for “the shaft.” We understand this to refer to Appellant’s “shaft 28 through which the free turbine 26 drives the fan 40A, 40B.” Spec. ¶ 42; see also Fig. 6. Appeal 2021-004179 Application 15/239,086 5 enlarged) of Maurell identifying various components illustrated therein.3 See Final Act. 5 The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious “to modify Rolt [wherein] the exhaust duct outlet is a single annular duct that surrounds the shaft of Kosheleff and Maurell.” Final Act. 5. This is “because all the claimed elements . . . were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the single annular exhaust duct outlet arrangement, taught by Kosheleff and Maurell, for the annular exhaust duct outlet arrangement of Rolt.” Final Act. 5-6. The Examiner states that such a substitution could be accomplished “with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results.” Final Act. 6. The Examiner provides further justification for the combination stating, the annular exhaust duct outlet that surrounded the shaft would have facilitated evenly distributing the exhaust gases around the 360° inlet of the axial inflow free turbine thereby increasing turbine blade fatigue life because the rotating turbine blades would have experienced a uniform flow of exhaust gases, i.e., uniform temperature and pressure. Final Act. 6 (referencing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc, 550 U.S. 398 (2007) and MPEP § 2143(B)). Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s reliance on the teachings of Maurell above, and only addresses those of Kosheleff. See Appeal Br. 4. Appellant acknowledges the Examiner’s reliance on Rolt’s exhaust duct 26 but states, “the Kosheleff duct 22 feeds the combustor 25 (Kosheleff, Figure 6) and is therefore not an exhaust duct.” Appeal Br. 4; Reply Br. 2. Similarly, Appellant contends “[t]he Kosheleff inlet duct for a combustor 3 Maurell identifies Figures 1A and 1B as “a prior art arrangement.” Maurell 2:29-33. Appeal 2021-004179 Application 15/239,086 6 operates under different conditions than an exhaust duct” and that “the duct in Kosheleff is not an exhaust duct.” Appeal Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 3. Even presuming for the sake of argument that “the duct in Kosheleff is not an exhaust duct” (see above) Appellant is not arguing the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner points out that Rolt was relied upon for teaching “exhaust duct (26)” and by referencing Kosheleff’s duct, “Appellant is arguing a modification that was not made in the rejection . . . because base reference Rolt already taught the exhaust duct (26 - Fig. 1).” Ans. 4, 5. Thus, as per the Examiner “there was no need for Kosheleff’s duct (22).” Ans. 5; see also id. at 8 (“Appellant’s arguments about Kosheleff’s duct (22) are irrelevant because base reference Rolt was not modified by Kosheleff’s duct (22)”). Appellant does not address this matter and instead re-states that “[t]he Kosheleff duct 22 [is] not an exhaust duct” and replicates other statements previously made. Reply Br. 2; see also id. at 3. In view of the above, (and noting Appellant’s lack of any comment regarding the teachings of Maurell), we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred when relying on the combination of Rolt, Kosheleff, and Maurell as teaching/rendering obvious the aforesaid claim limitations. See Final Act. 5, 6. Claim 1 further recites the limitation, “the core engine assembly angled outward relative to an aircraft longitudinal axis.” The Examiner references Paragraph 16 of Rolt noting the non-axial alignment discussed therein between the axis of rotation 36 of Rolt’s first propulsion unit 12 and the axis of rotation 75 of Rolt’s second propulsion unit 18. See Final Act. 7; Rolt Figs. 1, 2, 4. Paragraph 19 of Rolt teaches that one of these propulsion Appeal 2021-004179 Application 15/239,086 7 units (12, 18) “may be mounted beneath an aircraft wing” with the other being “mounted above the same wing.” This same paragraph 19 also teaches that, additionally, “[t]he first and second propulsive units may be vertically offset” which we understand to mean that they may be vertically aligned with only the distance and structure of a wing separating them. Paragraph 19 of Rolt also states that the first and second units “may be laterally aligned or offset.”4 In view of Rolt’s variety of mounting locations associated with an aircraft’s wing, the Examiner references Chandler’s teaching of “a similar aircraft (10, 12)” likewise having first and second propulsors but where their respective “first and second core engines were angled outward relative to the aircraft longitudinal axis.” Final Act. 7. The Examiner references Chandler’s angling in order “to locate each core engine outside the burst zone . . . of the other core engine.” Final Act. 7. Indeed, Chandler teaches, “core engines 20a-b are disposed at an angle . . . to each other such that neither core engine 20a-b is disposed within a burst zone 34 of the other core engine 20a-b.” Chandler ¶ 31; see also Chandler Fig. 2; Ans. 9 (Chandler “was used for teaching angling the core engine assembly”). This arrangement also appears to be consistent with Rolt’s teachings above regarding the disclosure of a variety of mounting orientations. The Examiner’s reason for combining modified Rolt with Chandler is that, “based upon the teachings of such improvement in Chandler, [it] would have been obvious [to apply] this known improvement technique in the same 4 Paragraph 22 of Rolt additionally states that “[a]n axis of rotation of the further turbine may be offset from an axis of rotation of the first turbine.” Appeal 2021-004179 Application 15/239,086 8 manner to the” Rolt/Kosheleff/Maurell gas turbine engine of an aircraft. Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 11. The Examiner explains, the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that angling a core engine outward relative to a longitudinal axis of the aircraft would have facilitated locating two core engines outside of each other’s burst zone so that an uncontained failure of one core engine would not disable both core engines. Final Act. 7. Appellant challenges this reasoning and conclusion by the Examiner stating that, in reference to Final Action page 27: [t]he Examiner notes that many known aircraft configurations include multiple engines on a common wing within a blast radius of another wing. However, in each example presented by the Examiner, at least one other engine is mounted on another wing. Appeal Br. 4; Reply Br. 3 (italics added). The Examiner responds with unrebutted evidence that, even if engines are mounted on different wings, as may be the case in Rolt, such engines may nevertheless be within the blast radii of engines on different wings. See Ans. 12 (citing two Wikipedia articles concerning engine blast radii). Appellant further states, “[m]oreover, the fact that such configurations exist without such an angle evidences that such a modification is not one that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Appeal Br. 5. However, that fact that some aircraft might elect to not employ such a known safety feature is not relevant to a finding of obviousness when other aircraft (i.e., Chandler’s) expressly take advantage of such a safety feature. For example, we have been instructed that it is a commonplace fact that design decisions entail making tradeoffs among multiple objectives. Allied Appeal 2021-004179 Application 15/239,086 9 Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine”). Perhaps even more on point to Appellant’s contention, we have been instructed that obviousness “does not require that the motivation be the best option, only that it be a suitable option from which the prior art did not teach away.” Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197-98 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Appellant provides no indication that a design such as Chandler’s (which takes into account an engine’s blast zone) is one to be avoided, or is otherwise criticized, discredited or discouraged. The Examiner even provides examples from “a long list of uncontained engine failures” that would appear to, instead, encourage such a design. Ans. 12. In conclusion, we disagree with Appellant’s contention that “the proposed modification of Rolt that requires angling an underwing engine is not supported by any reason and would provide no benefit.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant further contends that “[t]he proposed combination of references provided in the rejection to claim 1 requires a change to the principal [sic] of operation or structure of the base reference, Rolt.” Appeal Br. 4; Reply Br. 2. Appellant does not identify the change to Rolt’s principle of operation or structure, and only asserts that it occurs. The Examiner responds stating “Appellant’s arguments have failed to explain how the proposed combination of references provided in the rejection of Claim 1 required a change to the principal [sic] of operation of base reference Rolt.” Ans. 3 (referencing MPEP § 1205.02(iv)). As such, the Examiner states that “Appellant’s argument is mere attorney argument Appeal 2021-004179 Application 15/239,086 10 without any factual support in the record.” Ans. 4. Nevertheless, the Examiner states, “[t]he principle of operation of base reference Rolt was to generate thrust to propel an aircraft into flight” and that “[t]he principle of operation of the proposed combination of Rolt, i.v., Kosheleff, Maurell, Chandler, Suciu, and Wilfert, would remain the same.” Ans. 4. Appellant replies that “the overly general view of the principal [sic] of operation conceals the features of Rolt that evidence changes to the principal [sic] of operation,” but again offers no specifics to support this contention. Reply Br. 2. In view of the above statements, and lacking “factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness” (In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred when relying on the combination of Rolt, Kosheleff, Maurell, and Chandler as teaching/rendering obvious the aforesaid claim limitations. See Final Act. 6-8. Appellant further contends that the Examiner’s rejection was only possible “through the use of Appellant’s disclosure as a guide.” Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 3. Appellant states that “the Office has necessarily jumped between the six different references” and that “[t]here can be no rational reason outside of Appellant’s disclosure for such a string of modifications and combinations.” Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 2, 3. We have been instructed that “reliance on a large number of references” in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention and further that it “is not the number of references, but what they would have meant to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention.” In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986 (Fed. Cir. Appeal 2021-004179 Application 15/239,086 11 1991). In the matter before us, Appellant provides no detail or support for such an accusation, only that this is the case. Further, “Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles.” Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1250 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Instead, we have been instructed that “it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.” In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Here, Appellant does not identify those reasons to combine (as expressed by the Examiner) that might be faulty, and why they are so. Instead, Appellant references all these reasons and simply concludes that, “[t]here can be no rational reason outside of Appellant’s disclosure” for combining the cited references in the manner stated. Appeal Br. 5. In view of the above, Appellant’s contention is not persuasive of Examiner error because Appellant has not provided any evidence in support of such an allegation, and it is not otherwise self-evident from the record. See also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s arguments in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”); Ans. 14-16. Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in combining Rolt, Kosheleff, Maurell, Chandler, Suciu, and Wilfert for the reasons stated. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8 as being obvious in view of the cited art. The rejection of claim 10 as unpatentable over Rolt, Kosheleff, Maurell, Chandler, Suciu, Wilfert, and Rowe In responding to this rejection of claim 10 (which depends from claim 1), Appellant simply states that this claim 10 is “allowable based on the dependenc[y]” from claim 1. Appeal Br. 5. To be clear, Appellant states, Appeal 2021-004179 Application 15/239,086 12 “[t]he addition of Rowe (US 3033492) does not correct the deficiencies in the base reference” (i.e., claim 1). Appeal Br. 6. Appellant’s contentions (which do not address the teachings of Rowe) are not persuasive that the Examiner erred in relying on Rowe for the additionally recited limitations of claim 10. See Final Act. 11-12. We sustain the rejection of claim 10. The rejection of claims 11, 14, 17, 19, and 20 as unpatentable over Provost, Chandler, Rolt, Kosheleff, and Maurell Appellant argues these claims together. See Appeal Br. 6. We select independent claim 11 for review, with the remaining claims standing or falling therewith. The Examiner readily acknowledges that Provost (combined with Chandler) “is silent on . . . the outlet [being] a single annular duct with an axial facing annular opening that surrounds the shaft.” Final Act. 14. Hence, Appellant’s contention that “Provost . . . does not disclose an annular duct with an axial facing annular opening” is of no consequence. Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 4. Likewise, the Examiner acknowledges that Provost (combined with Chandler) “is silent on wherein the free turbine . . . drives a shaft coupled to the propulsor section” (i.e., a fan). Final Act. 14. Hence, again, Appellant’s contention that “nor does Provost disclose a free-turbine driving a fan through a shaft” is also of no consequence. Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 4. For the record, the Examiner relied on other references for such teachings. See Final Act. 14-16. Appellant further contends, “[t]he modification proposed by the Examiner would change the intended operation of the base reference, Appeal 2021-004179 Application 15/239,086 13 Provost” contending that Provost “does not require a separate turbine nor a shaft to connect and drive the fan.” Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 4. The Examiner explains that “[t]he principal [sic] of operation of base reference Provost was to generate thrust to propel an aircraft (12 - Fig. 1) into flight by combusting a mixture of fuel and air in the combustion chamber.” Ans. 19. “The proposed combination would basically substitute Rolt’s propulsion unit (18 - Fig. 1) for Provost’s propulsion unit (14 - Fig. 1) to perform the same function of generating thrust to propel the aircraft into flight.” Ans. 19. Therefore, contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the principal [sic] of operation of the proposed combination of Provost, i.v., Chandler, Rolt, Kosheleff, and Maurell, would remain the same in that the core engine assembly (34 - Provost Fig. 1) would generate exhaust gases that would be channeled through exhaust duct (40-46 - Provost Fig. 1) to drive the free turbine (22 - Rolt Figs. 1 and 4) to rotate the propulsor section/fan (28 - Rolt Figs. 1 and 4) thereby generating thrust to propel the aircraft into flight. Ans. 19-20. In other words, Provost’s exhaust gases channeled through duct 40-46 would drive a free turbine (i.e. Rolt’s 22, Fig. 1) rather than drive Provost’s fan 14 (see Provost Abstr., Fig. 1). The Examiner explains that replacing Provost’s tip-driven fan with Rolt’s free turbine driven fan, “would have facilitated reducing the drag and weight of the propulsor section by reducing the diameter of the nacelle (18) that surrounded [Provost’s fan] and reducing the two pylons (16) to a single pylon.” Final Act. 16; see also id. at 17. Appellant does not dispute this reduction in drag, weight, and number of pylons asserted by the Examiner but instead repeats the contention that “the modification proposed by the Examiner would require a complete Appeal 2021-004179 Application 15/239,086 14 change in the operation and structure of the base reference.” Reply Br. 4. However, as above, the only change to Provost is a substitution of one component for another and the re-routing of Provost’s exhaust gases, with such change enabling a reduction in nacelle diameter and the elimination of a pylon. Appellant does not explain how such a modification alters Provost’s “arrangement comprising propulsion means for propelling the aircraft and drive means to drive the propulsion means.” Provost 1:28-30. Nor does Appellant explain how such change alters Provost’s arrangement which includes “mounting means to mount at least said propulsion means in a location spaced from an upper or lower surface of said aircraft.” Provost 1:30-32. Accordingly, and based on the record presented, Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive of Examiner error because Appellant does not respond to the Examiner’s rejection nor explain why the suggested modification would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 14, 17, 19, and 20 as being unpatentable over Provost, Chandler, Rolt, Kosheleff, and Maurell. The rejection of claim 13 as unpatentable over Provost, Chandler, Rolt, Kosheleff, Maurell, Suciu, and Wilfert In responding to this rejection of claim 13 (which depends from claim 11), Appellant simply states that claim 13 “is allowable for the reasons discussed above” and that “[t]he addition of Suciu and Wilfert does not correct the deficiencies in the base combination.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant’s contentions (which do not address the teachings of these additional references) are not persuasive that the Examiner erred in relying Appeal 2021-004179 Application 15/239,086 15 on Suciu and Wilfert for the additionally recited limitations of claim 13. See Final Act. 21. We sustain the rejection of claim 13. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 20 is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 103 Rolt, Kosheleff, Maurell, Chandler, Suciu, Wilfert 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 10 103 Rolt, Kosheleff, Maurell, Chandler, Suciu, Wilfert, Rowe 10 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 103 Provost, Chandler, Rolt, Kosheleff, Maurell 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 13 103 Provost, Chandler, Rolt, Kosheleff, Maurell, Suciu, Wilfert 13 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED