THE BOEING COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 10, 2020

15342694 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 10, 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. 15/342,694 11/03/2016 Sean P. HOWE 16-1471-US-NP 1289 120226 7590 11/10/2020 Patterson & Sheridan - The Boeing Company c/o Patterson & Sheridan, LLP 24 GREENWAY PLAZA, SUITE 1600 Houston, TX 77046 EXAMINER SUTHERLAND, STEVEN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/10/2020 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): PAIR_eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com PatentAdmin@boeing.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SEAN P. HOWE Appeal 2020-003038 Application 15/342,694 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPFER, 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, 2, 7, 8, 14, and 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 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 The Boeing Company. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-003038 Application 15/342,694 2 BACKGROUND The Specification discloses embodiments of a fan nacelle for a gas turbine engine. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 2–4. CLAIMS Claims 1, 7, and 14 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites: 1. A fan nacelle for a gas turbine engine, comprising: a fan duct skin arranged in a fan duct to direct airflow from a fan of the gas turbine engine toward a fan nozzle; and an exterior skin arranged to direct airflow around an exterior of the gas turbine engine, wherein the fan duct skin and the exterior skin couple together to define a rounded leading edge at a forward end of the fan nacelle and converge towards one another from the rounded leading edge to an aft end to terminate at a trailing edge of the fan nacelle, and wherein a trailing edge portion of the exterior skin is one of parallel to and diverging from a trailing edge portion of the fan duct skin. Appeal Br. 11. REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Dusa2 in view of Dawson.3 DISCUSSION With respect to each of the independent claims, the Examiner finds that Dusa teaches a fan nacelle including a fan duct skin and an exterior skin as claimed except that “Dusa does not teach that the trailing edge portion of 2 Dusa et al., US 4,466,587, iss. Aug. 21, 1984. 3 Dawson et al., US 2010/0221102 A1, pub. Sept. 2, 2010. Appeal 2020-003038 Application 15/342,694 3 the exterior skin is parallel to a trailing edge portion of the fan duct skin.” Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner then finds and determines: Dawson teaches a duct (46) wherein the outer and inner skins at the trailing edge portion of the duct (trailing edge portion 48 referred to as an extension) are parallel (inner and outer skins at 48 are parallel in figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the fan nacelle of Dusa with [the] duct extension of Dawson, in order to turn the flow from outside the nacelle away from the exit of the duct to provide suppression relief for the exhaust leaving the duct (paragraph [0014]). Id. at 3. Appellant asserts that Dawson does not disclose a parallel extension of the fan nacelle as required by the independent claims and, instead, Dawson only discloses an extension 48 of the core nacelle. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant argues that there is no teaching or suggestion to modify a fan nacelle based on Dawson’s teaching of an extension to the core nacelle. Id. Appellant further asserts that the advantages discussed by Dawson are directed to the effects of the extension 48 on the core nacelle and the Examiner is only speculating regarding what the effect might be on a fan nacelle. Id., see also Reply Br. 2–3 (“the effect of [the Examiner’s proposed] modifying design of aerodynamic components is unsupported conjecture.”) Thus, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rationale is not adequately supported with the necessary articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings. See, e.g., Reply Br. 2–3; see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds . . . [require] some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”) (cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). Appeal 2020-003038 Application 15/342,694 4 We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument. As noted, the Examiner acknowledges that Dusa does not disclose a fan nacelle with an exterior skin that is parallel to or diverging from a trailing edge portion of the fan duct skin. To remedy this deficiency the Examiner relies on Dawson. Yet, with respect to Dawson, the Examiner relies on extension 48 as providing a teaching of a parallel trailing edge of exterior skin of a duct, which is an extension to a core nacelle 12 and not the fan nacelle 34. Final Act. 3; see also Dawson Fig. 1; ¶ 14. The Examiner acknowledges that Dawson does not teach a parallel edge for a fan nacelle, but the Examiner finds that Modifying the downstream end of Dusa’s fan nacelle with the extension of Dawson’s core nacelle, provides the same effect as the extension has at the downstream end of Dawson’s core nacelle, i.e., turning the outer flow away from the inner flow to provide suppression relief to the inner flow exiting the nacelle. Ans. 3. However, we agree with Appellant that this finding is not adequately supported. See Reply Br. 2. We agree with Appellant that Dawson at paragraph 14 only refers to the effects of extension 48 on a core nacelle. The Examiner does not point to any evidence discussing what the effect of such an extension may be on a fan nacelle generally or on the particular structure disclosed in Dusa, and the Examiner also does not explain adequately that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to modify Dusa’s fan nacelle based on such effect. Thus, the rejection appears to be based on the Examiner’s speculation as to what the effect of the proposed modification may be and lacks adequate evidentiary support. Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded of error in the rejection of each of the independent claims. For the same reasons, we are persuaded of Appeal 2020-003038 Application 15/342,694 5 error in the rejection of the dependent claims. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 14, and 15. CONCLUSION We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 14, and 15. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 7, 8, 14, 15 103 Dusa, Dawson 1, 2, 7, 8, 14, 15 REVERSED