Rohr, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 19, 2020

14861767 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2020)

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.
14/861,767 09/22/2015 Vijay V. Pujar 1349-81722 8857
50811 7590 03/19/2020
O''''Shea Getz P.C.
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205
Farmington, CT 06032
EXAMINER
MEADE, LORNE EDWARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/19/2020 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):
shenry@osheagetz.com
uspto@osheagetz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte VIJAY V. PUJAR and KEITH T. BROWN

Appeal 2019-003620
Application 14/861,767
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–6, 9, 11–17, 19, and 21.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

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 Rohr, Inc.
Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 2 and 20 are cancelled, and claims 7, 8, 10, and 18 are withdrawn
from consideration. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003620
Application 14/861,767

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure “relates generally to an aircraft propulsion
system and, more particularly, to a nacelle for an aircraft propulsion system
and a system for promoting laminar flow over portions of the nacelle to
reduce drag.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Claims 1 and 15 are independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter.
1. A nacelle for an aircraft propulsion system,
comprising:
an active laminar flow control system including an array
of perforations in the outer barrel, a suction source and a drain
mechanism;
wherein the suction source is fluidly coupled with the
array of perforations;
wherein the drain mechanism is fluidly coupled with and
between the array of perforations and the suction source; and
wherein the drain mechanism is configured to close and
remain closed when the suction source is operational.

Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.).

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3–6, 9, 11–17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Hughes (US 5,297,765, issued Mar. 29, 1994),
Gazdzinski (US 6,068,328, issued May 30, 2000), and Olsen (US 7,331,421
B2, issued Feb. 19, 2008).
Appeal 2019-003620
Application 14/861,767

3
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hughes, Gazdzinski, Olsen, and Stewart (US 8,752,795 B2, issued June 17,
2014).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3–6, 9, 11–17, 19, and 21 over
Hughes, Gazdzinski, and Olsen
Appellant argues claims 1, 3–6, 9, and 11–14 as one group (Appeal
Br. 7–9), and argues claims 15–17, 19, and 21 as another group (id. at 9–10).
Br. 4–7. We select claims 1 and 15 as representative claims, with claims 3–
6, 9, and 11–14 standing or falling with claim 1, and claims 16, 17, 19, and
21 standing or falling with claim 15. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claims 1, 3–6, 9, and 11–14
As for claim 1, the Examiner finds Hughes discloses a nacelle
comprising an active laminar flow control system including perforations in
the outer barrel and a suction source (suction pumping system 36) fluidly
coupled with the perforations. Final Act. 4 (citing Hughes Figs. 1, 2, col. 3,
ll. 55–65). The Examiner concedes Hughes does not disclose a drain
mechanism fluidly coupled between the perforations and the suction source,
and the limitation “wherein the drain mechanism is configured to close and
remain closed when the suction source is operational” (hereinafter, also “the
drain mechanism operation limitation”), as claimed. Id. at 5.
The Examiner relies on Gazdzinski as teaching an active laminar flow
control system including a suction source (suction sources 300, 302, 308)
fluidly coupled with perforations (perforations 100), and a drain mechanism
(drain valve 344) fluidly coupled between the perforations and suction
source. Final Act. 5 (citing Gazdzinski, Figs. 1, 5); see also Gazdzinski,
Appeal 2019-003620
Application 14/861,767

4
Fig. 3. The Examiner relies on Olsen as teaching a biasing device (spring
556) configured to close and remain closed when a suction source is
operational (i.e., “[when the] pressure differential across the door 555 falls
below a preselected value the door close[s] by overcoming the force of the
spring 556”). Id. (citing Olsen, col. 7, ll. 4–11, 21–25, Figs. 1–5F).
The Examiner concludes that improving Hughes’ active laminar flow
control system, based upon the teachings of such improvement in
Gazdzinski and Olsen, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art. Final Act. 7. The Examiner reasons that applying these known
improvement techniques in the same way to the device of Hughes would
have yielded predictable results; namely integrating a drain mechanism
fluidly coupled with and between an array of perforations and a suction
source, as taught by Gazdzinski, and a passive drain mechanism comprising
a flapper valve including a flap and a biasing device/spring configured to
close and remain closed when a suction source is operational, as taught by
Olsen, would facilitate minimizing the ingestion of moisture into the suction
source (id. (citing Gazdzinski, col. 4, ll. 39–42, col. 7, ll. 42–67)) by
passively draining the water out of the nacelle, to facilitate avoiding
structural failure (id. (citing Olsen, col. 1, ll. 28–36)). Id. (citing KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP § 2143(C)).
Appellant contends both Gazdzinski and Olsen teach away from
modifying the combination to include the drain mechanism operation
limitation. Appeal Br. 7–8. First, Appellant notes Gazdzinski discloses:
[M]oisture 341 liberated by the separator drains to a catch basin
342 by way of gravity, and is further gravity-drained from the
plenum in the present embodiment by a moisture sensitive drain
valve 344, which opens only intermittently during high-moisture
Appeal 2019-003620
Application 14/861,767

5
conditions to preserve plenum suction and to permit sufficient
drainage static head to accumulate.
Id. at 7 (quoting Gazdzinski, col. 7, ll. 52–58) (emphasis omitted).
Thus, Appellant contends, Gazdzinski teaches that it is necessary to open
drain valve 344 intermittently during operation when a certain moisture
level is reached to preserve plenum suction and permit sufficient drainage.
Id. at 7–8. According to Appellant, modifying the combination to include
the drain mechanism operation limitation would cause drain valve 344 to no
longer work for its intended purpose. Id. at 8.
Second, Appellant contends Olsen teaches a flow restrictor configured
to open during operation to allow water to drain from the core to reduce the
likelihood that water collects in the core and freezes, where water can collect
in the core during aircraft operation. Id. (citing Olsen, col. 4, ll. 36–42).
Therefore, Appellant contends, if the combination was modified to include
the drain mechanism operation limitation, Olsen’s flow restrictor likewise
would no longer work for its intended purpose. Id.
These contentions are unpersuasive. Claim 1 recites that “the drain
valve is configured to close and remain closed when the suction source is
operational.” Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Appellant
asserts that claim 1 “specifies when the drain mechanism is configured to
close and remain closed - during suction source operation,” whereas the
applied combination “teaches opening the drains . . . during alleged suction
source operation.” Id. at 9. To the extent Appellant is contending that the
drain mechanism operation limitation must be construed to mean, for
example, that “the drain valve is configured to close and remain closed” “at
Appeal 2019-003620
Application 14/861,767

6
all times that” or “whenever” “the suction source is operational,” we
disagree.
Paragraph 55 of the Specification pertains to the drain mechanism
depicted in Figure 11. As described, “[t]he drain mechanism 150 includes a
flap 152, which adapted to open and remain open while there is no or
relatively low suction / vacuum within the ALFC system 44; e.g., when its
respective suction source is non-operational, just started, or just turned off.”
Id. ¶ 55 (emphasis added). This description seems to disclose that flap 152
can remain open after the suction source has been started, that is, during a
time that or “when” the suction source is operational. Paragraph 55 further
describes, “when the suction source generates suction / vacuum above a
certain (e.g., ‘activation’) threshold within the ALFC system 44 (less than
the typical operational suction level), the pressure differential across the
opening 156 in the drain mechanism 150 may cause the flap 152 to swing
closed and remain closed.” Id. (emphasis added). This description also
indicates that flap 152 can remain open during a time that (i.e., “when”) the
suction source is operational, but is not generating suction / vacuum above a
certain threshold.
Appellant indicates that support for the drain mechanism operation
limitation in claim 1 is found at paragraphs 54 and 55. Appeal Br. 4.
However, these paragraphs do not appear to provide support for construing
the drain mechanism operation limitation to mean, for example, that “the
drain valve is configured to close and remain closed” “at all times that” or
“whenever” “the suction source is operational.” Further, we note claims 5
and 6 depend from claim 1 and appear to correspond to the device shown in
Figure 11, which is described in paragraph 55 of the Specification. As
Appeal 2019-003620
Application 14/861,767

7
discussed above, in the device depicted in Figure 11, flap 152 can remain
open during a time that the suction source is operational, but the suction
source is not generating suction / vacuum above a certain threshold. We
construe claim 1 as being sufficiently broad in scope to encompass the
further limitations of dependent claims 5 and 6. Otherwise, construing
parent claim 1 not to encompass these further limitations would result in
dependent claims 5 and 6 not further limiting claim 1. AK Steel Corp. v.
Sollac & Ugine, 344 F.3d 1234, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Under the doctrine
of claim differentiation, dependent claims are presumed to be of narrower
scope than the independent claims from which they depend.”).
We are unpersuaded that either Gazdzinski or Olsen teaches away
from modifying the applied combination to include the drain mechanism
operation limitation. Appellant’s teaching away position seems to be
premised on an overly-narrow construction of this limitation. As for
operation of Gazdzinski’s water drain mechanism, the Examiner explains:
A liquid water drain valve like Gazdzinski’s only had two
operational modes: open or closed. Therefore by teaching the
necessary conditions (high-moisture and sufficient static head) to
open the liquid water drain valve (344), it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Gazdzinski’s liquid
water drain valve (344) would have remained closed when said
necessary conditions were missing. In other words, Gazdzinski’s
liquid water drain valve (344) was normally closed and only
opened when the necessary conditions were satisfied. If said
necessary conditions (high-moisture and sufficient static head)
did not both occur during operation of the suction source, the
liquid water drain valve (344) would have remained closed
during operation of the suction source. Therefore, contrary to
Appellant’s arguments, Gazdzinski taught the necessary
conditions for the liquid water drain valve (344) to have
remained closed during operation of the suction source.
Appeal 2019-003620
Application 14/861,767

8
Ans. 23 (emphasis added).
The Examiner further explains that Olsen teaches that door flap 555
closes and remains closed when the pressure inside the drain
(suction/vacuum) is less than the pressure outside the drain, such that the
pressure differential across door flap 555’s opening overcomes the force of
the biasing device/spring 556, that is, when the suction/vacuum inside the
nacelle is above an activation threshold. Ans. 10. The Examiner finds that
Olsen’s flow restrictor 540f shown in Figure 5F functions by “closing the
drain and keeping the drain closed while the suction source was
operational, i.e., turned on to generate a vacuum or lower pressure inside the
nacelle.” Id. at 12 (emphasis added). Therefore, the Examiner submits,
“Olsen taught the necessary condition to open said passive flapper valve
(555) drain mechanism (540f) of Fig. 5F and the necessary condition to
close the passive flapper valve (555) drain mechanism (540f) during
operation of the suction source.” Id. at 22–23 (emphasis added).
Further, we disagree with Appellant’s contention that Gazdzinski and
Olsen both fail to disclose a drain mechanism capable of closing and staying
closed “when” a suction source is operational. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant
does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s position that both Gazdzinski
and Olsen teach “that their respective drain valves would have been closed
during operation of the suction source and would have remained closed
during operation of the suction source when the necessary conditions for
opening said drain valves where missing.” Ans. 23–24 (emphasis added).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and dependent
claims 3–6, 9, and 11–14 as unpatentable over Hughes, Gazdzinski, and
Olsen.
Appeal 2019-003620
Application 14/861,767

9
Claims 15–17, 19, and 21
Claim 15 recites, inter alia, “wherein the drain mechanism is
configured to close and remain closed at least when the suction source
generates suction above a predetermined threshold.” Appeal Br. 15 (Claims
App.) (emphasis added). The Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 relies on
substantially the same findings and reasoning as for claim 1. Final Act. 14–
21. Appellant’s contention that the combination does not teach or suggest
the final “wherein” clause of claim 15 for reasons similar to those for claim
1 does not apprise us of error. Appeal Br. 10. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 15 and dependent claims 16, 17, 19, and 21 as
unpatentable over Hughes, Gazdzinski, and Olsen.

Claim 19 over Hughes, Gazdzinski, Olsen, and Stewart
Appellant contends that Stewart does not cure the deficiencies of
Hughes, Gazdzinski, and Olsen with respect to parent claim 15. Appeal
Br. 10. This contention does not apprise us of any deficiency in the rejection
of claim 15, and thus, we also sustain the rejection of claim 19 as
unpatentable over Hughes, Gazdzinski, Olsen, and Stewart.

Appeal 2019-003620
Application 14/861,767

10
DECISION SUMMARY
In Summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–6, 9, 11–
17, 19, 21
§ 103 Hughes,
Gazdzinski, Olsen
1, 3–6, 9,
11–17, 19,
21

19 § 103 Hughes,
Gazdzinski, Olsen,
Stewart
19
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–6, 9,
11–17, 19,
21

PERIOD FOR RESPONSE

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

AFFIRMED