Ex Parte ACKERMANN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 11, 2019

13366447 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/366,447 02/06/2012 William A. ACKERMANN
54549 7590 03/13/2019
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
67097-1741PUS1;61345US02 7023
EXAMINER
SUTHERLAND, STEVEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2019 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 WILLIAM A. ACKERMANN and PETER M. MUNSELL
Appeal2017-003036 1
Application 13/366,4472
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, BEVERLYM. BUNTING, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
10-14 and 28-33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed July 26,
2016), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Dec. 14, 2016), the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Oct. 20, 2016), the Advisory Action ("Adv. Act.,"
mailed May 16, 2016), and the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed
Apr. 6, 2016).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is United Technologies
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-003036
Application 13/366,447
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, "[the] disclosure relates to a gas turbine
engine, and more particularly to a buffer system that can provide buffer
cooling air to cool portions of the gas turbine engine, including at least one
shaft of the gas turbine engine." Spec. ,r 2.
CLAIMS
Claims 10 and 28 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 10 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
10. A gas turbine engine, comprising:
a fan section;
a compressor section;
a combustor in fluid communication with said compressor
section;
a turbine section in fluid communication with said
combustor;
at least one shaft that interconnects at least a portion of
said compressor section and said turbine section;
a bearing structure that supports said at least one shaft,
wherein said bearing structure includes a bearing compartment;
a buffer system that communicates a buffer cooling air to
said bearing structure and then from said bearing structure
axially along said at least one shaft to pressurize said bearing
compartment and cool said at least one shaft; and
wherein the gas turbine engine includes a Fan Pressure
Ratio of less than 1.45 during operation of said fan section.
Appeal Br. 12.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 14 and 28-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
2
Appeal2017-003036
Application 13/366,447
2. The Examiner rejects claims 14 and 28-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as indefinite.
3. The Examiner rejects claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Brodell 3 in view of GB 481. 4
4. The Examiner rejects claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Brodell in view of GB 481 and Ho van. 5
5. The Examiner rejects claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brodell in view of GB 481, Ho van, and Vasquez. 6
6. The Examiner rejects claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Brodell in view of GB 481 and Smith. 7
DISCUSSION
Enablement
The Examiner finds that claims 14 and 28-33 are not enabled in the
disclosure as originally filed based on the open-ended range for the bypass
ratio (i.e., the "Fan Pressure Ratio") recited in claims 14 and 28. Final Act.
3-5. The Examiner finds that the claimed bypass ratio "'of greater than six'
is not bounded at its upper limit and therefore includes bypass ratios
approaching infinity." Id. at 3. The Examiner finds that the claimed ratio
has no "inherent upper limit because the gas turbine bypass ratio was an
engineering design variable" and "the [S]pecification fails to enable one of
ordinary skill in the art to approach the claimed infinite limit." Id. at 4--5.
3 Brodell et al., US 4,653,267, iss. Mar. 31, 1987 ("Brodell").
4 United Aircraft Corporation, GB 1386481, pub. Mar. 5, 1975 ("GB 481").
5 Hovan, US 4,574,584, iss. Mar. 11, 1986.
6 Vasquez et al., US 2008/0115503 Al, pub. May 22, 2008 ("Vasquez").
7 Smith et al., US 2009/0097967 Al, pub. Apr. 16, 2009 ("Smith").
3
Appeal2017-003036
Application 13/366,447
Appellants argue that "a worker of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize an inherent upper limit of the claimed 'bypass ratio' without
undue experimentation [because if] ... the bypass ratio were made too large
... the gas turbine engine would become impractical to manufacture."
Appeal Br. 5. Thus, one "of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a
practical upper limit to the bypass ratio given ... engine design tradeoffs"
one would consider in selecting the bypass ratio. Id. For example,
Appellants assert that one of ordinary skill would recognize that the engine
must generally be made larger to increase the bypass ratio and "there is an
upper limit [to the engine size] that would be practical for any given engine
design." Id. at 6.
We are persuaded of Examiner error by Appellants' arguments. We
agree that there are inherent upper limits to the claimed ratio, and we find
that the Specification, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill
in the art, provides sufficient information with which a person of ordinary
skill in the art could approach any practical upper limits for the bypass ratio
claimed. In particular, the Specification provides details regarding the
structure of the fan section and compressor and sufficient detail regarding
the bypass ratios obtained based on these structures. See, e.g., Spec. ,r,r 31,
36-38. Ultimately, we conclude that other embodiments beyond those
provided in the Specification can be made without difficulty, and given the
practical limits on engine structure as noted by Appellants (Appeal Br. 6),
one of ordinary skill in the art could make and use the claimed invention
without undue experimentation. See In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839 (CCPA
1970) ("In cases involving predictable factors, such as mechanical or
electrical elements, a single embodiment provides broad enablement in the
4
Appeal2017-003036
Application 13/366,447
sense that, once imagined, other embodiments can be made without
difficulty and their performance characteristics predicted by resort to known
scientific laws.")
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 7, 9, 13,
and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Indefiniteness
The Examiner also rejects claims 14 and 28-33 as indefinite based on
the claimed open-ended bypass ratio of "greater than six." Final Act. 6.
Because the claimed ratio is not bounded by an upper limit, the Examiner
finds that the metes and bounds of the claims are not defined. Id.
Definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is determined
based upon whether "those skilled in the art would understand what is
claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification." Orthokinetics,
Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, we agree with Appellants that there is no ambiguity in the claims and
that claim breadth does not equate to indefiniteness. See Appeal Br. 7; see
also In re Johnson, 558 F .2d 1008, 1016 n. 17 (CCP A 1977) (breadth is not
indefiniteness). Thus, the claims are not made unclear simply because an
upper boundary has not been specified. Hence, the scope of the claims,
although broad, is nonetheless clear. Accordingly, we do not sustain this
rejection.
Obviousness
Claim 10
With respect to claim 10, the Examiner finds that Brodell teaches a
gas turbine engine as claimed, except that Brodell does not teach a fan
section or a fan pressure ratio of less than 1.45. Final Act. 6-7. More
5
Appeal2017-003036
Application 13/366,447
specifically regarding the issues before us, the Examiner finds that Brodell
teaches:
a buffer system that communicates a buffer cooling air (from 56)
to said bearing structure and then from said bearing structure
axially along said at least one shaft (rear 41 of shaft 27) to
pressurize said bearing compartment and cool said at least one
shaft (see air flow path around compartment 42 in the figure).
Id. at 7. The Examiner further asserts that:
It is clear in the figure of Brodell that cooling air travels first
along a shaft after exiting 56, travels about the bearing
compartment 42 to pressurize the compartment, and then travels
radially inward of shaft 20 as indicated by the arrows in the
figure. It is not claimed or disclosed that cooling air passes
through the bearing structure.
Adv. Act. 2. Further, in the Answer, the Examiner responds:
With regards to [ A ]ppellant' s argument that Brodell fails to teach
communicating buffer cooling air to a bearing structure and then
axially along a shaft, Examiner disagrees. In the figure of
Brodell, cooling air is communicated from tube 56 to bearing
compartment 42 surrounded by bearing case 30. After traveling
to bearing case 30, the cooling air travels axially between shaft
41 and turbine 20 in the figure as indicated by the flow arrows in
the figure. Appellant's argument that some of the air traveling
between 30 and 39 would then travel axially between 41 and 20
still anticipates the claims, because cooling air travels from the
bearing structure (30 surrounding 42) to the shaft (axial flow
arrow between 41 and 20).
Ans. 4. Finally, the Examiner relies on GB 481 as disclosing a gas turbine
engine with a fan and a pressure ratio of less than 1.45; and the Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to use a fan with a pressure ratio
less than 1.45 in Brodell "in order to provide a bypass turbofan configuration
with greater thrust and less noise." Final Act. 7 ( citing GB 481 at 2, left
column, 11. 30-50).
6
Appeal2017-003036
Application 13/366,447
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings with respect to the
rejection of claim 10. See Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 4. As discussed below, we
are not persuaded of error by Appellants' arguments.
Appellants first argue that Brodell does not teach a buffer system as
claimed. Appeal Br. 8-9. Specifically, Appellants assert that "Brodell fails
to communicate buffer cooling air from the bearing structure and then
axially along a shaft" and that Brodell teaches an opposite arrangement in
which air flows along the shaft prior to surrounding the bearing
compartment. Id. at 8. Appellants further assert that "it is unclear whether
[the] ... air has first travelled to the bearing compartment" rather than being
routed around the bearing compartment. Id. at 9. Along the same lines,
Appellants argue in the Reply Brief that Brodell does not teach air traveling
"from said bearing compartment" and that Brodell only teaches air being
routed around the bearing compartment. Reply Br. 2.
We are not persuaded by this argument. Rather, we agree with the
Examiner that Brodell's Figure shows air traveling to bearing case 30 and
then traveling axially along the rear portion 41 of the shaft, as indicated by
the arrows in the Figure. Ans. 4. To the extent that Appellants are arguing
that the air must first travel within or through the bearing compartment
before travelling axially along the shaft, we disagree. The claim requires
only that the cooling air is communicated "to said bearing structure and then
from said bearing structure axially along said at least one shaft." Appeal
Br. 12. We agree with the Examiner that air traveling such that it abuts and
travels around Brodell's bearing structure 30 after which it travels along the
shaft may be considered as air traveling "to said bearing structure and then
from said bearing structure" as claimed. This interpretation of the claim is
7
Appeal2017-003036
Application 13/366,447
consistent with the Specification, which indicates that buffer cooling air
traveling to one or more bearing structures travels around said bearing
structures such that the air pressurizes the outside of the bearing
compartment. Spec. ,r 44; see also Fig. 3 (showing air 62 flowing around
and not through bearing structure 38).
Next, Appellants argue that the reasoning for the combination of
Brodell and GB 481 is conclusory and lacks the requisite rational
underpinnings to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. Appeal Br. 9
(quoting KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007)). In
support, Appellants assert that Brodell makes no mention of a fan section or
a turbofan engine and Brodell does not contemplate a non-ducted bypass
arrangement. Appeal Br. 9. Appellants further assert that "Brodell is not
directed to a turbofan engine or even an engine that includes a fan section,"
and thus, the proposed modification to Brodell is speculative and
conclusory. Reply Br. 3. We are not persuaded of error.
First, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants' arguments
improperly attack Brodell individually. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
More specifically, the argument that Brodell does not disclose a fan section
is not persuasive because the Examiner specifically relies on GB 481 as
teaching a fan section.
Second, we disagree that Brodell is not directed to a turbofan engine
or an engine that includes a fan. Although Brodell is concerned with a
specific section of a turbine power plant, Brodell specifically notes that
"only that portion of the gas turbine engine that is necessary for an
understanding of this invention is disclosed." Brodell, col. 2, 11. 41--43.
8
Appeal2017-003036
Application 13/366,447
Brodell also indicates that the invention may be used in a "suitable engine"
such as "the JT-9D engine model manufactured by Pratt & Whitney Aircraft,
a division of United Technologies Corporation." Id. at col. 2, 11. 44--47. The
JT-9D engine is a known turbofan engine. See, e.g., Redinger, 8 col. 3, 11.
11-15 ("A suitable turbo-fan engine, for example, would be the JT-9D
manufactured by Pratt & Whitney Aircraft division of United Technologies
Corporation and for further details reference should be made thereto.").
Thus, we do not agree with Appellants that the proposed combination is
speculative because we find that Brodell does disclose the use of the
compressor section in a turbofan engine. We also disagree that the rejection
is conclusory or lacks rational underpinning. GB 481 discloses a fan with a
fan pressure ratio of less than 1.45 for use in a turbofan assembly, and GB
481 discloses that such a fan would reduce noise levels and provide better
takeoff performance. See, e.g., GB 481, col. 2, 11. 10-60. We determine that
this provides adequate support for the Examiner's conclusion that it would
have been obvious to a skilled artisan to use such a fan assembly with the
compressor assembly of Brodell in order to achieve the stated benefits.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of reversible error with
respect to the rejection of claim 10. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 10. As to the rejections of claims 11-14, Appellants rely on the same
arguments discussed supra. See Appeal Br. 10. Therefore, for the same
reasons discussed above, we likewise sustain the obviousness rejections of
claims 11-14.
8 Redinger, Jr. et al., US 4,019,320, iss. Apr. 26, 1977 ("Redinger").
9
Appeal2017-003036
Application 13/366,447
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 14 and 28-33 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph. We REVERSE the rejection of claims 14 and 28-33
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We AFFIRM the rejections of
claims 10-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10