Ex Parte Kupratis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2017

13437395 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 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.
13/437,395 04/02/2012 Daniel Bernard Kupratis 67097-1816PUSl;61357US2 8870
54549 7590 12/26/2017
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
BEEBE, JOSHUA R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2017 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 DANIEL BERNARD KUPRATIS and
FREDERICK M. SCHWARZ
Appeal 2017-001537
Application 13/437,395
Technology Center 3700
Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Daniel Bernard Kupratis and Frederick M. Schwarz (“Appellants”)
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1—3 and 8—11.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants submit the real party in interest is United Technologies
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-001537
Application 13/437,395
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ invention is directed to a geared architecture with inducer
for a gas turbine engine. Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A gas turbine engine comprising:
first and second shafts rotatable about a common axis;
a first turbine section supported on the first shaft;
second compressor and turbine sections supported on the
second shaft;
a fan;
a first compressor section arranged in an axial flow
relationship with the second compressor and the first and
second turbines;
a geared architecture operatively connecting the first
shaft and the fan, wherein the geared architecture includes first
and second gear trains, the first gear train an epicyclic gear
train, and the second gear train configured to provide a speed
reduction; and
an inducer downstream from the fan and operatively
coupled to the gear train, wherein the inducer is coupled to the
first gear train, the epicyclic gear train is a differential gear train
that includes a sun gear, planetary gears arranged about and
intermeshing with the sun gear, and a ring gear circumscribing
and intermeshing with the planetary gears, wherein the inducer
is rotationally fixed relative to the ring gear.
THE REJECTIONS
1) Claims 1—3 and 8—11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Roberge (US 2009/0145102 Al, published June 11, 2009)
and Edwards (US 2010/0223904 Al, published Sept. 9, 2010).
2) Claims 1—3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Klingels (US 6,381,948 Bl, issued May 7, 2002) and Ress
(US 2009/0293445 Al, published Dec. 3, 2009).
2
Appeal 2017-001537
Application 13/437,395
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
The Examiner finds that Roberge discloses most of the limitations of
claim 1 except a “compressor . . . downstream from all possible fan
elements.” Final Act. 5—6. The Examiner finds that Roberge’s blades 206,
208 could “be considered inducers,” because they are blades that deliver air
to subsequent compressors. Id. at 6. Nonetheless, the Examiner relies on
Edwards as teaching a compressor downstream of a fan. Id. at 6. According
to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to modify the system of
Roberge “to drive a booster stage compressor as taught by Edwards for the
purpose of improving the achievable pressure ratios of the system, and doing
so without increasing the weight and mechanical complexity of a third
shaft.” Id. at 6—7.
Appellants argue that “there is no reason to modify Roberge to
provide an additional compressor stage” because “Roberge functions as
desired with its compressor stages and fan section,” by using one or more
valves 262 of valve assembly 260 to provide differing pressure ratios.
Appeal Br. 3^4. Appellant argues that such a modification would
“unnecessarily adds significant cost and weight to the engine.” Id. at 4.
The Examiner responds with a cost/benefit analysis and asserts the
“gain in increased compression, reduc[es] the envelope of pressure values
that trigger Roberge’s NEED to change his fan speeds and incorporate his
valves and drag loss avoidance measures ... [thus] limiting the negative
impacts of the transition.” Ans. 6. According to the Examiner, the proposed
modification “improve[es] engine operation/efficiency by permitting higher
compression rates, and/or reducing the degree of change in speeds that
3
Appeal 2017-001537
Application 13/437,395
Roberge needs to produce,” which outweighs any increase in weight and
system complexity. Id.
Appellants reply that Roberge purposefully changes fan speeds in
order to accommodate both supersonic and sub-sonic loiter conditions and
the Examiner has not provided evidence that increased compression is
needed or is beneficial. See Reply Br. 3^4. According to Appellants,
“Roberge already addresses any potential issues with transitions,” by using
valve 262 to function as desired. Id. at 4.
Appellants have the better position here. Although we appreciate that,
in general, higher compression rates improve engine operation/efficiency,
the Examiner does not adequately explain how higher compression rates will
“reduc[e] the degree of change in [the tip] speeds” of Roberge, in particular,
as the Examiner finds. Roberge discloses that “[achieving a desired
rotational speed can be accomplished by altering the flow of air to the tip
fan,” and that for “high-speed operations, the flow of air to the tip fan can be
decreased, which causes a corresponding increase in rotational speeds of the
first stage fan” by closing valve 262, and can be increased for low-speed
operations, causing a corresponding decrease in rotational speeds of the first
stage fan by maintaining valve 262 in the open position. Roberge ^fl[ 26—29;
see also Appeal Br. 4. In Roberge, reduced rotational speeds results in a
higher fan pressure ratio of the first (forward) stage fan, whereas the rear fan
stage exhibits a higher rotational speed and a corresponding lower fan
pressure ratio. Id. 127. Given that Roberge changes relative rotational fan
speeds of forward and rear fans by using a valve to alter the flow of air to the
fan, the Examiner does not offer persuasive evidence or technical reasoning
to show why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Roberge’s
4
Appeal 2017-001537
Application 13/437,395
engine to incorporate Edwards’ booster compressor. We agree with
Appellants that the Examiner has not provided persuasive evidence that
increased compression rates will affect the fan speed as the Examiner
suggests. We, thus, do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 because it is not
supported by evidence and rational underpinnings. The Examiner’s
rejection of claim 8 is based on substantially similar findings and reasoning
as claim 1. Final Act. 7—9. We, thus, do not sustain the rejection of claim 8
for the same reasons as claim 1. We also do not sustain the rejection of
claims 2 and 3 which depend from claim 1, and claims 9-11 which depend
from claim 8, for the same reasons.
Rejection 2
Claim 1 recites, in part, “a geared architecture operatively connecting
the first shaft and the fan, wherein the geared architecture includes first and
second gear trains, the first gear train an epicyclic gear train, and the second
gear train configured to provide a speed reduction.”
The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Klingels and Ress
disclose a “geared architecture include[ing] first (Klingels, 5) and second
(Ress, 56) gear trains.” Final Act. 10. According to the Examiner, it would
have been obvious “to modify the system of Klingels to include the epicyclic
gear train and clutch from the low pressure shaft driving a booster stage as
taught by Ress ... for the purpose of providing a booster stage compressor
stage at a lower pressure than the high pressure stage.” Id. at 11.
Appellants argue that an object of Klingels is to avoid two shafts with
two gear trains. See Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 4—5.
5
Appeal 2017-001537
Application 13/437,395
The Examiner responds that because “Klingels provides no explicit
teaching against [] dual epicyclic gear trains such as those disclosed in Ress,
merely a recitation that they are known in the prior art,” and because the
advantages of a dual gear train as disclosed by Ress “would result in
achieving a stated desired goal of Klingels ... Examiner finds an argument
that such would be undesirable, unpersuasive.” Ans. 8 (emphasis added).
Klingels discloses that “two rotors 1 and 2 are driven by an epicyclic
differential gear, which is designated in total by 5.” Klingels, 2:34—35; Fig.
1; see also Final Act. 10. Ress discloses a gear train 56 that is an epicyclic
gear train in one embodiment or alternately a speed reducer. Ress 16, 20;
Fig. 2 ; see also Final Act. 10. Thus, contrary to the Examiner’s statement in
the Answer, Ress discloses a single gear train not a dual gear train. As both
Klingels and Ress fail to disclose dual gear trains, the Examiner has not
adequately explained how the combination of Klingels and Ress will result
in the recited first and second gear trains with “the first gear train an
epicyclic gear train, and the second gear train configured to provide a speed
reduction.”
We, thus, do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 2 and 3
depend from claim 1, and we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 3
for the same reasons.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—3 and 8—11 as
unpatentable over Roberge and Edwards is reversed.
6
Appeal 2017-001537
Application 13/437,395
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—3 as unpatentable over
Klingels and Ress is reversed.
REVERSED
7