Ex Parte Sawyers-Abbott et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 11, 2019

14765037 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/765,037 07/31/2015 Nigel David Sawyers-Abbott 54549 7590 03/13/2019 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. CONFIRMATION NO. 61429US02;67097-2033PUS1 4527 EXAMINER NGUYEN, ANDREW H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/13/2019 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 NIGEL DAVID SA WYERS-ABBOTT and CONSTANTINO V. LOFFREDO Appeal2018-006637 Application 14/765,037 1 Technology Center 3700 Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellants appeal from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. According to Appellants, their invention is directed to a gas turbine engine with an actuator-operated variable area fan nozzle. See, e.g., 1 Appellants identify United Technologies Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2018-006637 Application 14/765,037 Specification, Abstract. Claims 1 and 13 are the independent claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed claims. 1. A nacelle assembly for a gas turbine engine compnsmg: a core nacelle defined about an engine centerline axis; a fan nacelle assembly mounted at least partially around the core nacelle to define a fan bypass flow path, the fan nacelle assembly including a fan duct nacelle section and a fan nozzle nacelle section moveable relative to the fan duct nacelle section; a thrust reverser system including a plurality of pivot doors movable relative to the fan nacelle assembly between a stowed position and a deployed position; a variable area fan nozzle in communication with the fan bypass flow path; a first actuator mounted to the fan duct nacelle section to actuate the thrust reverser system, wherein the first actuator includes a first housing mounted to the fan duct nacelle section forward of the pivot doors and a first rod that extends outwardly of the first housing to a distal end that is pivotally coupled to at least one pivot door of the plurality of pivot doors; and a second actuator mounted to the fan duct nacelle section to move the fan nozzle nacelle section relative to the fan duct nacelle section to vary a fan nozzle exit area, and wherein the second actuator includes a second housing mounted to the fan duct nacelle section and a second rod that extends outwardly of the second housing to a distal end that is coupled to the fan nozzle nacelle section, and wherein the second housing is positioned aft of the pivot doors and aft of the first actuator. REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: I. Claims 1-11, 13-20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Lair et al. (US 6,895,742 B2, iss. May 24, 2 Appeal2018-006637 Application 14/765,037 2005) (hereinafter "Lair"), Bhatt (US 2013/0067884 Al, pub. Mar. 21, 2013), and Wang (US 8,505,307 B2, iss. Aug. 13, 2013); and II. Claims 12 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Lair, Bhatt, Wang, and Cariola et al. (US 5,806,302, iss. Sept. 15, 1998) (hereinafter "Cariola"). ANALYSIS Reiection I As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites both a thrust reverser system operated by a first actuator, and a variable area fan nozzle operated by a second actuator. Appeal Br., Claims App. The second actuator is mounted to move a fan-nozzle nacelle section relative to a fan-duct nacelle section, to vary a fan nozzle exit area. Id. In claim 1 's rejection, the Examiner relies on Lair to disclose certain claim recitations, but not the variable area fan nozzle operated by a second actuator. See, e.g., Final Action 3. Instead, the Examiner relies on Bhatt or Wang to disclose the claimed variable fan nozzle. See, e.g., id. at 3--4. Appellants argue that the Examiner errs because there is no rational reason to modify Lair to include a variable area fan nozzle operated by a second actuator, that Lair teaches away from such a modification, and that so-modifying Lair would impermissibly change Lair's principle of operation and make Lair unsuitable for its intended use. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 4--6. In particular, Lair states that "specifically, a first object of the thrust reverser is to provide thrust reverse in a turbofan engine that does not require aft translation of any portion of the bypass duct." Lair col. 2, 11. 8- 3 Appeal2018-006637 Application 14/765,037 10 (italics and underlining added); see Appeal Br. 4. Appellants argue, and we agree, that modifying Lair to include a variable area fan nozzle operated by a second actuator would result in translation of a portion of the bypass duct. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 3--4. The Examiner finds, however, that this portion of Lair is best understood as stating an object of the invention is to provide a "thrust reverser ... that does not require aft translation of any portion of the bypass duct," rather than to provide other structures, such as a variable area fan nozzle, which do not include aft-translating portions. Answer 3 (internal quotation marks omitted) (italics added). According to the Examiner, this understanding is correct because "[t]he 'entire purpose' of Lair is to provide a thrust reverser which avoids the disadvantages of the previous thrust reversers." Id. at 4. Based on our review of the record, however, the Examiner does not support adequately the above interpretation. In particular, Lair expressly states that it is the "turbofan engine that does not require aft translation of any portion of the bypass duct." Lair, col. 2, 11. 8-10 (italics added). Further, we are unable to read this sentence to understand that it is an object of the invention to provide a thrust reverser that does not require aft-translation of any portion, other than by adding a phrase directly referring to the thrust reverser----e.g., "specifically, a first object of the thrust reverser is to provide thrust reverse in a turbofan engine with a thrust reverser that does not require aft translation of any portion of the bypass duct." Conversely, when we interpret the phrase "that does not require aft translation of any portion of the bypass duct" as referring to other structures, the sentence as a whole is not grammatically correct----e.g., "specifically, a first object of the thrust reverser ... that does not require aft 4 Appeal2018-006637 Application 14/765,037 translation of any portion of the bypass duct," or "specifically, a first object of the thrust reverser is to provide thrust reverse ... that does not require aft translation of any portion of the bypass duct." Notwithstanding the foregoing, Lair later states that "[a] particular advantage of ... fan reverser 36 is that .. . fan nozzle 48 itself may remain fixed at the aft end of the fan nacelle surrounding the core engine." Lair col. 4, 11. 16-18 (bold omitted, italics added). In this case, based on our reading of Lair as a whole, we interpret the explanation that the fan nozzle is fixed to mean that the fan nozzle does not move (which includes aft translation). Thus, based on the above, the Examiner does not provide rational underpinnings and reasoning for modifying Lair to include a variable area fan nozzle operated by a second actuator, and Lair teaches away from such a modification. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. We also do not sustain independent claim 13 's rejection, which the Examiner rejects based on a similar rationale. Further, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-11, 14--20, and 22 that depend from, and the Examiner rejects with, claims 1 and 13. Reiection II The Examiner does not rely on Cariola to remedy the above deficiency in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 13. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 12 and 21 that depend from the independent claims. 5 Appeal2018-006637 Application 14/765,037 DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-22. REVERSED 6