null

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2019

14431953 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2019)

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.
14/431,953 03/27/2015 Sean DJ Blake 64773US02;
67097-2240PUS1
4074
54549 7590 12/02/2019
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
SUNG, GERALD LUTHER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2019 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 SEAN DJ BLAKE, WILLIAM G. TEMPELMAN,
MATTHEW D. TEICHOLZ, JOHN R. GENDRON, KERRI A. WOJCIK,
PAUL H. SPIESMAN, STEWART B. HATCH, WYATT S. DAENTL, and
GLENN D. BARTKOWSKI
____________

Appeal 2019-003448
Application 14/431,953
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–11 and 13. We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
In explaining our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed March
27, 2015 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action mailed July 6, 2018 (“Final
Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed December 21, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”), the

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United Technologies
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003448
Application 14/431,953

2
Examiner’s Answer mailed January 31, 2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief
filed March 29, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to gas turbine engine
compressors having variable vanes. Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1, 10, and 13 are
independent. Claim 1, reproduced below from page 10 (Claims Appendix)
of the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A gas turbine engine compressor, comprising:
a first compressor section, the first compressor section
including:
at least one rotating stage that includes rotating blades
and at least one stationary stage upstream thereof that includes
stationary guide vanes, which controllably pivot about
respective pivot axes for providing flow control into the
rotating stage,
wherein the stationary guide vanes are configured to
pivot from a first position to a second position to influence the
flow, the first position corresponding to a first throat area and
the second position corresponding to a second throat area that is
between 62 percent and 65 percent of the first throat area, the
first position corresponding to a maximum open position of the
stationary guide vanes, the second position corresponding to a
maximum closed position of the stationary guide vanes.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
Smith US 3,974,645 Aug. 17, 1976
Fujii US 2007/0031238 A1 Feb. 8, 2007
Micheli US 2007/0253805 A1 Nov. 1, 2007
Nanataki US 2010/0005808 A1 Jan. 14, 2010
Appeal 2019-003448
Application 14/431,953

3
Hood US 2010/0278639 A1 Nov. 4, 2010
Major US 2010/0310358 A1 Dec. 9, 2010
Johnson US 2011/0171007 A1 July 14, 2011
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–5 and 8–11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hood, Johnson, Nanataki, Micheli, Fujii, and Smith.
II. Claims 1, 6, 7, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Major, Johnson, Nanataki, Micheli, Fujii, and
Smith.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I – Obviousness based on Hood, Johnson, Nanataki,
Micheli, Fujii, and Smith
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part,
the first position corresponding to a first throat area and the
second position corresponding to a second throat area that is
between 62 percent and 65 percent of the first throat area, the
first position corresponding to a maximum open position of the
stationary guide vanes, the second position corresponding to a
maximum closed position of the stationary guide vanes.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.). Independent claim 10 recites a similar
limitation. Id. at 11. The Examiner finds that “the claimed 62%–65% area
change corresponding to maximum closed and open positions is not
expressly taught in the prior art.” Final Act. 4. However, the Examiner
finds that “Hood teaches that it is desirable to rotate the vanes to improve the
capability of the compressor to prevent surge, whilst also increasing the flow
capacity and efficiency of the compressor.” Id. at 5 (citing Hood ¶ 31). The
Examiner explains that Hood teaches
Appeal 2019-003448
Application 14/431,953

4
that the rotation of the blades alters the performance of the
engine and as identified above, the flow area of the compressor
is inherently altered by the rotation of the blades. Thus, the
claimed second position being 62–65% of the first [position]
where the first and second [positions] correspond to maximum
open and closed positions of the stationary guide vanes is found
to be unpatentable as being part of an obvious optimization
over the prior art.
Id. at 6; see also Ans. 5 (finding “the degree of opening of the guide vanes to
be a result effective variable”). According to the Examiner, “[b]ecause the
degree of opening has been found to be a result effective variable, . . . the
ordinary skilled worker would have found it obvious to optimize the claimed
area variation where the second throat area is 62%–65% of the first throat
area through routine experimentation.” Ans. 6.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not established that using a
maximum closed position throat area that is 62% to 65% of the maximum
open position throat area would have been obvious as an optimization of a
result-effective variable. See Appeal Br. 4–8; Reply Br. 1–2. In particular,
Appellant asserts that the Examiner “fails to point to any objective evidence
indicating a relationship between a maximum closed position and a
maximum open position in the cited art.” Appeal Br. 5; see also id. at 8
(asserting that “the Examiner must show that this feature is recognized in the
art as a result-effective variable”). We agree that a sustainable case of
obviousness has not been established.
In the case of routine experimentation, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to explain, or provide evidence to demonstrate, the parameter
optimized was recognized as a result-effective variable. A particular
parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a
variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the
Appeal 2019-003448
Application 14/431,953

5
optimum or workable ranges of such variable might be characterized as
routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977); see
also In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(stating it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by
routine experimentation if the optimized variable is a result-effective
variable).
Appellant persuasively asserts that the Examiner’s cited references at
most recognize “a relationship between airflow through the engine and a
position of the guide vanes . . .[, but not] any sort of relationship between a
maximum open and maximum closed position.” Reply Br. 1. In other
words, although the Examiner has set forth evidence that controlling the
degree of opening of the guide vanes was recognized as a result-effective
variable that affects air flow and engine performance (see, e.g., Final Act. 4–
6), the Examiner has not identified any disclosure in the prior art of record
demonstrating that the claimed relationship between a maximum closed
position throat area and a maximum open position throat area (i.e., the
maximum closed position throat area being a function of the maximum open
position throat area) was recognized as a result-effective variable. The prior
art demonstrates that varying the opening of the guide vanes effects a change
in airflow, but the Examiner has not explained adequately why one of
ordinary skill in the art would select the maximum open and closed positions
required by the claims. Thus, the Examiner has not established the requisite
factual basis to support the determination that the maximum closed position
throat area being 62% to 65% of the maximum open position throat area
would have been obvious as a matter of routine optimization of a result-
effective variable.
Appeal 2019-003448
Application 14/431,953

6
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
of independent claims 1 and 10, nor their dependent claims 2–5, 8, 9, and 11,
as being unpatentable over Hood, Johnson, Nanataki, Micheli, Fujii, and
Smith.
Rejection II – Obviousness based on Major, Johnson, Nanataki,
Micheli, Fujii, and Smith
Independent claim 13 recites a limitation similar to that of claim 1
discussed above. See Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). In this rejection, the
Examiner relies on the same findings and reasoning that we find deficient
for the reasons discussed above in connection with Rejection I. See Final
Act. 9–12 (determining that the claimed maximum closed position throat
area being between 62 and 65 percent of the maximum open position throat
area would have been obvious as a matter of routine optimization of a result-
effective variable). The Examiner relies on Major for teaching additional
features, but does not articulate any additional findings or reasoning that
would remedy the aforementioned deficiency in Rejection I. See id.
Therefore, for the same reasons as explained above, we do not sustain the
rejection of independent claims 1 and 13, nor of dependent claims 6 and 7,
as being unpatentable over Major, Johnson, Nanataki, Micheli, Fujii, and
Smith.
CONCLUSION
In summary,
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 8–11 103(a) Hood, Johnson,
Nanataki, Micheli, Fujii,
Smith
1–5, 8–11
Appeal 2019-003448
Application 14/431,953

7
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1, 6, 7, 13 103(a) Major, Johnson,
Nanataki, Micheli, Fujii,
Smith
1, 6, 7, 13
Overall Outcome 1–11, 13
REVERSED