United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2022

2021004914 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2022)

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. 14/734,035 06/09/2015 Frederick M. Schwarz 67097-2970PUS1; 77114US2 1068 54549 7590 03/02/2022 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER DUGER, JASON H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2022 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 FREDRICK M. SCHWARZ and DANIEL BERNARD KUPRATIS Appeal 2021-004914 Application 14/734,035 Technology Center 3700 Before BRETT C. MARTIN, CARL M. DeFRANCO, and LEE L. STEPINA, 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 1-4, 7, 8, 10, 12-15, 17-23, and 25. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Raytheon Technologies Corporation Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-004914 Application 14/734,035 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a position of a fan and a spinner relative to a fan nacelle inlet. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A gas turbine engine comprising: a fan section having a fan bypass ratio greater than 12 and less than 20; a speed reduction device drivingly connected to the fan section; a compressor section with a high pressure compressor having between 8 and 13 stages and a pressure ratio of at least 16:1 and less than 35:1; and a turbine section including a transition duct located between a high pressure turbine and a low pressure turbine including fewer support struts than vanes in a first vane row of the low pressure turbine, wherein the first vane row of the low pressure turbine is located downstream of the transition duct and downstream of a first row of blades in the low pressure turbine, wherein the first row of blades in the low pressure turbine are immediately downstream of the support struts. Appeal 2021-004914 Application 14/734,035 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Harvey US 6,142,739 Nov. 7, 2000 Seda US 6,732,502 B2 May 11, 2004 Merry US 7,950,220 B2 May 31, 2011 Feindel US 2011/0214433 A1 Sept. 8, 2011 Manteiga US 8,152,451 B2 Apr. 10, 2012 Andrew US 8,262,345 B2 Sept. 11, 2012 Staubach US 8,337,147 B2 Dec. 25, 2012 Durocher US 2013/0078080 A1 Mar. 28, 2013 Suciu US 2013/0192256 A1 Aug. 1, 2013 Knip, Analysis of an Advanced Technology Subsonic Turbofan Incorporating Revolutionary Materials, NASA Technical Memorandum 89868, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19870013247 2020-03- 20T10:34:31 +00:00Z Treager, GLENCOE Aviation Technology Series, Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine Technology, Third Edition, Chapter 25 General Electric CF6 Turbofan Engine, Mattingly, Aircraft Engine Design, Second Edition, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. Kurzke, Fundamental Difference Between Conventional and Geared Turbofans, Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2009: Power for Land, Sea, and Air GT2009 (2009) REJECTIONS Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Final Act. 2. Claims 1, 10, 12, 20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kurzke, Traeger, and Durocher or Suciu. Final Act. 4. Appeal 2021-004914 Application 14/734,035 4 Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kurzke, Traeger, Durocher or Suciu, and Harvey. Final Act. 9. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kurzke, Traeger, Durocher or Suciu, and Manteiga. Id. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kurzke, Traeger, Durocher or Suciu, and Knip. Final Act. 10. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kurzke, Traeger, Durocher or Suciu, Knip, and Seda. Final Act. 12. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kurzke, Traeger, Durocher or Suciu, Feindel, and Andrew. Final Act. 15. Claims 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kurzke, Durocher or Suciu, Treager, Knip, Mattingly, Merry, and Staubach. Final Act. 16. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kurzke, Durocher or Suciu, Treager, Knip, Mattingly, Merry, Staucbach, and Manteiga. Final Act. 23. OPINION Indefiniteness The Examiner rejects claims 22 and 23 for reciting “the first row of turbine blades” while claim 1 recites “a first row of blades,” therefore lacking proper antecedent basis. Final Act. 2. Appellant does not argue this rejection in the Appeal Brief, only stating that these claims have been Appeal 2021-004914 Application 14/734,035 5 amended to correct the issue. Appeal Br. 3; see also Amendment 4 (filed on Dec. 8, 2020). This Amendment, however, was not entered by the Examiner. See Advisory Act. 2-3 (mailed on Dec. 15, 2020). In its Reply, Appellant argues the rejection for the first time. Given that, at the time the Appeal Brief was filed (March 2, 2021), Appellant knew or should have known that the Amendment was not entered, the arguments in the Reply should have been made in the Appeal Brief. Appellant has not shown good cause as to why this argument was not made in the Appeal Brief. Accordingly, we do not consider the untimely filed argument in the Reply and sustain the rejection. Treager The Examiner’s rejection relies upon a combination of Treager and Kurzke as modified by Suciu or Durocher. The Examiner’s reasoning is that “Durocher and Suciu expressly teach that the struts may be so configured as to obviate the need for a row of vanes upstream of the first blade row of the low pressure turbine.” Ans. 12. As Appellant points out, however, although “Durocher/Suciu may show the first vane row downstream of the first blade row, the rejection overlooks the number of support struts turning the air in Durocher/Suciu needed to accomplish this and simply concludes that the eight struts in Traeger would be sufficient.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant further states that “[i]f the support struts in Durocher or Suciu were able to ‘advantageously guide flow to the low pressure turbine’ (see, Final, p. 8), the rejection has failed to establish the vane row upstream of the first blade row can be eliminated in the combination of Kur[z]ke and Treager and still adequately guide the air with only eight support struts present in the combination.” Reply Br. 2. Appeal 2021-004914 Application 14/734,035 6 In other words, Traeger may show eight struts as claimed, but in order for only eight struts to operate properly, Traeger relies upon a row of vanes upstream of the first blade row. Durocher and Suciu may show the possibility of eliminating the upstream vanes, but do so with more struts than are shown in Treager. We agree with Appellant that “there is no support that having only eight support struts would be sufficient to turn the air in the combination of Kur[z]ke and Treager.” Reply Br. 3. Given that the Examiner is relying on the strut structure in Traeger, we agree with Appellant that it is incumbent upon the Examiner to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See Appeal Br. 4. Appellant is correct that “the rejection fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness not by reducing the number of support struts but because it fails to establish with predictable results that having only eight support struts would be sufficient to turn the air entering the low pressure turbine without having the row of vanes upstream of the first row of turbine blades as shown in Kur[z]ke and Treager.” Reply Br. 3-4. Here, the preponderance of the evidence leans towards Traeger needing the upstream vanes in order to operate properly with only eight struts and that neither Durocher nor Suciu teaches that eliminating the upstream vanes would operate properly with as few as the eight struts taught in Traeger, nor does the Examiner provide a rationale that explains why this would be expected to be successful. All of the Examiner’s rejections rely upon this combination of Kurzke, Traeger, Durocher, and/or Suciu and so we do not sustain any of the Examiner’s prior art rejections. Appeal 2021-004914 Application 14/734,035 7 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 22, 23 112 Indefiniteness 22, 23 1, 10, 12, 20, 22 103(a) Kurzke, Traeger, Durocher/Suciu 1, 10, 12, 20, 22 2, 3 103(a) Kurzke, Traeger, Durocher/Suciu, Harvey 2, 3 4 103(a) Kurzke, Traeger, Durocher/Suciu, Manteiga 4 7 103(a) Kurzke, Traeger, Durocher/Suciu, Knip 7 8 103(a) Kurzke, Traeger, Durocher/Suciu, Knip, Seda 8 13 103(a) Kurzke, Traeger, Durocher/Suciu, Feindel, Andrew 13 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 103(a) Kurzke, Durocher/Suciu, Treager, Knip, Mattingly, Merry, Staubach 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 18 103(a) Kurzke, Durocher/Suciu, Treager, Knip, Mattingly, Merry, Staucbach, Manteiga 18 Appeal 2021-004914 Application 14/734,035 8 Overall Outcome 1-4, 7, 8, 10, 12-15, 17-23, 25 REVERSED