Ex Parte Stern

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2014

12033922 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
12/033,922 02/20/2008 Alfred M. Stern PA0006462U;67097-958PUS1 7242
54549 7590 09/12/2014
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
c/o CPA Global
P.O. Box 52050
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
DWIVEDI, VIKANSHA S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3748
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ALFRED M. STERN
____________________

Appeal 2012-007130
Application 12/033,922
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: EDWARD A. BROWN, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1–
11 and 13–25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
The claims are directed to a gas turbine engine with variable area fan
nozzle bladder system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
Appeal 2012-007130
Application 12/033,922

2
1. A nacelle assembly for a gas turbine engine comprising:
a core cowl defined about an axis;
a fan cowl mounted at least partially around said core
cowl to define a fan bypass flow path therebetween; and
a variable area fan nozzle having a bladder system within
said core cowl, said bladder system movable between a deflated
position and an inflated position to selectively vary said fan
bypass flow path, said bladder system forms a flush
aerodynamic surface with said core cowl when in said deflated
position.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 14–18, and 20–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by MacKinnon (US 3,721,389, iss. Mar. 20,
1973). Ans. 4.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 8–11, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over MacKinnon and Lair (US. 2003/0126856 A1, iss.
July 10, 2003). Ans. 8.

OPINION
Core cowl
The Examiner and Appellant generally agree as to MacKinnon’s
disclosure. The first disagreement between the Examiner and Appellant can
be distilled down to the question of whether the Examiner reasonably
interpreted MacKinnon’s splitter assembly 38 as the recited “core cowl.”
Reply Br. 1. For example, Appellant asserts that “[t]he core cowl of
MacKinnon is element 18, which, interestingly, the Examiner fails to
identify. The pneumatic boot 58 is in the splitter assembly 38, not the
element 18.” App. Br. 4–5.
Appeal 2012-007130
Application 12/033,922

3
Element 18 in MacKinnon refers to “the power plant” which includes
combustion chamber section 30 and compressor section 28. MacKinnon,
col. 2, ll. 56–57. In Appellant’s Specification core cowl 12 is located
radially outward from and surrounds compressor 16 and combustor 30. See
Fig. 1A, Spec. 2–3, para. [0014]. Thus, there does not appear to be any
reason to interpret element 18 of MacKinnon as a core cowl. In light of
Appellant’s Specification, one skilled in the art would understand that the
structure including the compressor and combustion chamber are part of the
core itself.
It appears that Appellant intended to refer to reference numeral 16 in
MacKinnon, as opposed to reference numeral 18, in making the statement
above. In MacKinnon, skin 16 is the element that immediately surrounds
MacKinnon’s core 18 in a manner similar to that of the core cowl 12
described in Appellant’s Specification. MacKinnon does not employ either
of the terms “core” or “cowl” in describing his invention. However, to the
extent Appellant argues it; we agree that skin 16 would properly be
characterized as a core cowl. No express definition of “cowl” is provided in
Appellant’s Specification or has otherwise been made of record. In the
aircraft art, “cowl” is synonymous with “cowling”1 which ordinarily means
“a removable metal covering for an engine, especially an aircraft engine.”2
See In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F. 3d 1290, 1299 (Fed. Cir.

1 Cowl. (2011). In The American Heritage dictionary of the English
language. Retrieved from
http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/hmdictenglang/cowl/0.
2 Cowling. (2011). In The American Heritage dictionary of the English
language. Retrieved from
http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/hmdictenglang/cowling/0.
Appeal 2012-007130
Application 12/033,922

4
2007) (Dictionaries may clarify the meaning of claim terms during
prosecution).
As the Examiner correctly points out (Ans. 11), the fact that skin 16,
or some other structure, may properly be interpreted as a “core cowl” does
not, without more, preclude interpreting another structure, such as splitter 18
as also being a core cowl or a part thereof. The claims recite “a core cowl”
(emphasis added), and do not contain any language precluding the presence
of more than one core cowl or precluding the presence of a bifurcation in the
cowl. Absent express intent to limit the claims, limitations from the
specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181
(Fed. Cir. 1993).
It follows from the conclusion that splitter 38 is, or is part of, a “core
cowl” in MacKinnon, that the pneumatic boot 58 system is “within” the
“core cowl.” Contra App. Br. 4; see MacKinnon Figs. 2, 3.

The bladder system forms a flush aerodynamic surface with the core cowl
and/or is deployed or inflated into, or exposed to, the fan bypass flow path
Appellant contends that “pneumatic boot 58 does not form a flush
aerodynamic surface with the core cowl when in the deflated position,” as is
required by independent claims 1, 6 and 14. App. Br. 5. Appellant also
contends, with respect to claims 24, 25 that “the pneumatic boot 58 is not
‘exposed to said fan bypass flow path.’ App. Br. 5. While no specific
reference to MacKinnon or MacKinnon’s boot is made in Appellant’s
arguments pertaining to claims 16–18, Appellant appears to be making a
similar argument with regard to claims 16–18. App. Br. 7–8.
Appeal 2012-007130
Application 12/033,922

5
Appellant’s arguments concerning the lack of exposure of
MacKinnon’s pneumatic boot 58 to the flow path are not commensurate in
scope with the claims. While there does not appear to be any structure
between the inflatable element of Appellant’s bladder system 52 described
in Appellant’s Specification (see Fig. 1A), as noted above, the claims are not
interpreted as being confined to the specific embodiments disclosed in the
Specification absent an express intent to do so. None of these claims
actually require that the inflatable bladder itself form the aerodynamic
surface or be exposed or inflated into the flow path. Rather, according to the
claims, this is the function of the recited “bladder system.” The term
“system” permits the presence of other components, such as MacKinnon’s
ramp sections 44 and arcuate flaps 54. Limitations not appearing in the
claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
1348 (CCPA 1982).

Lair
The Examiner cited Lair as teaching multiple bladders and control
thereof. Ans. 9, 11–12. Appellant’s arguments that Lair’s bladders are not
within or flush with a core cowl (App. Br. 6, 8 (claims 2, 9, 14, 17)) and
deploy inwardly instead of outwardly (App. Br. 7, 8 (claims 15, 16, 18))
merely point out that Lair lacks elements for which it was not cited. The
Examiner relies on MacKinnon as teaching these features. Nonobviousness
cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the
rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re
Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appeal 2012-007130
Application 12/033,922

6
With regard to claim 3, Appellant contends that “Lair includes, at
most, a single control valve 32. Lair does not disclose such a valve within a
bleed air flow communication path to each of said multiple of bladders.”
App. Br. 6. However, claim 3 does not require more than a single control
valve and Lair’s valve 32 is shown to be in fluidic communication with each
of the bladders 13 via a tubing arrangement 21, 22. See Fig. 7, paras.
[0118]–[0119].
With regard to claims 10 and 11, Appellant argues that the bladders in
Lair are not “independently movable.” The Examiner cites to figures 1 and
2 and paragraphs [0133] and [0134] of Lair as teaching this feature. Ans. 9,
11–12. However, it is not apparent how or why the cited portion of Lair
teaches independent movement of the bladders 13. As noted above, the
bladders are connected to the same pneumatic system. Thus, it is not clear
why the Examiner found that movement of one bladder would not influence
that of another, making them movable, or positionable, independently as
required by claims 10 and 11. Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 10 and 11 cannot be sustained.

A gear system
The basis for the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13, which recites a
“gear system,” is not apparent. Ans. 7. The Examiner does not appear to
have addressed this claim. The PTO must support a rejection “with specific
fact findings for each contested limitation and satisfactory explanations for
such findings.” Gechter v. Davidson 116 F.3d 1454, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
It is the PTO’s obligation to provide prior notice to the applicant of all
matters of fact and law asserted prior to an appeal hearing before the Board.
Appeal 2012-007130
Application 12/033,922

7
In re Stephan, 660 F. 3d 1341, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we must
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 14–18, and 20–25 as
being anticipated by MacKinnon is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 19 as being
unpatentable over MacKinnon and Lair is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 11, and 13 as being
unpatentable over MacKinnon and Lair is reversed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Klh/rvb