Ex Parte Schwarz et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 26, 2019

14624668 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/624,668 02/18/2015 Frederick M. Schwarz 54549 7590 02/28/2019 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. 76507US01; 67097-3138PUS1 1911 EXAMINER WONG,ELTONK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/28/2019 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 FREDERICK M. SCHWARZ and GABRIEL L. SUCIU Appeal 2018-005651 Application 14/624,668 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNFIER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL United Technologies Corporation ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1 and 3- 16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellant is the applicant as provided in 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2018-005651 Application 14/624,668 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Specification Appellant's disclosure "relates to a geared turbofan engine which may be particularly beneficial for application on regional jet engines." Spec. ,II. The Rejected Claims Claims 1 and 3-16 are pending and rejected. Final Act. 1. Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below. 1. A gas turbine engine comprising: a fan rotor having blades with an outer diameter, said outer diameter being greater than or equal to 77 inches (196 centimeters) and less than or equal to 135 inches (343 centimeter), and said fan rotor having less than or equal to 26 fan blades; said fan rotor driven by a fan drive turbine through a gear reduction, said gear reduction having a gear ratio and said fan rotor delivering air into a bypass duct as bypass air, and into a duct leading to a compressor rotor as core air, and a ratio of bypass air to said core air being greater than or equal to 12: 1; an upstream turbine rotor upstream of said fan drive turbine and driving a compressor rotor, and said upstream turbine rotor having at least two stages, and said fan drive turbine rotor having at least three stages; said turbine blades in at least one stage of said fan drive turbine rotor being provided with a performance enhancing feature, and said performance enhancing features is at least one of said blades being manufactured by a directionally solidified blade material, said blades provided as single crystal blades, said blades having a radially outer platform provided with scalloping to reduce the weight of said blades, and said blades being provided with cooling air; and said gear ratio is greater than 3 .06: 1. Replacement Claims App. 2 (filed Jan. 6, 2018). 2 Appeal 2018-005651 Application 14/624,668 The Appealed Rejections The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Ans. 2); 2. Claims 5 and 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112(b) (Final Act. 3; Claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as obvious over Kupratis2 and Quinn; 3 (Final Act. 4); and 3. Claims 8 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as obvious over Kupratis, Quinn, and Barr4 (id. at 8). DISCUSSION Rejection 1 The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 11-16 as indefinite because they recite, or incorporate, limitations having erroneous units of measurement for "performance quantity." Final Act. 3. More specifically, claim 5 recites performance quantity as measured in "RPM in2," claim 11 recites performance quantity as measured in "RPM* in2," and claims 12-15 depend from claim 11. See id.; Replacement Claims App. 3--4. The Examiner determined that the proper unit of measurement, per the Specification, should be (RPM * in)2. Final Act. 3 ( citing Spec. ,I43). 2 US 2013/0192200 Al, published Aug. 1, 2013 ("Kupratis"). 3 US 5,785,498, issued July 28, 1998 ("Quinn"). 4 US 2013/0251520 Al, published Sept. 26, 2013 ("Barr"). 3 Appeal 2018-005651 Application 14/624,668 Appellant does not present any arguments regarding this rejection. See Appeal Br. 2-3. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the rejection of claims 5 and 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112(b). Rejection 2 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as obvious over Kupratis and Quinn. Final Act. 4. Kupratis teaches a geared gas turbine engine. Kupratis i-f6. The Examiner found that Kupratis discloses the entire subject matter of claim 1 except that it does disclose a diameter for the fan rotor blades. Final Act. 4-- 5. In contrast, claim 1 recites "a fan rotor having blades with an outer diameter, said outer diameter being greater than or equal to 77 inches (196 centimeters) and less than or equal to 135 inches (343 centimeter)." Appeal Br. 4. However, the Examiner found that Quinn teaches "diameters of typical high bypass gas turbine engines range from 100 to 124 inches," which substantially overlaps with the range recited in the claim. Final Act. 5 (citing Quinn 1:35-39); see In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("In cases involving overlapping ranges, we and our predecessor court have consistently held that even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness."). The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art "to modify the engine taught by Kupratis such that the fan rotor has a diameter of 100 inches to 124 inches as taught by Quinn, since that size commonly used in the art for efficiency." Final Act. 5. Appellant argues the following: The Kupratis reference has a gear reduction driving its fan rotor. The Quinn reference does not appear to have such a gear 4 Appeal 2018-005651 Application 14/624,668 reduction. A fan for an engine wherein a gear reduction is utilized to drive the fan rotor would be designed for such an application. A fan for an engine that does not have a gear reduction would be designed for its application. Nothing would suggest taking the size of the fan rotor in Quinn et al. and utilizing it in Kupratis et al. Appeal Br. 3; see also Reply Br. 1 ("Quinn does not disclose a gear reduction for driving its fan rotor, and thus its teachings of fan rotor structure would not be applicable to Kupratis. . . . Anything taught by Quinn would not be considered by Kupratis."). The Examiner responds that "Quinn does not explicitly state that there is no gear reduction, but is instead silent in regards to gearing. This is because Quinn is primarily focused on the fan rotor of the gas turbine engine." Ans. 2. The Examiner further responds that "[b ]oth Kupratis and Quinn are related to high bypass gas turbine engines." Id. ( citing Kupratis ,I49; Quinn 1 :35-39). We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection. First, Quinn is analogous prior art, as it is from the same field as Appellant's invention, the field of gas turbine engines. See Spec. i-fi-fl-2; Quinn 1:10-12; see also In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("In order to rely on a reference as a basis for rejection of the applicant's invention, the reference must either be in the field of the applicant's endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned."). Second, Appellant does not cite any evidence why a person of ordinary skill in the art, when seeking to design or improve geared gas turbine engines such as that taught by Kupratis, would exclude from 5 Appeal 2018-005651 Application 14/624,668 consideration prior art teachings provided in the slightly broader context of gas turbine engines such as that taught by Quinn. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Kupratis and Quinn. For the same reasons, we likewise affirm the rejection of dependent claims 3-7, 9-13, and 15-16. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("Dependent claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious."). Rejection 3 The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as obvious over Kupratis, Quinn, and Barr. Final Act. 8. Appellant's argument against this rejection is similar to that against Rejection 2: "Similarly, there is no showing that the problems addressed by the scalloping in Barr et al. would exist in the Kupratis reference." Appeal Br. 3. The Examiner responds by pointing out that the problems addressed by scalloping in Barr are not limited to Barr but would be present in Kupratis "since operating the gas turbine engine would involve flowing combustion gas past an airfoil." Ans. 3; see also id. ("The scalloping taught by Ba[r]r helps the platform's response to overturning of air and weakening of horse shoe vortices [0065]. Ba[r]r explains that these problems are a result of combustion gases being split by the leading edge of airfoils during operation [0035-0036]. Therefore, the problem would exist in Kupratis."). Appellant replies that "[t]here is no support in the Examiner's rejection that the Barr reference and the problems it addresses would still exist in a gas turbine engine as otherwise set forth in the claims." Reply Brief. 1. Appellant does not provide any evidence or technical explanation 6 Appeal 2018-005651 Application 14/624,668 to refute the Examiner's findings or analysis regarding the problems addressed by Barr. Id. We are satisfied by the Examiner's prima facie obviousness rejection and not apprised of error by Appellants. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3-16 is affirmed. TIME PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7