Ex Parte Avellan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 24, 2018

13519588 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/519,588
119943 7590
Bejin Bieneman PLC
GKN Aerospace
2000 Town Center
Suite 800
Southfield, MI 48075
06/29/2012
04/26/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Richard A vellan
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.
66973-0023 5361
EXAMINER
SEHN, MICHAEL L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2018 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):
docket@b2iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD A VELLAN and ANDERS LUNDBLADH
Appeal2017-006615 1
Application 13/519,5882
Technology Center 3700
Before CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, 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
1-25 and 27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Oct. 18,
2016) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Feb. 28, 2017), and the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Dec. 29, 2016) and Final Office Action
("Final Act.," mailed June 28, 2016).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is GKN Aerospace
Sweden AB. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-006615
Application 13/519,588
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, the "invention relates to an air propeller
arrangement for propulsion of a fixed-wing aircraft. In particular, the
invention relates to high speed propellers. The invention also relates to an
aircraft provided with such an air propeller arrangement." Spec. 1, 11. 4--7.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal and recites:
1. Air propeller arrangement for propulsion of a fixed-wing
aircraft, the arrangement being intended to be used in a medium
that has a mach number that is greater than 0.5, the arrangement
compnsmg
a first air propeller that comprises a first hub member and
at least a first and a second propeller blade, the first and second
blades being configured to contribute significantly to the
propulsion and having a substantially equal length,
wherein each of the blades has an inner, root end arranged
at the first hub member and an outer, tip end positioned at a
distance from the first hub member such that each blade extends
in a radial direction from the first hub member, wherein the first
and second blades are interconnected at their outer ends, the first
and second blades are aft-swept, each of the first and second
blades is configured in such a way that its tip end is displaced in
relation to its root end in an axial direction of the first hub
member, and the first and second blades are swept in the same
direction.
Appeal Br. 10.
2
Appeal2017-006615
Application 13/519,588
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-12, 23-25, and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as unpatentable over U ellenberg3 in view of Parry. 4
2. The Examiner rejects claims 13-22 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over U ellenberg in view of Parry and Tsunoda. 5
DISCUSSION
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Uellenberg discloses
an air propeller arrangement for propulsion of a fixed-wing aircraft
including a first air propeller with a hub member and first and second
propeller blades as claimed except that Uellenberg "fails to disclose the
blades being aft-swept in the same direction and being configured in such a
way that their tip ends are displaced in relation to their roots in an axial
direction of the hub." Final Act. 3 (citing Uellenberg Figs. 1, 2). The
Examiner also finds that Parry teaches a propeller with aft-swept propeller
blades, and the Examiner concludes that "it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to make the propeller blades of Uellenberg aft-
swept, as taught by Parry, for the purpose of dephasing noise signals
radiating from different portions of the blade, thus reducing the noise level
of the propeller." Id. (citing Parry Abstract; col. 1, 11. 45--47).
Further, in response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner finds that
Parry achieves noise reduction in a different manner than Uellenberg. Ans.
2. The Examiner finds that Parry teaches that noise may be reduced "by
dephasing noise signals radiating from different portions of the blade" and
3 Uellenberg, DE 3723101 Al, pub. Feb. 16, 1989.
4 Parry et al., US 4,969,800, iss. Nov. 13, 1990.
5 Tsunoda, US 6,406,261 Bl, iss. June 18, 2002.
3
Appeal2017-006615
Application 13/519,588
because "Parry uses a different method of reducing noise ... and performs
this method over different portions of the blades rather than at just the tips of
the blades [] Parry can further reduce the noise level of the propeller from
what is present in Uellenberg." Id. at 2-3.
As discussed below, we are not persuaded of reversible error with
respect to the rejection of claim 1 by Appellants' arguments.
Appellants first argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have combined Parry and Uellenberg as proposed because Uellenberg's
configuration of propeller blades already reduces noise levels of the
propeller. Appeal Br. 4--5 (citing Spec. ,r 10; Declaration of Richard
Avellan ,r 17 ("Avellan Deel.")). However, we agree with the Examiner that
Parry teaches noise reduction in a different manner. Appellants
acknowledge that U ellenberg' s configuration would reduce noise in the
same manner disclosed in the Specification, i.e., by reducing "the induced
drag at the tip ends of the propeller blades." Spec. ,r 10. The Specification
teaches that tip end drag is reduced where blades are interconnected at their
tips, a configuration that is present in Uellenberg. See Spec. ,r 9; Uellenberg
English Translation 1; Figs. 1, 2.
In contrast, Parry teaches that "blade sweep produces its beneficial
effect by dephasing the noise signals radiating from different portions of the
blade." Parry col. 1, 11. 45--47. In particular, Parry teaches that it is possible
to shape the region of the blade of the propeller "intermediate the blade tip
and root lying at a sonic radius" "to reduce the perceived noise level
significantly without resort to a sharp leading edge." Id. at col. 1, 1. 59-col.
2, 16. Because Parry teaches reducing noise levels in a different manner, we
agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
4
Appeal2017-006615
Application 13/519,588
had a reason to combine Parry's teachings with Uellenberg's propeller
blades. Finally, to the extent Appellants argue that the Examiner's proposed
reasoning lacks evidentiary support (see Reply Br. 2-3), we disagree. As
discussed, sufficient evidence comes from the references themselves because
each discloses a different method of reducing noise in propeller designs.
Next, Appellants argue that the Examiner failed to adequately
consider the Declaration of Richard A vellan ("Declaration"), which states
that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined a swept
propeller "with the double-blade propeller ofUellenberg because one of
ordinary skill in the art would have thought that the double-blade design of
Uellenberg would have diminished the efficiencies of the single blade
design." Appeal Br. 6-7 (citing Avellan Deel. ,r,r 10-11. Specifically,
Appellants argue that "the Examiner neglected to address ... Dr. Avellan's
point that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the
teachings [ of the prior art] because the ordinary artisan would have thought
'design tradeoffs make such a combination impractical."' Appeal Br. 7
( quoting Avellan Deel. ,r 11 ). Thus, Appellants contend that the Examiner
failed to consider whether "the ordinary artisan would have combined a
swept-blade propeller with a double-blade propeller, regardless of the design
with which the artisan started." Id.
We disagree with Appellants' contention that the Examiner failed to
properly consider the Declaration. Rather, the Examiner acknowledges the
statements in the Declaration and finds:
Although combining Parry with Uellenberg could have some
tradeoffs, the motivation to modify Uellenberg with Parry
provides the stated advantage of reducing the noise level of the
propeller by dephasing noise signals from different portions of
the blade. This advantage is sufficient to make the combination
5
Appeal2017-006615
Application 13/519,588
of a single-blade propeller and a double-blade propeller obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the combination of
Uellenberg and Parry is not impractical and would be obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art.
Ans. 3. We find that the Examiner's conclusion in this regard is adequately
supported by evidence in the record. For example, as discussed above, Parry
provides sufficient evidence that further noise reduction may be achieved in
the proposed combination. Further, although the Declaration provides
evidence of the disadvantages of double-blade designs, the Declaration does
not discuss how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have weighed the
potential benefits of further noise reduction as contemplated in the proposed
combination.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of reversible error with
respect to the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 1. For the same reasons, we also sustain the rejections of claims 2-25
and 27, for which Appellants do not provide separate arguments. See
Appeal Br. 8.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1-25 and 27.
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
6