United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 14, 2020

13739493 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 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. 13/739,493 01/11/2013 Amr ALI 61266US03; 67097-1769PUS3 8159 54549 7590 08/14/2020 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER VERDIER, CHRISTOPHER M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/14/2020 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): ptodocket@cgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte AMR ALI ____________ Appeal 2019-003666 Application 13/739,493 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 13 and 23–34. 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 United Technologies Corporation as the Applicant and real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-003666 Application 13/739,493 2 THE INVENTION Appellant’s invention relates to acoustic treatment in a gas turbine engine. Spec. 2. Claim 13, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 13. A geared turbomachine assembly, comprising: a fan cowl housing a fan that is driven by a geared architecture; a core cowl housing a core engine; a low-pressure turbine section of the core engine that is axially spaced downstream from the fan cowl and axially downstream from the fan cowl; and an acoustic treatment establishing a portion of the core cowl aft the fan cowl, wherein a portion of the acoustic treatment is axially aligned with a portion of a high-pressure turbine section of the geared turbomachine assembly that is axially aft the fan cowl relative to a direction of flow through the geared turbomachine. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the rejections: NAME REFERENCE DATE Seda US 6,619,030 B1 Sept. 16, 2003 Hurwitz US 2009/0060704 A1 Mar. 5, 2009 Morin US 7,540,354 B2 June 2, 2009 Vauchel US 2010/0024435 A1 Feb. 4, 2010 Bouchard US 2013/0111906 A1 May 9, 2013 The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 13, 23–25, and 29–33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bouchard and Hurwitz. Appeal 2019-003666 Application 13/739,493 3 2. Claims 24, 25, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bouchard, Hurwitz, and Vauchel. 3. Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bouchard, Hurwitz, and Morin. 4. Claims 28 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bouchard, Hurwitz, and Seda.2 28, 34 5. Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bouchard, Hurwitz, Vauchel, and Seda. OPINION Unpatentability of Claims 13, 23–25, and 29–33 over Bouchard and Hurwitz Claim 13 The Examiner finds that Bouchard discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for geared architecture for which the Examiner relies on Hurwitz. Final Act. 9–10. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bouchard with geared architecture. Id. at 10. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to drive the fan. Id. Appellant argues that Bouchard’s acoustic treatment, comprising panels 40 of inner shroud 27, are not positioned axially as required by the claim. Appeal Br. 3–4. We agree. The Examiner’s rejection is predicated on an erroneous claim construction. The Examiner treats “axially aligned” as synonymous with 2 A rejection of claims 25, 33, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has been withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 4. Appeal 2019-003666 Application 13/739,493 4 “co-axial.” Ans. 5–13. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand “co-axial” as a radial alignment, such as with concentric circles. It is clear from reading the claims, in light of the Specification, that Appellant uses the term “axially” in describing the location of various engine features along the longitudinal length of the engine. Claim 13 requires, inter alia, that the acoustic treatment is disposed axially “aft” of the fan cowl and axially “aligned” with a portion of the high-pressure turbine section. Claims App. This is illustrated, among other things, in Figures 1 and 2 by showing unducted area 62/162 disposed longitudinally aft of ducted area 60/160. Figs. 1–2. Additionally, for example: [T]he acoustic treatment 74 extends from the ducted area 160, past an aft end 76 of the fan cowl 66, to the unducted area 162 of the engine 120. Notabl[y], the example acoustic treatment 74 extends continuously, and without interruption, from the ducted area 160 to the aftmost end 84 of a cowl 80 of the core engine cowl 170. Spec. ¶ 47. Similarly, A portion of the acoustic treatment 74 is axially aligned with the turbine section 128 of the engine 120, and, in particular, the low-pressure turbine 146 within the turbine section 128. The acoustic treatment 74 is continuous and uninterrupted from the ducted area 160, past the high-pressure turbine 154, to the portion that is aligned with the low-pressure turbine 146. Id. ¶ 48 (emphasis added). The Examiner’s “co-axial” construction cannot be reconciled with the language in paragraph 48 above regarding the acoustic treatment extending “from” the ducted area, “past” the turbine, and “to” another portion. Such language only makes sense in connection with the longitudinal, lengthwise, axial dimension of the engine. Although the Examiner is permitted to rely on the broadest reasonable construction of a Appeal 2019-003666 Application 13/739,493 5 claim term, a construction that does not reasonably reflect the plain language and disclosure is improper. Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In the instant case, we construe “axially aligned” as relating to the location of the acoustic treatment relative to the longitudinal (axial) length of the engine. In this regard, claim 13 requires that “a portion” of the high-pressure turbine overlaps with the acoustic treatment along the length of the engine. Claims App. Bouchard’s panels 40 of inner shroud 27 are disposed longitudinally aft of the high pressure turbine section. Bouchard, ¶ 14, Figs. 1–3. As illustrated in Figures 2 and 3, inner shroud 27 with panels 40 begins proximal to mounting flange 39 and struts 31 and extends aft to tail cone 35. Id. at Figs. 2–3. As illustrated in Figure 1, struts 31 and inner shroud 27 are disposed aft of high pressure turbine section 19 with no axial or lengthwise overlap of even a portion of the turbine section. Id. at Fig. 1. After applying the correct claim construction, we determine that the Examiner’s findings of fact are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence and the Examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness is not well founded. We do not sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of claim 13. Claim 32 Claim 32 is an independent claim that, like claim 13, has a limitation directed to an acoustic treatment that is axially aligned with a portion of the high-pressure turbine section. Claims App. The Examiner’s rejection relies on the same erroneous findings of fact that we discuss above in connection with claim 13. For the same reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 32. Appeal 2019-003666 Application 13/739,493 6 Claims 23–25, 29–31, and 33 Claims 23–25, 29–31, and 33 depend either directly or indirectly, from either claim 13 or claim 32. Claims App. The Examiner’s rejection of these claims suffers from the same infirmity that we discuss above with respect to claims 13 and 32. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 23–25, 29–31, and 33. Unpatentability of Claims 24–28 and 34 over Combinations Based on Bouchard and Hurwitz These claims depend, directly or indirectly, from either claim 13 or claim 32 and are rejected over Bouchard and Hurwitz in combination with various other references. Final Act. 10–17. We have reviewed the additional cited art and the Examiner’s findings and we determine that these additional references do not cure the deficiencies we have noted above with respect to the rejection of claims 13 and 32. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 24–28 and 34. CONCLUSION Claims Rejected § References Affirmed Reversed 13, 23-25, 29-33 103 Bouchard, Hurwitz 13, 23- 25, 29-33 24, 25, 33 103 Bouchard, Hurwitz, Vauchel 24, 25, 34 26, 27 103 Bouchard, Hurwitz, Morin 26, 27 28, 34 103 Bouchard, Hurwitz, Seda 28, 34 34 103 Bouchard, Hurwitz, Vauchel, Seda 34 Overall Outcome 13, 23-34 REVERSED