United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 20, 2020

15410113 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 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.
15/410,113 01/19/2017 Gabriel L. Suciu 96041US01;
67097-3569PUS1
4788
54549 7590 10/20/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
GUGGER, SEAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2832
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/20/2020 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, HUNG DUONG,
JONATHAN F. ZIMMITTI, WILLIAM G. SHERIDAN,
MICHAEL E. MCCUNE, and BRIAN MERRY
Appeal 2019-005563
Application 15/410,113
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1–3, 6–18, and 20–22.3

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed January 19, 2017 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated November 2,
2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed April 22, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”);
Examiner’s Answer dated June 14, 2019 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed July
16, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United
Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2019-005563
Application 15/410,113

2
We AFFIRM IN PART.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to a gas turbine engine with intercooled cooling
air and dual towershaft accessory gearbox. Independent claims 1 and 13,
reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A gas turbine engine assembly comprising:
a first spool having a first turbine operatively mounted to
a first turbine shaft;
a second spool having a second turbine operatively
mounted to a second turbine shaft, the first and second turbines
mounted for rotation about a common rotational axis within an
engine static structure, the first and second turbine shafts
coaxial with one another;
first and second towershafts respectively coupled to the
first and second turbine shafts;
an accessory drive gearbox with a set of gears;
a compressor driven by the first towershaft;
a starter generator assembly; and
a transmission coupling the starter generator assembly to
the set of gears, the transmission transitionable between a first
mode where the starter generator assembly is driven at a first
speed relative to the second towershaft, and a second mode
where the starter generator assembly is driven at a different,
second speed relative to the second towershaft.
13. A method of operating a gas turbine engine, comprising:
driving a first spool with a starter generator assembly
through a first towershaft and a first clutch to start the engine;
driving the starter generator assembly through an
accessory gearbox through a second clutch with a second
towershaft coupled to a second spool once the engine is started;
and
Appeal 2019-005563
Application 15/410,113

3
driving a compressor through the accessory gearbox with
the first towershaft once the engine is started.
Appeal Br. 8–10 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
indefinite.
2. Claims 1–3, 6, 7, 10, 13–15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Butt (US 2010/0133832 A1, published
June 3, 2010), in view of Miller (US 2005/0183540 A1, published August
25, 2005).
3. Claims 8, 9, 16, 17, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Butt and Miller in view of Durgin (US
6,050,079, issued April 18, 2000).
4. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Butt and Miller in view of Duong (US 2014/0020506 A1,
published January 23, 2014).
OPINION
The Appellant does not dispute the Examiner rejection of claims 21
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. See Appeal Br. 7.
Accordingly, we summarily sustain this ground of rejection.
The Examiner rejected independent claims 1 and 13 as obvious over
the combination of Butt and Miller. Final Act. 4–5. As to claim 1, the
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is based on an overly broad
interpretation of the claim 1 phrase “the transmission transitionable between
a first mode where the starter generator assembly is driven at a first speed
Appeal 2019-005563
Application 15/410,113

4
relative to the second towershaft, and a second mode where the starter
generator assembly is driven at a different, second speed relative to the
second towershaft.” Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner found that this claim
limitation is described in Butt paragraphs 26 and 27 and Butt Figure 2,
reproduced below.

Butt Figure 2 is a detailed view of starter/generator 30 and clutch
system 35 of an open-rotor gas turbine engine. Butt Abstract, ¶ 20. Clutch
system 35 comprises first clutch 33 and second clutch 34. Id. ¶ 24.
Starter/generator 30 is selectively coupled to low pressure (“LP”) shaft 27
(shown in Figure 1) via first clutch 33 in drive 27a and is selectively coupled
to free power turbine (“FPT”) shaft 28 (shown in Figure 1) via second clutch
34 in drive 28a. Id. Although Butt does not disclose first and second tower
shafts coupled, respectively, to LP shaft 27 and FPT shaft 28, the Appellant
does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that the ordinary artisan would have
Appeal 2019-005563
Application 15/410,113

5
modified Butt to connect shafts 27, 28 to first and second towershafts based
on Miller’s disclosure.4 Final Act. 5; see Appeal Br. 3–4.
Butt discloses that to start the engine, electricity is supplied via cable
32 to starter/generator 30, which rotates gear 36a counterclockwise and, in
turn, gear 36a rotates gears 36b, 36c clockwise. Butt ¶ 26. During start-up,
clutch 33 engages and drives drive 27a which rotates LP shaft 27. Id.
However, clutch 34 is arranged to over-run or free-wheel so that drive 28a is
not rotated. Id. Once sufficient rotational engine speed and pressure are
achieved, fuel is introduced and ignited in the combustor and the engine
becomes self-propelling. Id. At this point, clutch 34 engages and drives drive
28a which begins to rotate to drive starter/generator 30, while clutch 33
over-runs or free-wheels. Id. ¶ 27. The electricity supplied to
starter/generator 30 via cable 32 is switched off. Id.
The Examiner determined that the claim 1 “first mode” encompasses
Butt’s start-up mode in which electricity is supplied to starter/generator 30 to
rotate gear 36a at a first speed relative to the second towershaft which is
stationary via its coupling to stationary drive 28a. Final Act. 2; see Butt ¶ 26,
Figure 2. The Examiner determined that the claim 1 “second mode”
encompasses Butt’s self-propelling engine mode in which clutch 34 engages
drive 28a, thereby rotating the second towershaft and driving
starter/generator 30 while clutch 33 free-wheels. See Butt ¶ 27.
The Appellant argues that the ordinary artisan would not interpret the
claim 1 “first mode” as encompassing Butt’s start-up mode in which drive
28a, and, therefore, the second towershaft, is not rotating, because such

4 Our discussion below is based on Butt’s engine as modified to include first
and second towershafts.
Appeal 2019-005563
Application 15/410,113

6
interpretation is inconsistent with the Specification. See Appeal Br. 3–4. The
Appellant argues that Specification paragraphs 66–69 and Figures 9 and 10
disclose towershafts 64, 66 rotating during both the engine startup operation
and engine operation. Appeal Br. 4.
During examination, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
construction consistent with the Specification. In re ICON Health & Fitness,
Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “Therefore, we look to the
specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms but otherwise
apply a broad interpretation.” Id.
Having reviewed the cited Specification paragraphs and Figures, we
are not persuaded that the ordinary artisan would have understood from this
disclosure that claim 1 requires an arrangement wherein the second
towershaft rotates when the transmission is in the first mode. The
Specification uses the terms “first mode” and “second mode” in connection
with the embodiment of Figures 6 and 7. See Spec. ¶¶ 59–60. The
Specification discloses that in the first mode, second towershaft 66 rotates
transmission 92 and, in response, transmission 92 rotates “starter generator
assembly 76 at a first ratio relative to a rotational speed of the second
towershaft 66.” Id. ¶ 60. In the second mode, second towershaft 66 rotates
transmission 92 and, in response, transmission 92 rotates starter generator
assembly 76 at a different, second ratio relative to a rotational speed of
second towershaft 66. Id. The Specification, however, specifically states that
Figures 6 and 7 show “an exemplary non-limiting embodiment.” Id. ¶ 59.
The Specification does not define, either explicitly or implicitly, the “first
mode” and the “second mode” as limited to states in which second
towershaft 66 is configured to rotate transmission 92 and, in response,
Appeal 2019-005563
Application 15/410,113

7
transmission 92 is configured to rotate starter generator assembly 76 at
different speeds relative to the speed of second towershaft 66. Further,
unlike Specification paragraph 60 which describes rotating generator
assembly 76 at ratios “relative to a rotational speed of the second towershaft
66” (emphasis added), claim 1 does not reference the second towershaft’s
speed, but recites driving the starter generator assembly at a “speed relative
to the second towershaft” (emphasis added). See Ans. 4.
For the above reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner applied
an unreasonably broad interpretation of the claim 1 “first mode” as
encompassing Butt’s start-up mode in which drive 28a and, therefore, the
second towershaft, are not rotating. As the Appellant does not advance any
additional arguments in support of patentability of claim 1, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Butt and Miller.
As to claim 13, the Appellant argues that the Examiner reversibly
erred in finding that Butt discloses the final, claim 13 step of “driving a
compressor through the accessory gearbox with the first towershaft once the
engine is started.” See Appeal Br. 4–5. The Appellant cites Butt paragraphs
27 and 29, which describe first clutch 33 as over-running or free-wheeling
when the engine is self-propelling. Id. at 5. This means that clutch 33 does
not engage drive 27a, which is coupled to the first towershaft. The Examiner
has not explained how the first towershaft in the apparatus of Butt would be
capable of driving a compressor through the accessory gearbox with the first
towershaft when drive 27a and, therefore, the first towershaft, are
disengaged from starter/generator 30. See Ans. 5–6; Final Act. 7 (incorrectly
reading Butt ¶¶ 26–27 as describing both shafts 27, 28 as connected to the
gearbox when the engine is running).
Appeal 2019-005563
Application 15/410,113

8
Because the Appellant has identified reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 13, we do not sustain the rejection of claim
13, or the rejections of claims 14–18, and 20, which depend from claim 13.
The Examiner rejected claim 8 and its dependent claim 9, and claim
21 and its dependent claim 22 over Butt and Miller in view of Durgin. See
Final Act. 8–9. Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and requires that “the
compressor is a boost compressor of an intercooled cooling air system.”
Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.). Claim 21 depends from claim 6 and recites a
similar limitation. Id. at 11. Butt’s gas turbine engine includes low pressure
compressor 14 and high-pressure compressor 15. The Examiner finds that
Durgin discloses that it was “known to add an intercooled air cooling system
to be powered by a compressor, at the very least, to provide additional
cooling.” Ans. 6. The Examiner determined that “it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing
date of the invention to modify the compressor of Butt to be a boost
compressor of an intercooled cooling air system, as disclosed by Durgin, in
order to provide additional cooling.” Final Act. 8, 11.
The Appellant’s arguments in support of patentability of each of
claims 8, 9, and 21 are based on a misunderstanding of the Examiner’s
rejection. Compare, e.g., Reply Br. 3 (“[The rejection does not point to any
objective evidence in the Durgin reference establishing that one would have
been motivated to utilize the low pressure compressor 14 of Butt to power an
intercooled cooling air system rather than the high pressure compressor
15.”), with Final Act. 8, 11 and Ans. 6 supra (wherein the Examiner
proposes using Butt’s compressor, not Durgin’s, in an intercooled cooling
air system); see generally Appeal Br. 5–7. In other words, the Appellant fails
Appeal 2019-005563
Application 15/410,113

9
to address and, therefore, does not identify error in, the facts and reasons
relied on by the Examiner in rejecting claims 8, 9, 21, and 22. Accordingly,
we sustain the obviousness rejection of these claims for the reasons stated in
the Final Office Action and the Answer. See Final Act. 8–12; Ans. 6.
As to the rejection of claims 11 and 12, dependent from claim 1, the
Appellant argues only that Duong does not cure the deficiencies of Butt and
Miller. Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection of these claims.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21, 22 112(b) Indefiniteness 21, 22
1–3, 6, 7,
10, 13–
15, 18, 20
103 Butt, Miller 1–3, 6, 7,
10
13–15,
18, 20
8, 9, 16,
17, 21, 22
103 Butt, Miller, Durgin 8, 9, 21,
22
16, 17
11, 12 103 Butt, Miller, Duong 11, 12
Overall
Outcome:

1–3, 6–12,
21, 22
13–18, 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).
AFFIRMED IN PART