Ex Parte Lord et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 30, 201914265856 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2019) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation