Ex Parte HenzeDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 1, 201612648859 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/648,859 12/29/2009 Chad M. Henze 55599US01-U74-012140 4569 88326 7590 Kinney & Lange, P.A. 312 South Third Street Minneapolis, MN 55415 12/05/2016 EXAMINER DAVIS, JASON GREGORY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/05/2016 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): U S PatDocket @ kinney. com amkoenck @ kinney. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHAD M. HENZE Appeal 2014-007836 Application 12/648,859 Technology Center 3700 Before JOHN C. KERINS, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Chad W. Henze (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3—8, 10-15, and 17—22. Claims 2, 9, and 16 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2014-007836 Application 12/648,859 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention is directed to a propeller blade root airflow system and a method for preventing choked flow conditions between adjacent propeller blades. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. A propeller blade root airflow system for an aircraft propulsion system, the airflow system comprising: a spinner for shrouding a propeller hub and a plurality of propeller roots; a plurality of root holes disposed about a circumference of the spinner for receiving propeller roots; and a plurality of airflow ducts disposed about a circumference of the spinner for drawing air into the spinner and away from the root holes; wherein the airflow ducts of the plurality of airflow ducts are interspersed between root holes of the plurality of root holes; and wherein each of the plurality of airflow ducts comprises an opening that is elongated in a direction of airflow between adjacent root holes such that each airflow duct opening has an axial length that is greater than a circumferential width; and wherein each airflow duct opening has an upstream portion that is circumferentially narrower than a downstream portion. THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL The Examiner has rejected: (i) claims 1 and 3—5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blanchard (US 2,719,592, issued Oct. 4, 2 Appeal 2014-007836 Application 12/648,859 1955) in view of Siercke (US 2010/0044522, published Feb. 25, 2010); (ii) claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blanchard in view of Siercke and Grimac (US 2,575,415, issued Nov. 20, 1951); (iii) claims 7, 8, 10-13, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blanchard in view of Siercke and Riid (US 4,999,994, issued Mar. 19, 1991); (iv) claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blanchard in view of Siercke, Riid, and Grimac; and (v) claims 15, 17—19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blanchard in view of Siercke. ANALYSIS Claims 1 and 3—5—35 U.S.C. § 103(a)— Blanchard/Siercke Appellant argues claims 1 and 3—5 as a group, with no arguments being presented for the separate patentability of claims 3—5. See Appeal Br. 11. We select claim 1 as representative, and claims 3—5 stand or fall with claim 1. The Examiner finds that Blanchard discloses all elements in claim 1, including a plurality of airflow ducts for drawing air into a spinner, but does not disclose that the airflow ducts have an axial length that is greater than a circumferential width, nor that the airflow duct openings have an upstream opening that is narrower than a downstream portion. Final Act. 4—5. The Examiner finds that Siercke discloses an air duct having these claimed constructional features, and concludes that it would have been obvious to 3 Appeal 2014-007836 Application 12/648,859 modify Blanchard such that its airflow ducts are so configured. Id. at 5. The Examiner states that the reason to modify Blanchard is for the purpose of reducing drag and noise produced, citing to Siercke’s disclosure that such a configuration would provide those benefits. Id. (citing Siercke ]Hf 6 and 10). Appellant principally argues that neither Blanchard nor Siercke addresses in any way efforts to reduce choked flow conditions between propeller blades on a spinner, and thus, that the prior art provides no suggestion to modify Blanchard in the manner proposed by the Examiner, in order to reduce choked flow conditions. Appeal Br. 8—11. Appellant maintains that, in the absence of any recognition of choked flow conditions in the cited prior art, the proposed modification is made using impermissible hindsight in view of Appellant’s disclosure. Id. at 10. The Examiner, however, does not rely on a reduction of choked flow conditions as a reason to modify Blanchard in view of Siercke. As noted above, the Examiner cites to Siercke’s disclosure of obtaining reduced drag and noise generation when configuring airflow ducts in the manner disclosed therein. It is not necessary for the prior art to serve the same purpose as that disclosed in Appellant’s Specification in order to support the conclusion that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious. See In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016 (CCPA 1972); see also KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007) (“[Njeither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of [Appellant] controls” in an obviousness analysis.) Appellant belatedly, in the Reply Brief, criticizes the Examiner’s stated reason to combine as being conclusory, but fails to substantiate the assertion. Reply Br. 2—3. Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s position that the proposed modification to Blanchard would have the stated 4 Appeal 2014-007836 Application 12/648,859 result, which position is, in any event, supported by evidence in the cited portions of Siercke. We are not apprised of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Blanchard and Siercke. The rejection is sustained as to claim 1, and claims 3—5 fall with claim 1. Claim 6—35 U.S.C. § 103(a)— Blanchard/Siercke/Grimac Appellant’s arguments with respect to claim 6, aside from also referencing Grimac, do not differ substantively from those advanced with respect to claim 1. Appeal Br. 12. For the reasons noted above, those arguments do not apprise us of Examiner error. The rejection of claim 6 as being unpatentable over Blanchard, Siercke, and Grimac is sustained. Claims 7, 8, 10—13, 20, and21—35 U.S.C. § 103(a)—Blanchard/Siercke/RiXd Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 7, 8, 10-13, 20, and 21, aside from also referencing Riid, do not differ substantively from those advanced with respect to claim 1. Appeal Br. 12—13. For the reasons noted above, those arguments do not apprise us of Examiner error. The rejection of claims 7, 8, 10-13, 20, and 21 as being unpatentable over Blanchard, Siercke, and Riid is sustained. Claim 14—35 U.S.C. § 103(a)—Blanchard/Siercke/Rud/Grimac Appellant’s arguments with respect to claim 14, aside from also referencing Riid and Grimac, do not differ substantively from those 5 Appeal 2014-007836 Application 12/648,859 advanced with respect to claim 1. Appeal Br. 13. For the reasons noted above, those arguments do not apprise us of Examiner error. The rejection of claim 14 as being unpatentable over Blanchard, Siercke, Riid, and Grimac is sustained. Claims 15, 17—19, and22—35 U.S.C. § 103(a)—Blanchard/Siercke Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 15, 17—19, and 22 do not differ substantively from those advanced with respect to claim 1. Appeal Br. 13—14. For the reasons noted above, those arguments do not apprise us of Examiner error. The rejection of claims 15, 17—19, and 22 as being unpatentable over Blanchard and Siercke is sustained. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3—8, 10-15, and 17—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation