William H. Lukens et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 22, 2020

14616121 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 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.
14/616,121 02/06/2015 William H. Lukens 77718US02 9543
87521 7590 01/22/2020
Cantor Colburn LLP - Hamilton Sundstrand
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
MAY, ELIZABETH M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3762
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/22/2020 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte WILLIAM H. LUKENS, LYNN M. ROG,
PAUL M. D’ORLANDO, FRANCESCO A. DEVITA,
JOHN T. GATZURAS, and WILLIAM D. HOYT
__________________

Appeal 2019-001081
Application 14/616,121
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES P. CALVE, and
MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 1–15. Appeal Br. 6. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation as the real party in interest. See
Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2019-001081
Application 14/616,121

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. An aircraft environmental conditioning system,
comprising
an air cycle machine for conditioning an airflow comprising hot
compressed air by reducing its temperature and pressure to produce
conditioned, pressurized air in a delivery conduit to a pressurized area
of the aircraft, the air cycle machine disposed in a housing in an
unpressurized area of the aircraft;
a smoke sensor disposed within the conduit or within the
housing external to the conduit; and
a controller in communication with the smoke sensor,
configured to respond to detection of smoke by the smoke sensor.

REJECTIONS2
Claims 1–3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Drew (US 5,511,385, iss. Apr. 30, 1996), Space (US 7,871,038 B2, iss. Jan.
18, 2011), and Le (US 2015/0099444 A1, pub. Apr. 9, 2015).
Claims 1, 4, and 6–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Drew, Space, and Rotta (US 7,119,700 B2, iss. Oct. 10,
2006).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Drew,
Space, Le, and Rotta.
Claims 10–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Drew, Space, and Rotta.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Drew, Space, Rotta, and Le.

2 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for
indefiniteness and a rejection of claims 2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) for
failing to further limit claim 1. Ans. 17.
Appeal 2019-001081
Application 14/616,121

3
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–3 Rejected over Drew, Space, and Le
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Drew teaches an aircraft
environmental conditioning system with air cycle machine 116, temperature
sensor 352 disposed in a delivery conduit to a pressurized area of the aircraft
(entrance duct 292), and controller 364, but the air cycle machine is not in a
housing in an unpressurized area of the aircraft and it lacks a smoke sensor.
Non-Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner cites Space to teach it is known to locate
aircraft environmental control systems in a housing in an unpressurized area
of an aircraft. Id. at 5. The Examiner cites Le to teach the use of a smoke
sensor within a delivery conduit of an aircraft environmental control system
to detect smoke generated by fan 304 due to overheating. Id.; Ans. 18.
Appellant argues that Space and Le fail to teach “a smoke sensor in
the delivery conduit from the air cycle machine to the pressurized area of the
aircraft” as claimed. Reply Br. 2 (“Le’s smoke sensor 326 is clearly located
downstream of the circulation mixing manifold 300, not in the un-numbered
delivery conduit from air cycle machine 316.”); see Appeal Br. 12–13 (“Le’s
smoke sensor 326 is on the pressurized side of the aircraft with circulation
manifold 300, separated from the unpressurized ECS pack 316 by the
unnumbered check valve shown in Fig. 3 adjacent to the ECS pack 316.”).
In response, the Examiner agrees that Drew, Space, and Le lack a
smoke sensor in a delivery conduit in an unpressurized area of the aircraft.
Ans. 18. The Examiner interprets claim 1 to encompass a smoke sensor
located anywhere “in a delivery conduit to a pressurized area of the aircraft”
rather than being located only in a portion of a delivery conduit that itself is
located in an unpressurized area of the aircraft as Appellant asserts. Id.
Appeal 2019-001081
Application 14/616,121

4
Claim 1 recites “an air cycle machine . . . to produce conditioned,
pressurized air in a delivery conduit to a pressurized area of the aircraft, the
air cycle machine disposed in a housing in an unpressurized area of the
aircraft; a smoke sensor disposed within the conduit or within the housing
external to the conduit.” Thus, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1
does not require the smoke sensor to be disposed in any specific portion of
the delivery conduit, such as a portion that is located within an unpressurized
area of the aircraft. This interpretation is consistent with the Specification,
which describes smoke sensor 154 disposed in conduit 145, which extends
from environmental air conditioning system 100 in an unpressurized housing
105 through bulkhead 110 to a pressurized area of the aircraft. Spec. ¶¶ 8,
11, Fig. 1.3 Appellant’s drawing shows smoke sensor 154 in conduit 145
going to a pressurized section (and on a pressurized side of bulkhead 110),
but claim 1 only requires a smoke sensor to be disposed within a delivery
conduit to a pressurized area. Spec. Fig. 1. Claim 1 does not require this
portion of the delivery conduit to be in a pressurized or unpressurized area.
We interpret the plain language of claim 1 without reading unclaimed
features into it. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.3d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Appellant does not offer a contrary interpretation but instead argues
the determination of whether or not the claims are obvious over
the cited references does not depend on the precise location of
the smoke sensor with respect to the bulkhead separating the
pressurized and unpressurized areas of the aircraft, but whether
it would have been obvious to locate a smoke sensor in a
delivery conduit from the air cycle machine to the pressurized
area of the aircraft as specified by claims 1 and 10.

3 The Specification includes a single drawing, which is not labelled. We
refer to it as Figure 1 or Fig. 1.
Appeal 2019-001081
Application 14/616,121

5
Reply Br. 2. Appellant also argues that “Le’s smoke sensor 326 is on the
pressurized side of the aircraft with circulation manifold 300.” Appeal Br.
12–13; Reply Br. 2 (Le’s smoke sensor 326 is downstream of manifold 300).
If Le’s smoke sensor 326 is located on a pressurized side of manifold
300, as Appellant asserts, Le teaches a smoke sensor in a delivery conduit to
a pressurized area of the aircraft, as claimed. Ans. 18. This is so because
Le’s recirculation duct 302 delivers conditioned airflow from manifold 300
to return air compartment 106, which Appellant asserts is a pressurized side
of manifold 300. This arrangement is shown in Figure 3 reproduced below.

Figure 3 of Le shows manifold 300 receiving air from air conditioning
pack 316. Le ¶¶ 21–22. Recirculation duct 302 extends from manifold 300
to return air compartment 106, which Appellant asserts is a pressurized area.
Appeal Br. 12–13. Conditioned air in manifold 300, which includes air from
air conditioning pack 316, is delivered by fan 304 through duct 302 and
filter 314 to return air compartment 106. Le ¶¶ 21–22. Smoke sensor 326
detects smoke passing through recirculation duct 302. Id. ¶ 23.
Appeal 2019-001081
Application 14/616,121

6
Because recirculation duct 302 is a delivery conduit for conditioned
air to a pressurized area of the aircraft, namely return air compartment 106,
Le teaches a smoke sensor in a delivery conduit to a pressurized area of the
aircraft as claimed. See Non-Final Act. 5; Ans. 18.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to a skilled
artisan to use Le’s teaching to dispose a smoke sensor in a delivery conduit
to detect smoke, e.g., when a fan overheats and generates smoke, for similar
benefits in Drew’s environmental conditioning system as modified by Space
to be located in an unpressurized housing, “to ensure that the environmental
conditioning system is functioning and not in a state of equipment failure.”
Non-Final Act. 5–6. The Examiner’s determination is supported by rational
underpinnings based on the teachings in Le of these benefits. See Le ¶ 23;
see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a
technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
beyond his or her skill.”).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that “the references do not provide
any disclosure that would motivate or lead the skilled person to locate a
smoke sensor in an air cycle machine delivery conduit.” Appeal Br. 13.
Appellant does not explain why the Examiner’s findings and reasoning
discussed above are in error. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (the Appeal
Brief “shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection
contested by appellant.”); In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(approving of the Board’s long-standing practice under its rules to require an
applicant to identify the alleged error in an examiner’s rejections).
Appeal 2019-001081
Application 14/616,121

7
Appellant does not dispute that Le’s smoke sensor 326 is within a
conduit but argues that the conduit is not an air cycle machine delivery
conduit from the air cycle machine to a pressurized area of the aircraft. See
Appeal Br. 12–13; Reply Br. 2. This argument ignores Le’s teaching that
recirculation duct 302 delivers air from manifold 300 (and air conditioning
pack 316, which feeds conditioned air to manifold 300 as discussed above)
to return air compartment 106 (Le ¶ 22), which Appellant asserts would be
understood by a skilled person “to be located in the pressurized area of the
aircraft” (Appeal Br. 13). Thus, Le teaches a smoke sensor in a delivery
conduit to a pressurized area of the aircraft as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent
claims 2 and 3, which are not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 11–13;
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claims 1, 4, and 6–9 Rejected over Drew, Space, and Rotta
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Drew teaches an aircraft
environmental conditioning system including air cycle machine 116, but the
air cycle machine is not disposed in a housing in an unpressurized area of
the aircraft, and Drew lacks a smoke sensor disposed in the housing external
to the conduit. Non-Final Act. 7–8. The Examiner cites Space to teach that
it is known to locate an environmental control system (ECS) in a housing in
an unpressurized area of an aircraft. Id. at 8 (citing external air supply
device 120 in Figure 1). The Examiner relies on Rotta to teach an Aircraft
Cooling and Smoke System (ACSS) 10 with a smoke sensor used to control
smoke detection and ventilation systems in overhead crown area 20 and
lower lobe area 22 with a controller configured to respond to smoke
detection by the smoke sensor in those areas. Id. at 8–9; Ans. 19.
Appeal 2019-001081
Application 14/616,121

8
In response, Appellant argues that Rotta’s teaching to include a smoke
sensor in overhead crown area 20 or lower lobe area 22 would not motivate
a skilled artisan to locate a smoke sensor in an air cycle machine delivery
conduit or in an unpressurized housing outside of the delivery conduit, as it
is not clear whether those areas are pressurized. Appeal Br. 14.
The Examiner has the better position. Space places an aircraft ECS
(external air supply 120 and an air-conditioning pack) in an unpressurized
area of an aircraft to receive external air that can include engine bleed air.
Space, 3:12–63; Non-Final Act. 8. Appellant agrees that it is known to place
an air cycle machine in an unpressurized area of an aircraft. Appeal Br. 12,
14; see also Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 1354
(Fed. Cir. 2003) (“This court and its predecessor have held that a statement
by an applicant during prosecution identifying certain matter not the work of
the inventor as ‘prior art’ is an admission that the matter is prior art.”).
Rotta places aircraft cooling and smoke systems 10 in overhead crown
area 20 and lower lobe area 22 to control smoke detection and ventilation
systems for electronic equipment that is installed in any area of aircraft 12 to
include those AREAS 1 and 2. Rotta, 4:49–67, Fig. 1. The system and its
smoke sensors detect smoke events and identify cooling faults in those areas.
Id. at 4:64–67; Non-Final Act. 8–9. The Examiner reasons that a skilled
artisan would be motivated to place such a smoke sensor in a system housing
external to an airflow conduit, as Rotta teaches, and in the same or similar
areas of an aircraft, which Space teaches are unpressurized areas, for similar
benefits and predictable results of detecting smoke events of the air cycle
machine, ECS pack, and other electronic equipment. Non-Final Act. 9; Ans.
19; Rotta, 4:49–67, 5:49–6:22, Fig. 4; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Appeal 2019-001081
Application 14/616,121

9
As with the previous rejection, Appellant admits it is known in the art
to dispose an air cycle machine or ECS pack in an unpressurized area of an
aircraft. Appeal Br. 14. Such an admission that the prior art encompasses a
claim limitation may be relied on to find claim 1 obvious. Dow Chem. Co.
v. Mee Indus., Inc., 341 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (admission that
prior art encompasses a claim limitation supported obviousness with other
prior art); see In re Gardner, 449 F. App’x 914, 916 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-
precedential) (holding Board’s reliance on applicant’s disclosure that prior
art battery was a fast charge-discharge battery as proper citing Dow Chem.).
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to a skilled
artisan to locate Drew’s aircraft ECS in an unpressurized area as taught by
Space because combining such familiar elements by known methods to yield
predictable results is obvious. Non-Final Act. 8; see also Space, 3:12–56
(external air supply device 120 is positioned to receive air from the exterior
of the aircraft and supply a portion of the external air to interior volume 106
of the aircraft as supply air). The Examiner’s determination is supported by
rational underpinnings based on Appellant’s admission that this arrangement
is known and Space’s teachings. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416–417. Appellant does
not provide evidence of unpredictability or unexpected results. Appeal Br.
14. The Specification discloses that smoke sensors are used in the housing
and delivery conduit to detect smoke emanating from different portions of
the air cycle machine indicating impending or actual equipment failure. See
Spec. ¶ 11. The smoke sensor can be any known type of sensor. Id.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Rotta places a
smoke sensor in a system housing external to an airflow conduit. Appeal Br.
13–14; Reply Br. 2; see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365.
Appeal 2019-001081
Application 14/616,121

10
“Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings
of multiple patents . . . to determine whether there was an apparent reason to
combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.”
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. As discussed above, Drew teaches to place sensors in
delivery conduits to a pressurized area. Space teaches advantages of placing
ECS packs in an unpressurized area of an aircraft to obtain and condition
external air for such pressurized areas. Rotta teaches to place smoke sensors
in housings of such ECS packs to detect smoke and equipment failure.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its
dependent claims 4 and 6–9, which are not argued separately.
Claim 5 Rejected over Drew, Space, Le, and Rotta
Dependent claim 5 recites a smoke sensor disposed in the delivery
conduit and a smoke sensor disposed in the housing external to the delivery
conduit. Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). The Examiner cites Drew, Space,
Le, and Rotta to teach these features based on the findings and reasoning set
forth in the previous rejections. Non-Final Act. 12–13. Appellant argues
that claim 5 is patentable for the same reasons as claims 2 and 4, which
together recite the subject matter of claim 5. Appeal Br. 15. This argument
is not persuasive because the Examiner relies on Drew, Space, and Le to
teach “the smoke sensor is disposed within the delivery conduit” for claim 2.
Non-final Act. 6. The Examiner relies on Drew, Space, and Rotta to teach
“the smoke sensor is disposed within the housing external to the delivery
conduit” for claim 4. Id. at 9–10. The rejection of claim 5 relies on the
teachings of Le and Rotta in conjunction with those of Drew and Space to
render obvious smoke sensors in a delivery conduit and in a housing
external to the delivery conduit as claimed. Id. at 12–13.
Appeal 2019-001081
Application 14/616,121

11
The Examiner’s reason for combining teachings of Drew, Space, Le,
and Rotta are based on rational underpinnings based on the teachings of the
references of the benefits of enclosing an ECS housing in an unpressurized
area with smoke sensors in a delivery conduit and a housing external to the
delivery conduit as discussed above. See id. at 12–13. Appellant has not
apprised us of Examiner error in this regard. Thus, we sustain the rejection
of claim 5.
Claims 10–13 Rejected over Drew, Space, and Rotta
Independent claim 10 recites a method of operating an environmental
conditioning system by operating an air cycle machine that is disposed in a
housing in an unpressurized area of the aircraft to produce conditioned,
pressurized air in a delivery conduit to a pressurized area of the aircraft and
monitoring the output of a smoke sensor disposed in the delivery conduit or
within the housing external to the conduit. Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.).
The Examiner relies on teachings of Drew, Space, and Rotta as set forth
above for the second rejection of claim 1. Non-Final Act. 13–15; Ans. 19.
Appellant raises the same arguments that were asserted for the
rejection of claim 1 based on the teachings of those references. See Appeal
Br. 13–16. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed
above for claim 1 and its similar limitations. We thus sustain the rejection of
claim 10 and claims 11–13, which are not argued separately.
Claims 14 and 15 Rejected over Drew, Space, Rotta, and Le
The Examiner relies on Le to teach a smoke sensor 326 disposed in a
delivery conduit (recirculation duct 302) of airflow control system 102 as
recited in claims 14 and 15, which depend from claim 10. Non-Final Act.
18.
Appeal 2019-001081
Application 14/616,121

12
Appellant argues that Le’s smoke sensor 326 is on the pressurized
side of the aircraft with circulation manifold 300 and is separated from the
unpressurized ECS pack 316 by an unnumbered check valve in Figure 3 and
therefore none of the references would motivate a skilled artisan to locate a
smoke sensor in an air cycle machine delivery conduit or in an unpressurized
housing around the delivery conduit as claimed. Appeal Br. 17.
We addressed this argument for the rejection of claim 1 and find it to
be unpersuasive for the rejection of claims 14 and 15 for the same reasons.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 15.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§  
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3 103 Drew, Space, Le 1–3
1, 4, 6–9 103 Drew, Space, Rotta 1, 4, 6–9
5 103 Drew, Space, Le,
Rotta
5
10–13 103 Drew, Space, Rotta 10–13
14, 15 103 Drew, Space,
Rotta, Le
14, 15
Overall
Outcome
1–15
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