United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 17, 2020

14472849 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 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.
14/472,849 08/29/2014 Jonathan Gilson PA13331US;
67097-2761PUS2
1458
54549 7590 06/17/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
RIVERA, CARLOS A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2020 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 JONATHAN GILSON, ANDRE M. HALL,
OLIVER V. ATASSI, and RAMONS A. REBA

Appeal 2019-003263
Application 14/472,849
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JAMES P. CALVE, and JILL D. HILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, 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 claims1–4, 6–12, 18, 20, 23, 24, and 29–412.
See Non-Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United Technologies
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
2 The Examiner’s Disposition of Claims in the Office Action Summary
contains inconsistencies in the claim listings. It is our understanding that
claims 1–4, 6–12, 18, 20, 23, 24, and 29–41 are pending. Claims 1–4, 6–12,
Appeal 2019-003263
Application 14/472,849

2
We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
Claims 1 and 21 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with
certain limitations italicized, illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A nacelle assembly for a gas turbine engine comprising:
a core nacelle defined about an engine centerline axis;
a fan nacelle mounted at least partially around said core
nacelle, the core nacelle and fan nacelle defining a fan bypass
flow path; and
a variable area fan nozzle in communication with said fan
bypass flow path, said variable area fan nozzle having a first fan
nacelle section and a second fan nacelle section downstream of
said first fan nacelle section, said first fan nacelle section and
said second fan nacelle section axially movable relative to one
another to define an auxiliary port to vary a fan nozzle exit area
and adjust fan bypass airflow, said auxiliary port defined
between said first fan nacelle section and said second fan
nacelle section, said first fan nacelle section comprising a first
acoustic system having a first acoustic impedance that
attenuates a noise characterized by a leading edge of said
second fan nacelle section, said second fan nacelle section
comprising a second acoustic system having a second acoustic
impedance that attenuates a noise characterized by said
leading edge of said second fan nacelle section, and a radially
outer surface of said second acoustic system defining said
auxiliary port.

18, 20, 23, 24, and 29, 30, 35–39, and 41 are rejected. See Final Act. 5, 9;
Appeal Br. 8–12 (Claims App.). Claims 31–34 and 40 are objected to. Id.
Appeal 2019-003263
Application 14/472,849

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Schiel 3,598,318 Aug. 10, 1971
Clark 3,820,719 June 28, 1974
Reba US 2008/0295518 A1 Dec. 4, 2008
Gilson ’488 US 2009/0320488 A1 Dec. 31, 2009
Gilson ’088 US 8,820,088 B2 Sep. 2, 2014
REJECTION
I. Claims 1–4, 6–12, 18, 20, 23, 24, and 29–41 stand rejected on
the ground of non-statutory double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1–
20 of Gilson ’088 in view of Gilson ’488. Final Act. 5.
II. Claims 1, 2, 6–8, 18, 20, 23, 24, 29, 30, 35, 38, and 39 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Gilson ’488, Clark, and
Schiel. Final Act. 5.
III. Claims 3, 4, 9–12, 36, 37, and 41 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Gilson ’488, Clark, Schiel, and Reba.
Final Act. 9.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I – Double Patenting
The Examiner finds that Gilson ’488 “discloses most of the limitations
of the instant application except a radially outer surface of said second
acoustic system defining said auxiliary port,” and that it would have been
obvious “to include a radially outer surface of said second acoustic system
defining said auxiliary port in [Gilson ’488] to attenuate the leading edge
noise to reduce the total effective perceived noise level.” Final Act. 5
(emphasis omitted) (citing Gilson ’488 ¶ 30).
Appeal 2019-003263
Application 14/472,849

4
Appellant does not refute this rejection. Appeal Br. 6. Therefore, we
summarily sustain the rejection.
Rejection II – Obviousness
The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Gilson ’488 discloses a nacelle
assembly for a gas turbine engine, the nacelle assembly comprising a
“variable area fan nozzle 42 having a first fan nacelle section 52 and a
second fan nacelle section 54 downstream of said first fan nacelle section
52,” and axially movable with respect to the first nacelle section 52 “to
define an auxiliary port 60 [therebetween] to vary a fan nozzle exit area 44
and adjust fan bypass airflow [B], said auxiliary port 60.” Final Act. 6. The
Examiner also finds that Gilson’s second fan nacelle section 54 comprises “a
second acoustic system 64 . . . having a second acoustic impedance . . .
configured to attenuate a noise characterized by a leading edge of said
second fan nacelle section 54 . . . a radially outer surface 68 of said second
acoustic system 64 defining said auxiliary port 60.” Id. (citing Gilson ’488
Figs. 4–6 and ¶ 30). The Examiner finds that Gilson ’488 does not disclose
a first fan nacelle section having an acoustic system. Id.
The Examiner, however, finds a first fan nacelle section with an
acoustic system in Clark, which discloses a first fan nacelle section 27
comprising a first acoustic system 28 and a second fan nacelle section 25
comprising a second acoustic system 32, and a port defined therebetween.
Id. (citing Clark Fig. 2). The Examiner also finds that Schiel discloses a
nozzle exit “having an acoustic system 70 extending axially through the
entire nacelle including an acoustic system extending from a trailing edge of
a first fan nacelle section [fwd sleeve 12] between the exit nozzle 14 and an
opening 56.” Id. at 7 (citing Schiel Fig. 6; 2:54–59).
Appeal 2019-003263
Application 14/472,849

5
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Gilson ’488 by adding an acoustic system to the first fan nacelle section “as
described by Clark and Schiel . . . so that the system extends axially from a
trailing edge of said first fan nacelle section . . . to improve attenuation of
noise by increasing the acoustically treated area.” Id. (citing Schiel 1:45–
48). The Examiner further notes that, because “the combination of Gilson
[’488], Clark and Schiel teaches all the structural limitations of the claim,
the combination would be capable of performing the functional language of
attenuating a noise characterized by a leading edge of said second fan
nacelle section.” Id.
Claims 1, 6–8, 18, 20, 24, 29, 30, 35, 38, and 39
Appellant argues claims 1, 6–8, 18, 20, 24, 29, 30, 35, 38, and 39 as a
group. We select independent claim 1 as representative. Claims 6–8, 18,
20, 24, 29, 30, 35, 38, and 39 stand or fall with claim 1.
Appellant argues that prima facie obviousness has not been
established because the Examiner’s reasoning lacks a rational basis for the
following reasons: (1) the Examiner provides no evidence that Schiel “was
concerned with attenuating leading edge noise of the fan cowl portion 14
with [its] acoustically treated surfaces 70 along the fan cowling 12”; and
(2) Schiel’s acoustically treated surfaces 70 “do not extend along radially
outer surfaces of the fan cowl portion 14 or face towards fan cowling 12,”
such that a skilled artisan “would not have been motivated to turn to Schiel
to attenuate noise along nacelle section 54 of Gilson [’488].” Appeal Br. 4.
Appellant further argues that “the Examiner does not point to any objective
evidence that Schiel is concerned with the alleged teachings of Clark.” Id. at
5.
Appeal 2019-003263
Application 14/472,849

6
Regarding the prior art not specifically disclosing using the first
acoustic system to attenuate a noise characterized by the leading edge, the
Examiner responds that Appellant recognizing and claiming “another
advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the
prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would
otherwise be obvious.” Ans. 5. The Examiner further responds that
attenuation of leading edge noise was asserted to have been taught by the
proposed combination of Gilson ’488, Clark, and Schiel, rather than by any
one reference. Id. That is, when the structure of the references is combined,
leading edge noise will be attenuated by the resulting structure.
The Examiner has the better argument. First, Gilson ’488 includes
first and second fan nacelle sections 52, 54 that are separated to vary the fan
nozzle area and create an auxiliary port 60 therebetween. See Gilson ’488,
Figs 1A and 2B, ¶ 27. Gilson ’488 is concerned with acoustic impedance,
and specifically attenuating leading edge noise in its variable area fan
nozzle. Id. Abstract, ¶ 1. Gilson ’488 appreciates that providing a leading
edge region 62 of its second fan nacelle section 54 with an acoustic system
64 provides desires acoustic impedance and attenuate leading edge noise.
Id. at ¶¶ 30–31. The second acoustic system 64 of the second nacelle section
54 of Gilson ’488 is shown to include “a radially outer surface of said
second acoustic system [64 that defines] said auxiliary port” as recited in
claim 1. The currently claimed invention takes noise attenuation a step
further by additionally providing (and claiming) an acoustic systems at a
trailing edge of the first fan nacelle section 52. The Examiner turns to the
combination of Clark and Schiel for this additional claimed subject matter.
Appeal 2019-003263
Application 14/472,849

7
Clark disclose a variable area fan nozzle with a first nacelle section 24
and a second nacelle section 20, each section having an inner surface 26, 28
with “sound absorbing material 32” thereon. Id. 2:17–52. Sound absorbing
material 32 is provided on the trailing edge of the first nacelle and the
leading edge of the second nacelle (as claimed) so it’s clear that any air
passing over the leading edge of the second nacelle passes by the sound
absorbing material 32 on the first and second nacelles of Clark. Id. Thus, a
skilled artisan would understand that Clark appreciates that providing sound
absorbing material on both the first and second nacelle sections impedes
noise in its variable area fan nozzle. We are not persuaded that Clark’s
failure to appreciate or expressly state that the attenuated noise includes
leading edge noise from its second fan nacelle section, causes the
Examiner’s reasoning to lack a rational basis. Further, we are not persuaded
that the existence of a seal 33 in Clark negates that its first nacelle section 24
has a second acoustic system (i.e., sound absorbing material 32 on an inner
surface thereof).
Schiel also discloses a variable area fan nozzle having first and second
nacelle sections 18, 20. See Schiel 2:7–11. Schiel acknowledges that noise
level is a problem, and that lining the nozzle “wetted area” with acoustic
materials to suppress noise is known. Id. 1:20–27. Schiel is concerned with
increasing/improving sound attenuation by “increasing the acoustically
treated area” with “longitudinally aligned foil means having acoustic
surfaces which form portions of the wall of the exhaust passageway.” Id.
1:34–60. Schiel uses acoustically treated surfaces 70 (outer wall of
passageway), 72 (center body on other side of passageway), and exterior
surfaces of sections 76 and 78 of the bypass flow foil 30 “for markedly
Appeal 2019-003263
Application 14/472,849

8
increasing nozzle wetted area which can be used for sound attenuation.” See
Id. 2:54–75, 3:74–4:3. Schiel can be fairly characterized as proposing using
acoustic material throughout the exhaust region of the bypass path to
attenuate noise of air passing through that region to include passing by a
leading edge of a second nacelle.
The Examiner reasons that the proposed combination would improve
noise attenuation by increasing the acoustically treated area, which is
supported by the teachings of Clark and Schiel. The Examiner determines
that the resulting structure would be “capable of” attenuating noise from a
leading edge of the second fan nacelle section (Final Act. 7), which appears
to be a reasonable determination in view of the fact that these teachings
render obvious the claimed first and second acoustic impedance structures,
and Appellant has not alleged that the combined structure would not be
capable of such leading edge noise attenuation.
Appellant also appears to argue that the combined reference fail to
disclose the claimed “radially outer surface of said second acoustic system
defining said auxiliary port” because Schiel does not teach this feature. See
Appeal Br. 5. This argument is not persuasive, because the Examiner relies
on Gilson ’488 to teach this feature as radially outward surface 68 of second
acoustic system 64 in Figures 4–6 (Final Act. 6) and second acoustic system
of Gilson ’488 teaches leading edge sections 62, 68 of second nacelle section
54 with acoustic impedance on a radially outer surface defining an auxiliary
port as claimed. See Gilson ’488 ¶ 30, Figs. 3–6.
Claims 2 and 23
Regarding dependent claims 2 and 23, Appellant argues that the
Examiner erred in finding that Clark’s sound absorbing material 32 extends
Appeal 2019-003263
Application 14/472,849

9
from a trailing edge of a first fan nacelle section, because “inflatable seal 33
in Figure 2 of Clark appears to space apart the sound absorbing material 32
from what the Examiner appears to interpret to be a trailing edge of the
alleged first fan nacelle section.” Appeal Br. 4.
The Examiner responds that Gilson ’488 discloses the first and second
nozzle sections without a seal, and “it is unclear why the combination would
necessitate the addition of the seal of Clark.” Ans. 6. The Examiner further
argues that “there is no evidence that [Clark’s] inflatable seal 33 is annular”
or spaces apart its “sound absorbing material through the entire
circumference.” Id. The Examiner contends that “it appears the seal is
located at discrete circumferential positions, while the sound absorbing
material could extend all the way to the trailing edge in other circumferential
positions.” Id.
Although we do not necessarily agree with the Examiner’s
determination that Clark’s seal appears to be located at discrete
circumferential positions, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument,
because claims 2 and 23 recite that the “first acoustic system extends axially
from a trailing edge of said first fan nacelle section,” without requiring that
such acoustic system is continuous or uninterrupted. In our view, the
claimed extension to the trailing edge does not require uninterrupted
acoustic material over the entire surface of the first fan nacelle section.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, we sustain Rejection II.
Rejection III – Obviousness
Claims 3, 4, 9, and 10
Appeal 2019-003263
Application 14/472,849

10
Appellant makes no argument that claims 9 and 10 are patentable over
Gilson ’488, Clark, Schiel, and Reba, if claim 1 is not patentable over Gilson
’488, Clark, and Schiel.
Claim 3 depends indirectly from claim 1 and recites the first acoustic
system comprising “a perforated sheet formed on an inner surface of said
bulk cartridge.” Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and recites that the
“perforated sheet further comprises a deformable material.”
Appellant relies on the arguments made regarding Rejection II, and
further argues that the references fail to teach a first acoustic system
comprising a “perforated sheet formed on an inner surface of said bulk
cartridge” because, while Gilson ’488 discloses a second acoustic system
comprising such a perforated sheet, it does not disclose a first acoustic
system and therefore cannot disclose a first acoustic system comprising the
claims perforated sheet. Appeal Br. 6.
The Examiner responds that the combination of Gilson ’488, Clark,
and Schiel “teaches the first acoustic system,” and Gilson ’488 discloses the
sound attenuating benefits of “using a perforated sheet with deformable
material.” Final Act. 9, Ans. 7.
Appellant replies that “[t]he Examiner does not point to any objective
evidence that it would have been obvious to have incorporated a perforated
sheet into a first acoustic system in view of Gilson,” making the rejection
conclusory. Reply Br. 4. We disagree. As explained above, the
combination of Gilson ’488, Clark, and Schiel indeed teach the first acoustic
system. Further, Appellant does not refute that Gilson ’488 discloses the
sound attenuating benefits of “using a perforated sheet with deformable
material.” Given that Gilson ’488 already uses a perforated sheet with
Appeal 2019-003263
Application 14/472,849

11
deformable material for its second acoustic system, we agree with the
Examiner that a skilled artisan would also understand that, if an acoustic
system is added to the first fan nacelle section of Gilson ’488, it is
reasonable to make the second acoustic system from the same perforated
sheet with deformable material.
Claims 11 and 12
Claim 11 recites the bulk cartridge of the first acoustic system
comprising “a bulk acoustic absorbing material,” and claim 11 recites the
bulk absorbing material being “selected from a group consisting of sintered
metal, ceramic foam, aramid fiber, carbide material and composite.”
Appellant argues that the Examiner “does not allege or point to any
objective evidence establish that Reba discloses” the features of dependent
claims 11 and 12. Appeal Br. 6.
The Examiner responds that Gilson ’488, rather than Reba, is relied
on for disclosing “using a sintered metal, ceramic foam or carbide material
for the bulk absorbing material.” Final Act. 7; Ans. 7 (citing Gilson ’488, ¶
32). We discern no error in the Examiner’s findings.
Claims 36, 37, and 41
Appellant makes no argument that claims 36, 37, and 41 are
patentable over over Gilson ’488, Clark, Schiel, and Reba, if independent
claim 20 is not patentable over Gilson ’488, Clark, and Schiel.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, we sustain Rejection III.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Appeal 2019-003263
Application 14/472,849

12

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6–12,
18, 20, 23,
24, 29–41
Provisional
non-statutory
double
patenting
1–4, 6–12,
18, 20, 23,
24, 29–41

1, 2, 6–8, 18,
20, 23, 24,
29, 30, 35,
38, 39
103 Gilson ’488,
Clark, Schiel
1, 2, 6–8, 18,
20, 23, 24,
29, 30, 35,
38, 39

3, 4, 9–12,
36, 37, 41
103 Gilson ’488,
Clark, Schiel,
Reba
3, 4, 9–12,
36, 37, 41

Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–12,
18, 20, 23,
24, 29–41

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