United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 2, 2021

2020002838 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 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. 15/200,240 07/01/2016 Charles E. Lents 93317US01; 67097-3402PUS1 8735 54549 7590 04/02/2021 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER THOMAS, KYLE ROBERT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/02/2021 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): ptodocket@cgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHARLES E. LENTS and JONATHAN RHEAUME Appeal 2020-002838 Application 15/200,240 Technology Center 3700 Before EDWARD A. BROWN, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, 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 1–8, 10–14, and 16–19. See Final Act. 1. 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 Raytheon Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br., Update to Real Party in Interest, dated April 23, 2020. Appeal 2020-002838 Application 15/200,240 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed “to hybrid gas turbine electric jet engines, and more specifically to a power distribution system for the same.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A gas turbine engine comprising: a compressor section having a first compressor and a second compressor; a turbine section having a first turbine and a second turbine, the first compressor is connected to the first turbine via a first shaft; the second compressor is connected to the second turbine via a second shaft; a fan connected to the first shaft; a motor connected to the first shaft such that rotational energy generated by the motor is translated to the first shaft; a power distribution system connecting the motor to a stored power system including at least one of an energy storage unit and a supplementary power unit, wherein the power distribution system is configured to provide power from the stored power system to the motor in at least one mode of operation in a plurality of modes of operation, and configured such that electricity generated by the motor is provided to the power distribution system in at least one mode of operation in the plurality of modes of operation. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date EDWARDS et al. US 2014/0338352 A1 Nov. 20, 2014 KRUG et al. US 2015/0151847 A1 Jun. 4, 2015 ORLANDO et al. US 2014/0119885 A1 May 1, 2014 MOORE et al. US 2012/0104842 A1 May 3, 2012 ANGHEL et al. US 2014/0245748 A1 Sep. 4, 2014 WALTNER US 2017/0225573 A1 Aug. 10, 2017 Appeal 2020-002838 Application 15/200,240 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 8, 12, and 17 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over co-pending Application No. 15/200,128 in view of Krug and Edwards. Final Act. 5. Claims 1, 3–7, 12–14, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards, Krug, and Orlando. Final Act. 12. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards, Krug, Orlando, and Moore. Final Act. 23. Claims 8, 10, 17, 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards, Krug, Orlando, and Anghel. Id. Claim 11stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards, Krug, Orlando, and Waltner. Final Act. 26. OPINION Double Patenting Appellant does not argue this rejection, but states that “[s]hould the provisional rejection ripen into a full rejection, Appellant will consider a terminal disclaimer at that time.” Appeal Br. 4. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s double patenting rejection. Obviousness The Examiner finds that the combination of Edwards and Krug teaches all of the elements of claim 1 except for a fan connected to the first shaft. Final Act. 12–15. Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s combination of Edwards and Krug. The Examiner next finds that Orlando teaches a gas turbine engine with a first shaft connecting a first compressor and first turbine and a fan connected to the first shaft. Final Act. 15. The Examiner concludes that one of skill in the art would have modified the Appeal 2020-002838 Application 15/200,240 4 combination of Edwards and Krug to include the fan connected to the first shaft as disclosed in Orlando “in order to provide a gas turbine engine that may rotate the fan at different speeds in order to allow better performance in the fan and turbine sections.” Final Act. 15 (citing Orlando ¶ 5)(emphasis omitted). Orlando does not include three separate turbines as shown in Edwards. Reply Br. 2. What is depicted in Orlando is a low pressure turbine 314 divided into two sections 316, 318 that are connected to a second rotatable drive shaft 320, which is also connected to a fan 324. See Orlando Fig. 3; ¶ 22. In describing Figure 2, Orlando explains that high pressure turbine 110 and low pressure turbine 114 are connected in a serial flow arrangement where turbine 110 drives compressor 102 through a first rotatable shaft 112, and low pressure sections 116 and 118 are driven by separate shafts. Orlando ¶ 21. Figure 3 contains what appears to be an analogous, but unlabeled high pressure turbine and an unlabeled shaft analogous to shaft 112. Orlando ¶ 22, Fig. 3. Orlando explains that second drive shaft 320 (what the Examiner identifies as the first shaft) is coupled to and directly drives fan assembly 324 while sections 316 and 318 are connected to shaft 320 through gear assembly 322. In contrast to Orlando, Edwards describes a parallel arrangement whereby separate components are each driven by separate shafts. Edwards includes a low pressure turbine that drives the fan via a separate shaft. Edwards Fig. 4. Edwards also includes two high pressure turbines that are each driven by separate shafts. Appellant argues that if the fan in Edwards were to be connected to the first shaft as suggested by the Examiner, then Edwards would be left with a “fan drive turbine and the third shaft without a function.” Reply Br. 3. Appeal 2020-002838 Application 15/200,240 5 The Examiner responds that the proposed combination “does not require the omission of a turbine section as argued by the Appellant as the dedicated turbine referred to by Appellant would be the same as the turbine section, 318, of Orlando.” Ans. 19. We first note that the Examiner does not provide this characterization of section 318 as being the same as the dedicated fan turbine in the final rejection. See Final Act. 15 (referring to “first turbine (314),” which includes sections 316 and 318). Additionally, this response does not adequately explain how the serial connection of Orlando would be incorporated into the parallel arrangement of Edwards. Despite the Examiner’s position to the contrary, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s proposed modification would simply attach the fan to the first drive shaft without addressing the existing separate low pressure turbine and drive shaft that were originally driving the fan. In sum, the Examiner does not explain in sufficient detail how Orlando’s serial arrangement would be incorporated into Edwards’ parallel arrangement. The Examiner merely states that one of skill in the art would have connected the fan in Edwards to the first shaft rather than the third shaft. A proper combination of Edwards and Orlando, however, is not that simple. Because Edwards teaches a dedicated fan drive turbine connected to the fan via a shaft, the Examiner’s modification of connecting the fan to the first shaft simply leaves Edwards with a superfluous fan shaft and fan turbine. In other words, the Examiner has not adequately explained how one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Edwards’ parallel three- spool (or three-shaft) engine in accordance with Orlando’s serial two-spool (or two-shaft) engine. There may be some valid basis to replace the third turbine in Edwards with the geared architecture of Orlando, but that is not what the Examiner has proposed. Given Edwards’ teaching of a dedicated Appeal 2020-002838 Application 15/200,240 6 fan, turbine, and shaft, we are not persuaded that one of ordinary skill would have changed that configuration absent some further modification to consolidate other aspects of Edwards. Appellant is also correct that “[e]ven if a person of skill in the art were motivated to drive the fan at a different rate than the fan turbine, as alleged by the examiner, no reason has been identified why such a modification would result in connecting the fan to the first shaft in Edwards, instead of the fan drive shaft” as disclosed in Edwards. Reply Br. 3. Because all of the Examiner’s rejections rely on this erroneous application of Edwards (and Orlando), we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is AFFIRMED IN PART. More specifically, Appeal 2020-002838 Application 15/200,240 7 DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 8, 12, 17 Non-statutory Double Patenting 1, 8, 12, 17 1, 3–7, 12– 14, 16, 18 103 Edwards, Krug, Orlando 1, 3–7, 12– 14, 16, 18 8, 10, 17, 19 103 Edwards, Krug, Orlando, Anghel 8, 10, 17, 19 2 Edwards, Krug, Orlando, Moore 2 11 103 Edwards, Krug, Orlando, Waltner 11 Overall Outcome 1, 8, 12, 16, 17 2–7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19 TIME 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED IN PART