Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 4, 2021

2020002749 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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. 14/952,309 11/25/2015 Timothy R. Conners 014.9028C1 8173 15846 7590 05/04/2021 LKGLOBAL (GD-Gulfstream) 7010 East Cochise Road Scottsdale, AZ 85253 EXAMINER BREAZEAL, WILLIAM LEE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/04/2021 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): gulfstream@lkglobal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte TIMOTHY R. CONNERS, PRESTON A. HENNE, and DONALD C. HOWE __________ Appeal 2020-002749 Application 14/952,309 Technology Center 3700 __________ Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21–40. Claims 1–20 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) 1, filed Aug. 29, 2019. Appeal 2020-002749 Application 14/952,309 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter relates to improved nozzles and plug bodies for supersonic jet engines. Spec. ¶¶ 38–40. During flight, a supersonic jet engine generates exhaust gases. These exhaust gases (collectively referred to as an “exhaust plume”) travel rearwardly through the nozzle and along the plug body. Id. ¶¶ 9, 15. At the same time, a free stream of air flows around the nacelle (that is, the engine housing) and the nozzle. Because this stream follows the contour of the nacelle and the nozzle, the stream meets the exhaust plume at an angle immediately behind the trailing edge of the nozzle. Id. This flow misalignment can produce shock waves in the gas flow within a transition region behind the nozzle, resulting in unacceptable noise levels. Id. ¶¶ 15–16. Appellant addresses this problem by adjusting the length of the plug body such that the “protruding portion” of the body, that is, the portion of the plug body protruding beyond the trailing end of the nozzle, has a length greater than a “conventional plug body length.” Id. ¶¶ 8, 10, 38. Claims 21 and 37 are independent. Claim 21 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites: 21. A nozzle arrangement for use with a supersonic jet engine configured to produce a plume of exhaust gases when the supersonic jet engine is operating at a predetermined power setting and moving at a predetermined Mach speed, the nozzle arrangement comprising: a nacelle; a nozzle comprising an aft portion of the nacelle, the nozzle having a trailing edge; a plug body partially positioned within the nozzle and coaxially aligned with the nozzle, a protruding portion of the plug body extending downstream of the trailing edge, the protruding portion having a tapered profile and a circular cross Appeal 2020-002749 Application 14/952,309 3 section along its entire length, and the protruding portion of the plug extending downstream of the trailing edge for a length greater than a conventional plug body length. THE REJECTIONS Claims 22–24, and 38–40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 21, 25–33, and 35–37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over John L. Tapee, Experimental Aerodynamic Analysis of a Plug Nozzle for Supersonic Business Jet Application (unpublished MS dissertation, Purdue Univ., August 2009) (“Tapee”).2, 3 Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tapee and Urieli, Adiabatic Efficiency Summary Sheet, https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/Intro/Chapt.1_6/entropy/adiab_eff .html (dated Feb. 13, 2007) (“Ohio Education”).4 Claims 22–24, 38, and 395 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tapee and Dieudonne et al., Design of a Wind Tunnel for Plug Nozzle Testing, Proc. Third European Symposium on Aerodynamics for Space Vehicles (ESTEC, Dec. 1998) (“Dieudonne”). 2 A copy of this thesis may be found in the Official Record. 3 The Examiner has withdrawn an alternative rejection of claims 21, 25–33, and 35–37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Tapee. Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) 3, dated Dec. 26, 2019; see also Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) 4–8, dated Jan. 2, 2019. 4 A copy of this summary sheet, as retrieved May 28, 2018, may be found in the Official Record. 5 The Examiner includes claim 40 in the heading of the rejection, but claim 40 is not addressed in the body of the rejection. See Final Act. 9–10. We consider this an inadvertent typographical error. Appeal 2020-002749 Application 14/952,309 4 ANALYSIS Written Description Claims 22–24 and 38–40 Claim 22 depends from claim 21 and recites “wherein the length of the protruding portion [of the plug body] comprises at least ten percent of the total length of the nacelle.” Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). Claim 38 depends from independent claim 37 and recites a similar ratio. Id. at 18–19. Claims 23, 24, 39, and 40 recite that the lengths of the protruding portion comprise larger percentages of the total length of the nacelle. Id. at 16–17, 19. The test for sufficiency under the written description requirement is whether the specification describes “an invention understandable to [one of ordinary skill in the art] and show[s] that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.” Ariad Pharmas., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The Examiner finds that Appellant’s Specification, including both the written description and the drawings, fails to describe these limitations. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. Appellant’s only response to this determination is to measure, with a ruler, both the length of the protruding portion of the plug body and the total length of the nacelle depicted in Figure 5 of the Specification. Appeal Br. 5; see also id. at 4. According to Appellant, the ratio of these two measurements is over 50%, which falls within each of the percentage ranges recited in claims 22–24 and 38–40. Appeal Br. 5. Our reviewing court instructs us that “patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.” Appeal 2020-002749 Application 14/952,309 5 Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Grp. Int’l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Here, the Examiner correctly determines that the written description of Appellant’s application does not indicate that either plug body 128, or nacelle or cowl 98, as depicted in Figure 5, are drawn to scale. Ans. 3. The Examiner further correctly determines that Appellant’s Specification is completely silent regarding ratio between the length of the protruding portion and the total length of the nacelle. Id. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22– 24 and 38–40 for lack of written description. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 429 F.3d 1365, 1370–1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (an unrebutted finding that an identified limitation, or combination of limitations, is not described in the specification is sufficient to support a rejection for lack of written description). Obviousness over Tapee Claims 21, 25–33, and 35–37 Claim 21 recites a nozzle arrangement in which “the protruding portion of the plug extend[s] downstream of the trailing edge [of the nozzle] for a length greater than a conventional plug body length.” Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). Claim 37 recites a nozzle arrangement having a similar limitation. Id. at 18. The Specification defines a “conventional plug body length” in terms of “Mach lines.” Spec. ¶ 10. A “Mach number” is a measure of air speed equal to the ratio of the air speed to the local speed of sound, as determined by thermodynamic considerations. Mach lines propagate off a surface in a Appeal 2020-002749 Application 14/952,309 6 supersonic flow at an angle β = arcsine (1/Mach number).6 Id. ¶¶ 72–73, Fig. 10. The Specification defines the “conventional plug body length” as the “length of a protruding portion [of a plug body] that corresponds with the intersection point of the Mach lines propagating off of an internal surface of [the] trailing edge” of the nozzle. Id. ¶ 10. According to the Specification, a plug body having a protruding portion with a length greater than a “conventional plug body length” helps to extend the transitional flow region and thereby eliminate shocks that might contribute to undesired noise during flight. Id. ¶¶ 38, 39. Tapee describes a test apparatus for testing the performance of a scale model of a nozzle and plug body for a supersonic jet engine. Tapee 9; see also id. at 196 (drawing of nozzle arrangement). Tapee does not describe a nozzle arrangement in which “the protruding portion of the plug extend[s] downstream of the trailing edge for a length greater than a conventional plug body length,” as recited in claims 21 and 37. However, the Examiner finds that Tapee teaches a nozzle arrangement that allows the plug body to extend or retract along a central axis of the nozzle. See Final Act. 7 (citing Tapee 104); see also Tapee 104 large recirculation regions and substantial instabilities at low NPR[7] indicate that this nozzle design requires some method of actively affecting the flow pattern in order to be a viable solution for a large range of NPRs. A simple modification would be to 6 “Mach number” is a number expressing the ratio of the speed of a body with respect to the surrounding air to the speed of sound in the medium. Dictionary of Technical Terms for Aerospace Use, available at https://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/m.html, last accessed on Apr. 30, 2021. 7 “NPR” is the nozzle pressure ratio, “defined as the ratio of upstream nozzle total pressure to the local ambient pressure.” Tapee 2. Appeal 2020-002749 Application 14/952,309 7 allow the [plug body] to translate axially . . . . For this to have any effect, however, the [nozzle] inner surface contour would need to be redesigned so that axial plug translation would actually modify the throat area and expansion characteristics. The Examiner concludes that a skilled artisan would have had reason to modify Tapee’s nozzle and plug body to facilitate a large range of NPRs by allowing the plug body to extend axially along the nozzle. Final Act. 7. According to the Examiner, when the plug body is extended the length of the protruding portion would have extended downstream of the trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle for a length greater than a conventional plug body length. Id. In the Answer, the Examiner further explains that “[i]f the speed at which the Mach lines intersect the tip of the plug body in its axially most withdrawn speed is construed as the ‘cruise/design’ speed, then extending the plug body axially from this axially most withdrawn position” would result in a protruding portion of the plug extending downstream of the trailing edge for a length greater than a conventional plug body length. Ans. 4. . The problem with the Examiner’s analysis, however, is that it assumes that translating the plug body along its axis would have little or no effect on the intersection points of Mach lines propagating off the interior surface of the trailing edge of the nozzle. However, the Examiner has not adequately explained how the teachings of Tapee support such an assumption. Tapee teaches redesigning the shroud or nozzle inner surface contour in conjunction with allowing the plug body to translate axially. Tapee 104. However, as Appellant correctly points out, altering the nozzle inner surface contour in this fashion likely would affect the Mach angle, thereby shifting the intersection point of Mach lines propagating off the trailing edge of the Appeal 2020-002749 Application 14/952,309 8 exhaust nozzle. Reply Br. 3. Furthermore, the reason a skilled artisan would have allowed the plug body to translate relative to the trailing edge of the exhaust nozzle would have been to affect the flow pattern around the plug body. See Tapee 104. However, as Appellant also correctly points out, repositioning the plug body relative to the trailing edge of the nozzle, likely would affect one or more other aspects such as: the nozzle pressure ratio, static pressure, speed, and flow direction. Appeal Br. 13. These effects, in turn, would affect the Mach angle at the trailing end of the nozzle, as well as the intersection point of the Mach lines. Id. In other words, the contemplated redesign of the nozzle inner surface contour, coupled with axial movement of the plug body, likely would change the conventional plug body length, as that term is defined in the Specification, to a significant degree. See Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 3. Another factor plays into this analysis as well. The Examiner proposes allowing the plug body of a supersonic jet engine to translate axially. Final Act. 7. Tapee describes experiments performed on a scale model of a nozzle arrangement rather than on a complete supersonic jet engine. See generally, Tapee 9–15. The test facility used blowdown tanks to provide pressurized gas to simulate the effect of a jet turbine. Tapee 11. As Tapee itself admits, the model simulates bypass flow but has no freestream air capability. Id. Given the limited predictability of gas flows within a supersonic jet engine, the Examiner has not shown that the teachings of Tapee support a finding that translating a plug body from a retracted portion, in which the tip of the body coincides with the intersection point of the Mach lines, to an extended position necessarily would result in the length of the protruding portion reaching beyond the intersection point of Appeal 2020-002749 Application 14/952,309 9 the Mach lines. In other words, the Examiner has not shown, or even provided a reasonable basis for belief, that the proposed modification would have yielded a nozzle arrangement in which “the protruding portion of the plug extend[s] downstream of the trailing edge for a length greater than a conventional plug body length,” as recited in claims 21 and 37. Accordingly, for these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21, 25–33, and 35–37 as unpatentable over Tapee. Obviousness over Tapee and Ohio Education Claim 34 Claim 34 depends from claim 33, which, in turn, depends from independent claim 21. Appeal Br. 16–18 (Claims App.). The Examiner cites Ohio Education for the teaching that isentropic nozzles are efficient. Final Act. 9. The Examiner does not adequately explain how this finding overcomes the deficiencies in the teachings of Tapee as applied to ultimate parent claim 21. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 34 as unpatentable over Tapee and Ohio Education. Obviousness over Tapee and Dieudonne Claims 22–24, 38, and 39 Claims 22–24 depend from independent claim 21 and claims 38 and 39 depend from independent claim 37. Appeal Br. 16–17, 18–19 (Claims App.). The Examiner cites Dieudonne for the teaching that plug body length is “a result-effective variable that can be optimized for a given operational [M]ach number.” Final Act. 9. Dieudonne itself teaches that the “plug length and height only depends on the throat height and the exit Mach Appeal 2020-002749 Application 14/952,309 10 number.” Dieudonne 412. This teaching is consistent with the plug body having only a “conventional plug body length” rather than a “protruding portion [that] extends downstream of the trailing edge for a length greater than a conventional plug body length,” as recited in claims 21 and 37. The Examiner does not adequately explain how this finding overcomes the deficiencies in the teachings of Tapee as applied to ultimate parent claims 21 and 37. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22–24, 38, and 39 as unpatentable over Tapee and Dieudonne. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 22–24, 38–40 112, First Paragraph Written Description 22–24, 38– 40 21, 25–33, 35–37 103(a) Tapee 21, 25–33, 35–37 34 103(a) Tapee, Ohio Education 34 22–24, 38, 39 103(a) Tapee, Dieudonne 22–24, 38, 39 Overall Outcome 22–24, 38– 40 21, 25–37 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