Ex Parte Lord et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 30, 2019

14265856 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/265,856 04/30/2014 Wesley K. Lord
54549 7590 05/02/2019
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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.
76812US02;
67097-2921PUS1
CONFIRMATION NO.
1554
EXAMINER
MALATEK, KATHERYN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2019 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 WESLEY K. LORD, JESSE M. CHANDLER, and
GABRIEL L. SUCIU
Appeal2018-006154
Application 14/265,856
Technology Center 3700
Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Decision rejecting claims 1, 3-17, and 21. 1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Claim 2 was cancelled in an "Amendment After Final and Request for
Reconsideration," dated May 22, 2017. Claims 18-20 and 22 were
cancelled in a "Request for Reconsideration," entered September 22, 2017.
We review the second Final Office Action, mailed June 26, 2017 ("Final
Act.").
Appeal 2018-006154
Application 14/265,856
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 13 are independent, with claims 3-12 and 21 depending
from claim 1 ; and claims 14--17 depending from 13. Claim 1 is reproduced
below:
1. A propulsion system for an aircraft, comprising:
a first turbine engine including a first engine core having
a first compressor, a first combustor, a first turbine, and a first
intake duct leading into the first compressor;
a second turbine engine including a second engine core
having a second compressor, a second combustor, a second
turbine, and a second intake duct leading into the second
compressor;
a first propulsor coupled to be driven by the first turbine
engine, the first propulsor being disposed about a first propulsor
axis and the first engine core being disposed about a first core
axis that is skewed from the first propulsor axis;
a second propulsor coupled to be driven by the second
turbine engine, the second propulsor being disposed about a
second propulsor axis parallel to the first propulsor axis, and the
second engine core being disposed about a second core axis that
is skewed from the second propulsor axis; and
a furcated nozzle having at least a first duct extending
from the first propulsor to a first trailing end duct opening and a
second duct extending from the second propulsor to a second
trailing end duct opening, wherein the first trailing end duct
opening and the second trailing end duct opening are each
laterally elongated.
2
Appeal 2018-006154
Application 14/265,856
REJECTIONS 2
1. Claims 1, 3-12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Udall (US 2008/0245925 Al, published Oct. 9, 2008);
Norris (US 2012/0272656 Al, published Nov. 1, 2012); and Born (US
5,699,662, issued Dec. 23, 1997). 3 Final Act. 6-15.
2. Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Udall and Born. Final Act. 15-18.
OPINION
The Examiner bears the burden of proving a factual underpinning for
the rejections of these claims. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir.
1984). Udall describes an airplane having "engines 13, 14 as an integral part
of the empennage, that is to say rear part of the aircraft fuselage 12b ( fin,
rudder and tail plane)." Udall ,r 21, Fig. 2. Instead of elevators and a
rudder, Udall's engines 13, 14 mount individually actuatable flaps 18, 19
about the outlets of the engines. Flaps 18, 19 are operable on the exhaust, or
on air flowing through or about the engine, to help stabilize the aircraft in
flight. Udall ,r,r 7, 27, 28, Fig. 6. In particular, Udall teaches that a "further
advantage ... is that the empennage elements in the form of rudders and
elevators can give independent nozzle variable areas for each engine 13, 14."
Udall ,r 28. Born teaches clamping transition duct 19 to exhaust port 20 of
turboprop engine 16, and coupling generally S-shaped exhaust duct 32 to the
2 The Examiner withdrew rejections of claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b ), along with provisional rejections of claims 1 and 12 for non-
statutory obviousness-type double patenting, in the Answer. Ans. 2.
3 As noted above, although claim 2 is listed in the rejection, that claim is not
pending. Final Act. 1.
3
Appeal 2018-006154
Application 14/265,856
transitional duct, in order to provide infrared signature reduction for the
exhaust system of the engine. Born, col. 2, 11. 1-14, col. 3, 11. 22-34, Figs.
1-3.
With respect to both grounds of rejection, the Examiner proposes
laterally elongating the trailing end duct openings of Udall's engines,
without adding other structure taught by Born. Ans. 7-8. More specifically,
the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious "to modify Udall's
invention to include wherein the first trailing end duct opening and the
second trailing end duct opening are each laterally elongated in order to
increase stealth and suppress infrared visibility of the aircraft as suggested
and taught by Born in column 1, lines 13-18." Final Act. 9; see also id. at
15. Appellant disagrees. Appeal Br. 6-10.
Born's teachings do not support a finding that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have understood that merely including elongated trailing end
duct openings would have increased the stealth, or suppressed the infrared
visibility, of the engine. Reply Br. 3. In particular, column 1, lines 13-18 of
Born, on which the Examiner relies (Final Act. 9), teach that a "method used
[ for infrared suppression was] to transform the generally round inlet of the
exhaust duct to a two dimensional exhaust nozzle." It is not clear from Born
whether it is the two dimensional ( that is, elongated) configuration of the
exhaust nozzle alone, or a transition from a round configuration to a two
dimensional ( that is, elongated) configuration, that might have increased
stealth or provided infrared suppression. Because the Examiner has not
shown that it necessarily was the former rather than the latter, the
Examiner's reasoning does not persuade us that one of ordinary skill in the
4
Appeal 2018-006154
Application 14/265,856
art had reason to laterally elongate the trailing end duct openings of Udall's
engines. See Reply Br. 3.
Likewise, the Examiner's findings do not show that it would have
been obvious to add ducting to Udall's engine. As Appellant points out,
such a modification would have changed the principle of operation of
Udall's flaps, potentially requiring significant re-engineering to implement.
Appeal Br. 9--10; Reply Br. 2.
Accordingly, we do not sustain either the Examiner's decision to
reject claims 1, 3-12, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Udall, Norris, and
Born; or the Examiner's decision to reject claims 13-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Udall and Born.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-17, and
21 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
5