Ex Parte Gallagher et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 9, 2017

13176540 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 2017)

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.
13/176,540 07/05/2011 Edward J. Gallagher PA15455A;67097-1425PUS1 4758
54549 7590 06/13/2017
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
SEABE, JUSTIN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2017 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 EDWARD J. GALLAGHER and
THOMAS H. ROGERS
Appeal 2016-0003151
Application 13/176,5402
Technology Center 3700
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the non-final
rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 8—11, 13, 20, and 21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Our decision references Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed July 5,
2011), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed May 8, 2015), and Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.,” filed Sept. 30, 2015), as well as the Non-Final Office Action
(“Non-Final Action,” mailed Jan. 12, 2015) and the Examiner’s Answer
(“Answer,” mailed July 30, 2015).
2 According to Appellants, “United Technologies Corporation is the . . . real
party in interest.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-000315
Application 13/176,540
We REVERSE.
According to Appellants, the invention is directed “to an engine
having a geared turbofan architecture that is designed to operate with a high
bypass ratio and a low pressure ratio.” Spec. 12. Claim 1 is the sole
independent claim on appeal. Appeal Br., Claims App. We reproduce the
independent claim, below, as illustrative of the appealed claims.
1. A gas turbine engine comprising:
a spool;
a turbine coupled with said spool;
a propulsor coupled to be rotated at a design speed about
an axis by said turbine through said spool; and
a gear assembly coupled between said propulsor and said
spool such that rotation of said turbine drives said propulsor at a
different speed than said spool,
wherein said propulsor includes a hub and a row of
propulsor blades that extend from said hub, each of said
propulsor blades includes an airfoil body that extends in a radial
span between a root and a tip, in a chord direction between a
leading edge and a trailing edge and in a thickness direction
between a pressure side and a suction side, said leading edge of
the airfoil body has a swept profile such that, at the design speed,
a component of a relative velocity vector of a working gas that is
normal to the leading edge is subsonic along the entire radial
span,
wherein said swept profile has a rearward sweep from 0%
to at least 50% of the radial span and a forward sweep from at
least 60% to 100% of said radial span, with said root being at 0%
of said radial span and said tip being at 100% of said radial span,
said rearward sweep has a sweep angle of less than 15°, and said
swept profile has a single, exclusive transition between a
rearward sweep and a forward sweep from 0% to 100% of said
radial span.
Id.
2
Appeal 2016-000315
Application 13/176,540
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1,5,6, 8—11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Spear (US 5,642,985, iss. July 1, 1997),
“Gears Put a New Spin on Turbofan Performance,” (Todd Zalud, Machine
Design (Nov. 5, 1998), machinedesign.com/archive/gears-put-new-spin-
turbofan-performance (last retrieved on Apr. 10, 2014)) (hereinafter
“Zalud”), Schwaar (US 4,012,172, iss. Mar. 15, 1977), Murooka
(WO 2007/138779 Al, pub. Dec. 6, 2007), Wadia (US 5,167,489, iss. Dec.
1, 1992), and Chen (US 6,059,532, iss. May 9, 2000).
The Examiner rejects claims 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Spear, Zalud, Schwaar, Murooka, Decker
(US 7,374,403 B2, iss. May 20, 2008), Wadia, and Chen.
ANALYSIS
Based on our review of the record, including the Examiner’s Non-
Final Office Action and Answer, and Appellants’ Appeal Brief and Reply
Brief, for the reasons discussed below, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner’s rejections appear to be based on impermissible hindsight. See
Appeal Br. 5. Thus, we do not sustain either of the claim rejections.
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites that
said leading edge of the airfoil body has a swept profile
such that, at the design speed, a component of a relative velocity
vector of a working gas that is normal to the leading edge is
subsonic along the entire radial span,
wherein said swept profile has a rearward sweep from 0%
to at least 50% of the radial span and a forward sweep from at
least 60% to 100% of said radial span, with said root being at 0%
of said radial span and said tip being at 100% of said radial span,
said rearward sweep has a sweep angle of less than 15°, and said
3
Appeal 2016-000315
Application 13/176,540
swept profile has a single, exclusive transition between a
rearward sweep and a forward sweep from 0% to 100% of said
radial span.
Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that
Spear’s
second embodiment has a rearward sweep from the root to a
transition point (140) at around 50-60% of the radial span, the
rearward sweep decreasing from the root to the transition point.
The second embodiment has a forward sweep from the transition
point (140) to the tip; the forward sweep angle can be increasing
from the transition point to the tip (dotted line 128’) or
decreasing from the transition point to the tip (126).
Answer 2—3. To support this finding, the Examiner cites Spear’s column 3,
lines 14—18. Answer 3; see also id. at 8; see also Non-Final Action 4—5.
However, we determine that this portion of Spear does not support
adequately the Examiner’s finding. More specifically, it is not clear that the
cited portion of Spear discloses anything related to the claimed rearward
sweep. See Appeal Br. 3. Thus, we instead agree with the Examiner’s
seemingly contradictory finding that Spear “fails to teach the specified
angles and sweep at the respective percentages of chord.” Answer 3.
With respect to Schwaar, the Examiner finds that the reference
“teaches a transition point from forward to rearward sweep (see transition at
leading edge 46 in Figure 8).” Answer 4. However, we find that Schwaar’s
Figure 8 teaches a sweep profile that begins with a forward sweep from the
hub, transitioning to a rearward sweep at point 46, and continuing with a
rearward sweep to the tip. Schwaar Fig. 8. Thus, Schwaar appears to teach
a sweep profile that is opposite the claimed sweep, which is rearward near
the hub, transitioning to forward midway to the tip. Appeal Br., Claims App.
4
Appeal 2016-000315
Application 13/176,540
(claim 1). Therefore, it is not clear that Schwaar discloses the claimed
transition point. See Appeal Br. 3.
With respect to Murooka, the Examiner finds
Murooka teaches a leading edge portion of a fan blade (Figure 3)
which has a rearward sweep angle from the hub to a first point
(12) that is . . . between 0 and 5 degrees (or a forward sweep of
0 to 5 degrees, as the range is between 85 and 95 degrees as
measured by theta 1). The rearward sweep angle of the second
portion (13) is between 5 and 45 degrees, (as theta is between 45
and 85 degrees). These portions (12, 13, 14) are located between
the following radial span as a percentage of total radial span: 0%
and 40-50% (12), 40-50% to 75°/c^85% (13), and 75-85%
to 100%. This range of sweep angle for the percent of radial span
substantially overlaps with Applicants^] claimed ranges.
Answer 4. As seen in Figure 3, however, Murooka discloses a blade sweep
profile that has three sweep zones, with the first zone from the hub being
generally perpendicular,3 and, thus, not swept forward or rearward
(element 12), followed by a rearward-sweep zone (element 13) and finally a
forward-sweep zone (element 14). Murooka Fig. 3.
The Examiner determines that
[bjased on the teachings of Spear, Schwaar[,] and Murooka,
which show several different embodiments which have a leading
edge blade sweep in order to keep a velocity component in the
chordwise direction as subsonic, and the second embodiment of
Spear substantially resembles the stated rearward/forward
sweeps at the particular percent of radial span as claimed, it
would have been an obvious matter of design optimization to a
3 We acknowledge that the cited portion of Murooka discloses that the first
zone has an angle ranging from 85 to 95 degrees, and that at some portions
of that range, the sweep would be rearward. Nevertheless, by using 90
degrees as the baseline, Murooka discloses that the sweep is generally
perpendicular, and the Examiner has not shown that Murooka imparts any
significance to the range deviation disclosed.
5
Appeal 2016-000315
Application 13/176,540
person of ordinary skill in the art to have the rearward sweep
from 0% to at least 50%, a forward sweep from at least 60% to
100%, the sweep decreasing from 0% to 50% radial span, the
transition point at 55% to 60% radial span, and the ratio of
rearward sweep to forward sweep as between 1.25 and 1.30 of
Spear because discovering the workable sweep at the claimed
ranges would have been a mere design consideration based on
computational fluid dynamics for the purposes of reducing noise.
Answer 5. The Examiner further determines that
[b]ased on the teachings of Spear, Schwaar, and Murooka, which
show several different embodiments which have a leading edge
blade sweep at different angles, and the second embodiment of
Spear substantially resembles the stated rearward/forward
sweeps at the particular percent of radial span as claimed with
the claimed angle ranges, it would have been an obvious matter
of design optimization to a person of ordinary skill in the art
to . . . [arrive at the claimed blade profile].
Id. at 5—6.
Thus, as set forth above, the rejection apparently relies on one blade
profile, from among several, in Spear, which generally resembles the
claimed profile only because it shows an overall rearward/forward sweep
profile, but which “fails to teach the specified angles and sweep at the
respective percentages” as claimed. Answer 3. This blade profile is
combined with a sweep profile in Schwaar opposite to that claimed, and
further combined with a three-zone profile in Murooka with different
transition points from the claimed invention, to arrive at the claimed blade
profile. The Examiner then concludes that it would be a simple matter of
using computational fluid dynamics to optimize the profile for noise to
arrive at the claimed sweep profile. See Answer 2—5.
We determine, however, that the Examiner’s conclusion is not
supported adequately either by evidence or a convincing line of technical
6
Appeal 2016-000315
Application 13/176,540
reasoning. In particular, for the reasons set forth above, we determine that
Spear, Schwaar, and Murooka fail to disclose the specifics of the claimed
blade profile, and provide no precise direction that one of ordinary skill
would take to arrive at the claimed profile. Indeed, the only rationale for
modification provided is “reducing noise,” yet, the Examiner does not
provide adequate citations or reasoning as to how or why the proffered
combination would reduce noise. For example, the Examiner ostensibly
cites Spear (Answer 5—6), yet, Spear’s ostensibly noise reducing
configuration is the opposite of that claimed, as explained above. Thus, we
agree with Appellants that it appears that the Examiner’s rejection relies on
impermissible hindsight. See Appeal Br. 5.
The Examiner appears to provide a second, alternate line of reasoning
for the rejection of claim 1 on pages 6—11 of the Answer. Answer 6—11.
However, this alternate line of reasoning seems to rely on substantially
similar findings and conclusions to those discussed above.
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain any rejection of claim 1, or
any rejection of claim 1 ’s dependent claims 5, 6, 8—11, and 13. Further,
inasmuch as the Examiner does not establish that any reference remedies the
deficiency discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, we do not sustain any
rejection of claims 20 and 21 that depend from claim l.4
4 The Examiner also appears to provide two alternate lines of reasoning for
the rejection of claims 20 and 21. See, e.g., Answer 11—12. However, both
lines of reasoning seem to rely on substantially similar findings and
conclusions.
7
Appeal 2016-000315
Application 13/176,540
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1, 5, 6, 8—11, 13, 20, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
8