Ex Parte Ali et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 11, 2013

11437466 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2013)

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. 11/437,466 05/19/2006 Amr Ali 67097-570; PA-0000978-US 1303 54549 7590 04/11/2013 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global P.O. Box 52050 Minneapolis, MN 55402 EXAMINER PHILLIPS, FORREST M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2832 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/11/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte AMR ALI and YUAN J. QIU ____________ Appeal 2010-011278 Application 11/437,466 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-011278 Application 11/437,466 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. INVENTION The invention is directed to an acoustic liner for attenuating noise generated by an aircraft engine (Spec. ¶ [0001]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A liner assembly for an aircraft engine housing comprising: a noise attenuating structure; and a face sheet covering the noise attenuating structure, wherein the face sheet includes a plurality of acoustically active areas interspersed between a plurality of acoustically reflecting areas for reflecting acoustic energy, wherein a width of the acoustically active areas varies about an inner surface of the housing. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Mani Shirvan Wilson US 3,937,590 US 6,439,340 B1 US 6,827,180 B2 Feb. 10, 1976 Aug. 27, 2002 Dec. 7, 2004 Appeal 2010-011278 Application 11/437,466 3 REJECTION Claims 1-3 and 5-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shirvan, Mani, and Wilson.1 ANALYSIS Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-14, and 16 Regarding independent claims 1 and 12, Appellants contend that the combination of Mani with Shirvan is improper because it would destroy the operation of Shirvan (App. Br. 4-6). Appellants further contend that “the claim requires that the acoustically active and inactive areas be disposed in the face sheet. Neither the Shrivan nor Mani reference discloses these features in the face sheet.” (App. Br. 6). Appellants also contend that Wilson does not disclose “alternating acoustically active and inactive areas, much less that a width of the acoustically inactive areas varies about an inner surface of the housing” (App. Br. 7). We disagree. Appellants’ argument against the combinability of Mani with Shirvan—that “combining the exposed strips 21 of the Mani reference into the Shirvan device would weaken the liner and make the Shirvan liner increasing[sic] susceptible to mechanical damage” (App. Br. 6)—is not persuasive because the Examiner’s combination does not require bodily incorporating Mani’s sound absorbing strips into Shirvan’s liner. Rather, the Examiner relies on Mani’s general teaching of the relative placement of acoustically active and reflective areas in concluding that one would have 1 Although the statement of the rejection lists only claims 1-3 and 5-20 as rejected (see Ans. 3), the Examiner’s Answer specifically addresses claim 21 in the reasons for rejection (see Ans. 8). We thus consider claims 1-3 and 5- 21 as rejected based on the combination of Shirvan, Mani, and Wilson. Appeal 2010-011278 Application 11/437,466 4 modified the placement of Shirvan’s acoustically active areas (see Ans. 4, 9), which are not sound absorbing strips as in Mani (see Mani, col. 3, ll. 19- 33; Fig. 2), but perforated areas of a metallic face sheet over a honeycomb core of corrugated metallic ribbons (see Shirvan, col. 2, l. 62-col. 3, l. 8; col. 3, l. 57-col. 4, l. 8; Figs. 4 and 5). Appellants’ have not specifically explained why one would not have modified the placement of Shirvan’s acoustically active areas in view of Mani. Appellants’ second argument that the references fail to disclose acoustically active and inactive (i.e., reflective) areas disposed in a face sheet (App. Br. 6) is not persuasive because it does not specifically explain why the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Shirvan and Mani discloses a face sheet where perforated areas of the face sheet operate as acoustically active areas and non- perforated areas operate as acoustically reflective areas (see Ans. 8-9). Regarding Appellants’ final argument for claims 1 and 12, we note that Appellants argue that Wilson fails to disclose that “a width of the acoustically inactive areas varies about an inner surface” (App. Br. 7) (emphasis added). However, claim 1 recites “a width of the acoustically active areas varies about an inner surface,” and claim 12 recites “a circumferential width of the acoustic energy absorption areas are arranged in varying widths to provide a repeating pattern within the aircraft engine housing.” Accordingly, we assume Appellants intended to argue that Wilson fails to disclose that “a width of the acoustically [active] areas varies about an inner surface” (see App. Br. 7). The Specification describes an “acoustically active liner assembly 25” as “communicat[ing] acoustic energy through the face sheet 26 to the underlying noise attenuation layer 24 where acoustic energy is dissipated to Appeal 2010-011278 Application 11/437,466 5 reduce emitted noise” (Spec. ¶ [0014]). More specifically, “noise absorption areas 28” are what “communicate acoustic energy through the face sheet 26 to the underlying noise attenuation layer 24” (Spec. ¶ [0015]). In contrast, “[i]nterspersed between each of the noise absorption areas 28 are noise reflective areas 30. The noise reflective areas 30 do not include openings and do not allow the transmission of acoustic energy through the face sheet 26” (id.). Thus, the claim 1 term “active areas” and the claim 12 term “energy absorption areas” appear to be similar in scope and define areas for passing acoustic energy, as opposed to reflecting acoustic energy. In view of this broad but reasonable interpretation, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 4, 7, 9) and find that Wilson, in combination with Shirvan, and Mani, would have taught or suggested the disputed features of claims 1 and 12. Specifically, Wilson discloses an embodiment of a noise attenuating panel where “holes 31 of the facing sheet 36 take the form of an array of holes having a hole size which varies over the facing sheet 36. The hole size variation is so chosen as to provide optimum attenuating performance of the panel” (Wilson, col. 7, ll. 38-42). Figure 4 illustrates this embodiment and shows a facing sheet 36 with holes 31 arranged in horizontal lines where the holes in each line vary from smaller to larger from left to right, and where this same pattern is repeated in each line (see Wilson, Fig. 4). Appellants do not specifically explain why the Examiner erred by finding that Wilson’s horizontal lines of holes meet the claim 1 limitation “active areas,” and claim 12 limitation “energy absorption areas” (see Ans. 4, 7, 9). Rather, Appellants argue that “[d]ifferent sized holes that are spaced equal distances apart simply do not disclose the claimed feature of varying width acoustically active areas” (App. Br. 7). However, absent Appeal 2010-011278 Application 11/437,466 6 persuasive argument that the Examiner erred in finding each horizontal line in Wilson’s Figure 4 indicates an “active area” or “energy absorption area” with a width defined by the width of the holes on the line (Ans. 9), we are not persuaded that Wilson fails to disclose a varying width of the acoustically active areas. That is, given that each of Wilson’s horizontal lines of holes is an active area—which Appellants have not persuaded us otherwise—we find that the width of each active area varies because the widths of the holes comprising each active area vary as shown in Wilson’s Figure 4. Thus, we agree with the Examiner and find that Wilson meets the claim 1 limitation “a width of the acoustically active areas varies about an inner surface of the housing.” We also find that Wilson meets the claim 12 limitation “a circumferential width of the acoustic energy absorption areas are arranged in varying widths to provide a repeating pattern within the aircraft engine housing” because each of Wilson’s horizontal lines of holes—i.e., the “energy absorption areas”—have the same width variation pattern (see Wilson, Fig. 4). We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 12, and claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9-11, 13, 14, and 16 not separately argued. Claims 7 and 15 Appellants contend the Examiner’s combination fails to disclose the limitations of claims 7 and 15 because “[a]ll that is disclosed in the proposed combination are uniform spacing as is shown in Figure 4 of the Wilson reference and in the Shirvan reference” (App. Br. 7). We disagree. Appeal 2010-011278 Application 11/437,466 7 As discussed above, we agree with the Examiner and find that Wilson’s horizontal lines of holes are “active areas” (see Wilson, Fig. 4). As shown in Figure 4, the spacing of the holes is not uniform as Appellants argue (App. Br. 7), but rather the distance between each line of holes is greater than the distance between holes on the same line (Wilson, Fig. 4). Accordingly, we find that Wilson meets the claim 7 limitation “the acoustically reflective surfaces comprise a width greater than spacing between openings disposed within the acoustically active areas.” We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7, and claim 15 not separately argued. Claim 8 Appellants contend the Examiner’s combination fails to disclose acoustically reflective surfaces disposed at an angle relative to airflow through the housing, as recited in claim 8, because Wilson only describes “strips that are arranged circumferentially and also spaced apart axially in a direction of airflow. In other words, all of the Wilson strips are arranged parallel to airflow.” (App. Br. 8). However, Appellants’ argument does not address the Examiner’s reliance on Mani for disclosing the disputed feature (see Ans. 6, 10). Mani discloses: [A] different type of cylindrical acoustic duct lined with longitudinally, or axially segmented sound-absorbing acoustical material. The axially segmented treatment, as compared to the circumferentially segmented treatment . . . enhances the attenuation of noise by insuring repeated reflections and providing a periodic structure which functions to “filter” the sound. . . . As illustrated, a cylindrical duct 26 such as is used Appeal 2010-011278 Application 11/437,466 8 for the reduction of appliance or machinery noise has attached to the inner surface thereof a set of axially spaced, circumferentially continuous strips or rings 27 of a suitable sound-absorbing material. (Mani, col. 6, ll. 17-32; Figs. 8, 11). In the axially segmented treatment— which comprises the circumferentially continuous strips 27 (see Mani, Fig. 8)—the strips are orthogonal to the strips in the circumferentially segmented treatment—which comprises strips 21 parallel to airflow (see Mani, Fig. 1). (See also Mani, col. 6, ll. 46-54). In other words, in Mani’s circumferentially continuous strip embodiment, the strips are arranged at ninety degrees relative to airflow. Appellants have not specifically explained why, in view of Mani’s circumferentially continuous strips, one would not have modified Shirvan’s placement of active and reflective areas such that “each of the acoustically reflective surfaces are disposed at an angle relative to airflow,” as recited in claim 8. We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8. Claims 17-20 The Examiner finds that “[w]ith respect to claims 17-20 the method steps are necessarily present due to the product structure of Shirvan as modified” (Ans. 8; see also Final Rej. 6). It thus appears that the Examiner is relying on the Answer’s discussion of the cited references as applied to the other rejected claims 1-3, 5-16, and 21 to show where the limitations of claims 17-20 are disclosed in the prior art. However, claim 17 recites features not recited in independent claims 1 and 12, and claims 2, 3, 5-11, 13-16, and 21, which depend therefrom. For example, claim 17 recites Appeal 2010-011278 Application 11/437,466 9 “scattering higher order acoustic energy at a plurality of locations into a corresponding plurality of lower orders that cancel a portion of the generated lower order acoustic energy scattered from the higher orders.” A review of the Examiner’s discussion of the other rejected claims 1-3, 5-16, and 21 yields no specific findings showing that the combination of Shirvan, Mani, and Wilson disclose the “scattering” feature recited in claim 17 (see Ans. 3- 8). Moreover, to the extent that the Examiner relies on inherency—the rejection states that “the method steps [of claims 17-20] are necessarily present” in Shirvan as modified by the Examiner’s combination (Ans. 8) (emphasis added)—the Examiner has not shown why one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the limitations of claims 17-20 are necessarily present in the Examiner’s combination. See In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for rejecting claims 17-20. We are therefore constrained by the record to find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 17-20. Claim 21 Appellants contend that the Examiner’s combination fails to disclose a width of the acoustically reflecting areas greater than the width of the acoustically active areas, as recited in claim 21. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s reasoning that Wilson discloses “the space between holes is greater than that of the holes” is “flawed as the areas defined, not by the individual holes, but by areas within the face sheet including a plurality of holes” (App. Br. 8). We disagree. Appeal 2010-011278 Application 11/437,466 10 As discussed above, we agree with the Examiner and find that Wilson’s horizontal lines of holes are “active areas” where the width of each active area is defined by the width of the holes. As shown in Wilson’s Figure 4, the width of each area between any two active areas (i.e., the reflective areas) is greater than the largest hole in each of the active areas. Accordingly, Wilson meets the claim 21 limitation “the plurality of acoustically reflecting areas for reflecting acoustic energy includes a width greater than the width of the acoustically active areas.” We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21. CONCLUSIONS Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner (1) erred in rejecting claims 17-20, but (2) did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-16, and 21. DECISION For the above reasons: We reverse the rejection of claims 17-20; and We affirm the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-16, and 21. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED-IN-PART llw