Ex Parte Ackermann et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 5, 2019

13366445 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 5, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/366,445 02/06/2012 William K. Ackermann
54549 7590 06/07/2019
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
67097-1744PUS1;
61350US02
CONFIRMATION NO.
2143
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, ANDREW H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/07/2019 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 WILLIAM K. ACKERMANN and PHILIP S. STRIPINIS
Appeal2017-007989 1
Application 13/366,445 2
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, BEVERLYM. BUNTING, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-8, 12, 15-17, 21-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Jan. 18,
2017), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed May 5, 2017), the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Mar. 7, 2017), and the Final Office Action ("Final
Act.," mailed Aug. 18, 2016).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is United Technologies
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-007989
Application 13/366,445
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, the "disclosure relates to a gas turbine
engine, and more particularly to a buffer system that can communicate a
buffer supply air to multiple portions of the gas turbine engine." Spec. ,r 2.
CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 12 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A gas turbine engine, comprising:
a buffer system, wherein said buffer system includes:
a first bleed air supply;
a conditioning device that conditions said first bleed air
supply to render a buffer supply air at an acceptable temperature
for pressurizing at least one bearing structure and at least a
portion of anti-icing hardware of a fan section of the gas turbine
engine, wherein separate buffer supply airs are communicated to
said at least one bearing structure and said at least a portion of
anti-icing hardware;
a sensor configured to detect a flight condition of the gas
turbine engine; and
a controller configured to control operation of said
conditioning device and command communication of said buffer
supply air to said anti-icing hardware in response to detection of
said flight condition.
Appeal Br. 11.
2
Appeal2017-007989
Application 13/366,445
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-7, 12, 21-23, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Olivarez3 in view of Jenkinson, 4 Barcza, 5
and Norris. 6
2. The Examiner rejects claims 8, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Olivarez in view of Jenkinson, Barcza, Norris, and
Grabowski. 7
3. The Examiner rejects claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Olivarez in view of Jenkinson, Barcza, Norris, and
Seda. 8
4. The Examiner rejects claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Olivarez in view of Jenkinson, Barcza, Norris, and
Bowman. 9
DISCUSSION
As an initial matter, we note that the Board previously issued a
Decision on appeal with respect to this application. See Decision on Appeal,
mailed Nov. 13, 2015. We do not further address this prior decision because
the issues addressed in the prior decision are not applicable to the issues
presented in the current appeal.
3 Olivarez et al., US 2012/0210721 Al, pub. Aug. 23, 2012.
4 Jenkinson, US 5,611,661, iss. Mar. 18, 1997.
5 Barcza, US 5,573,378, iss. Nov. 12, 1996.
6 Norris et al., US 4,852,343, iss. Aug. 1, 1989.
7 Grabowski et al., US 2010/0162683 Al, pub. July 1, 2010.
8 Seda et al., US 6,732,502 B2, iss. May 11, 2004.
9 Bowman et al., US 2010/0164234 Al, pub. July 1, 2010.
3
Appeal2017-007989
Application 13/366,445
Rejection 1
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 12, 22, 23, and 26
Appellants address claims 1, 2, 5-7, 12, 22, 23, and 26 as a single
group. See Appeal Br. 3-8. We select claim 1 as representative of this
group, and claims 2, 5-7, 12, 22, 23, and 26 fall with claim 1.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Olivarez teaches an
engine with a fan section, a buffer system with a first bleed air supply, and a
conditioning device "that conditions said first bleed air supply to render a
buffer supply air at an acceptable temperature for pressurizing at least a first
structure and at least a second structure." Final Act. 2 (citing Olivarez Fig.
1, ,r,r 16-21 ). The Examiner acknowledges that Olivarez does not specify
that the engine is a gas turbine engine, that the first structure is a bearing
structure, or that the second structure is anti-icing hardware of a fan section.
Id. However, the Examiner relies on Jenkinson to show that "it was well
known in the art that gas turbine engines are used on aircraft and employ
bleed systems ... used in pressurizing bearing chambers." Id. ( citing
Jenkinson col. 1, 11. 8-19; col. 3, 11. 1--40). The Examiner also relies on
Barcza as showing that "[i]t was well known in the art that bleed air may be
used in anti-icing hardware of a fan section of the turbine." Id. (citing
Barcza col. 1, 11. 10-26). The Examiner determines that it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ these well-known
structures in Olivarez "in order to seal and cool bearings and to remove ice
from the fan." Id. at 2-3.
Next, the Examiner acknowledges that the art discussed above does
not "explicitly teach a sensor detecting a flight condition ... or a controller
configured to control operation of the conditioning device and command
4
Appeal2017-007989
Application 13/366,445
communication of the buffer supply air to the anti-icing hardware in
response to detection of the flight condition." Id. at 3. The Examiner finds
that "it was well known in the art to control flow of the air to the anti-icing
hardware as a function of sensing a certain flight condition, as taught by
Norris." Id. (citing Norris col. 3, 11. 5-57; col. 7, 1. I-col. 9, 1. 3). The
Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to
add a sensor to sense a flight condition and a controller to control the
conditioning device as claimed, based on the teachings of Norris, "in order
to efficiently utilize the bleed air." Id.
As discussed below, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
findings and conclusions made by the Examiner in the rejection of claim 1.
See Final Act. 2-3, 9; see also Ans. 2-5.
Appellants first argue that none of the cited references teach or
suggest a sensor configured to detect a flight condition as required by the
claim. Appeal Br. 4. In support, Appellants assert that the Examiner's
reliance on Norris is insufficient because Norris only "senses discrete
parameters associated with engine de-icing or anti-icing," which is different
from sensing flight conditions. Id. at 4--5. Appellants assert that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase "flight condition" requires
"consideration of multiple parameters" as opposed to individual parameters
addressed in Norris. Id. (citing Spec. ,r,r 37, 42, 43, 47, 48).
We are not persuaded. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of "flight condition" includes any
"condition experienced by the aircraft and/or gas turbine during flight."
Ans. 2. This interpretation of "flight condition" is consistent with the plain
meaning of the claim language and the manner in which the term is used in
5
Appeal2017-007989
Application 13/366,445
the Specification. For example, the Specification indicates that altitude, i.e.
a discrete parameter, may be considered a flight condition. See Spec. ,r 4 7
("Spinner anti-icing is generally required below an altitude of 22,000 feet ..
. although it can be provided at other flight conditions."). We agree with the
Examiner that Appellants have not explained adequately how sensing
temperatures, ice presence, or engine speed, as taught by Norris, are
different from sensing conditions experienced by the aircraft or gas turbine
during flight. See Ans. 3. We agree with the Examiner that the
Specification does not provide a limiting definition of the term, and we find
that the portions of the Specification cited by Appellants do not provide an
indication that the term should be construed more narrowly to include a
multiple parameters.
Next, Appellants argue that Norris lacks a controller that controls
operation of a conditioning device and that Norris lacks any disclosure of a
conditioning device. Appeal Br. 5. More specifically, Appellants assert that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider a valve to be a
conditioning device. Id. Appellants assert that the Specification requires
that the conditioning device is "capable of conditioning bleed air to supply
buffer supply air at an acceptable temperature." Id. ( citing Specification ,r
44). We are not persuaded. We agree with the Examiner that Norris
discloses a controller that controls the operation of a valve to provide bleed
air based on a sensed condition. See Ans. 3 (citing Norris col. 3, 11. 15-57).
Further, to the extent Appellants argue that Norris's valve is not a
conditioning device as claimed, this argument against Norris individually
fails to address the rejection before us, which relies on Olivarez as disclosing
a conditioning device that conditions bleed air supply. Specifically, the
6
Appeal2017-007989
Application 13/366,445
Examiner identifies heat exchanger 28 and valves 40, 30, and 32 in Olivarez
as the claimed conditioning device. Final Act. 2, 9. The Examiner further
explains that the combination would employ a controller to control operation
of the valve, which is a part of the conditioning device, and thus, "the
combination includes a controller that controls operation of the conditioning
device." Id. at 9.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner has not provided a reasoned
explanation to support the rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 6. Appellants
assert that the Examiner only states that the combination would efficiently
utilize bleed air without explanation and in disregard of the significant
complexity and cost the modification would require, without adding any
benefit to Olivarez. Id. at 6-7. We are not persuaded of reversible error by
this argument. The Examiner explains in the Answer that Norris describes
various benefits for adding a controller configured as claimed, i.e. Norris
teaches that it would result in improved engine performance, decreased fuel
consumption, lowered turbine temperatures, and increased engine life.
Ans. 4. We agree. Norris discloses that "[t]he effect of managing the flow
of heated bleed air ... by means of the electronic control [] and pulsed
solenoid valve" is that "only so much heated air as required ... is directed to
air ducting, ... which result[ s in] improved engine performance, decreased
fuel consumption, lowered turbine temperatures, and increased engine life."
Norris col. 8, 11. 10-23. Based on this disclosure, we agree with the
Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a sufficient
reason to further modify Olivarez to incorporate a controller as taught by
Norris.
7
Appeal2017-007989
Application 13/366,445
Finally, Appellants argue that modifying Olivarez as proposed would
render it "unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and change its basic
principal of operation." Appeal Br. 7. Specifically, Appellants argue that
"Olivarez is designed to control the amount of flow delivered to each
consumer based on the importance of each of the consumers." Id.
Appellants assert that this function would be removed if the system "was
changed to deliver bleed air in response to detected flight conditions instead
of based on the importance of each consumer." Id. We disagree. We fail to
see why the proposed modification would alter any critical function of
Olivarez. Rather, as explained by the Examiner, one of ordinary skill in the
art could "easily ... incorporate [Norris's] control structure into the existing
control of Olivarez because if icing conditions are sensed, the 'consumer'
anti-icing system would necessarily be assigned a higher importance than
when icing conditions are not sensed." Ans. 4--5.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection
of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. For the same
reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 5-7, 12, 22, 23, and 26, which
fall with claim 1.
Claims 3 and 4
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and requires that the anti-icing
hardware of the fan section includes a spinner. Appeal Br. 11. Claim 3
depends from claim 2 and further requires that the buffer supply air is
communicated to an interior portion of the spinner. Id. Claim 4 depends
from claim 3 and further requires that the system includes a passageway to
communicate buffer supply air from the buffer system to the interior portion
of the spinner. Id.
8
Appeal2017-007989
Application 13/366,445
The Examiner relies on Barcza as providing teachings regarding the
limitations of claims 2--4. Final Act. 3. Specifically, the Examiner finds that
Barcza teaches a "heated nosecone [that] can be a spinner" and that buffer
supply air is communicated to the interior portion of the nosecone via a
passageway. Id. (citing Barcza col. 1, 11. 10-55; col. 2, 11. 1-10, 49-57).
Further, the Examiner notes that "Barcza [ discloses that] bleed air flows
from the outer plenum 15, through the strut, and to the hub and nose cone"
and that bleed air must necessarily flow in the interior of the nose cone
because if it was only flowing on the outside it would immediately be
washed downstream and would never reach the nose cone. Ans. 5.
As discussed below, we are not persuaded of error by Appellants'
arguments.
Appellants argue that "Barcza only appears to heat the outside of the
hub 12 and nose cone 16" because "[t]he 'compressor bleed air' ... is stated
as being located in the fan hub 12, which is separate from the nose cone 16,
and is not described as performing any de-icing functions." Appeal Br. 8
(emphasis omitted). Further, Appellants note that Barcza discloses that "[a]
strut 17 supports the inlet end of the fan 14 and connects the plenum to the
hub 12, an arrangement that heats the outside of the inlet, the strut, the hub
and the nose cone." Reply Br. 4 (quoting Barcza col. 2, 11. 7-10).
We disagree with Appellants. Although Barcza discloses "an
arrangement that heats the outside of the inlet, the strut, the hub, and the
nose cone," we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
that Barzca also teaches providing buffer supply air to the interior of the
nose cone. See Barcza col. 2, 11. 1-20. Barcza later discloses clips 32
included with cap screws that are inserted into holes 18 of the nosecone for
9
Appeal2017-007989
Application 13/366,445
attaching the nosecone to the hub. Id. at col. 2, 11. 42-52. Barcza discloses
that when the cap screws are fully installed and the installation tool is
removed, section 44 of each clip "springs back" into a position that "restricts
air from entering the hub through the access hole 18 and compressor bleed
air in the hub from escaping." Id. This disclosure shows that bleed air, i.e.
buffer supply air, is present in the interior of the nose cone and hub. Thus,
we agree with the Examiner that Barcza indicates that buffer supply air is
communicated to the interior of the nosecone, i.e. the spinner, as required by
the claims.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 4.
Claims 21 and 25
Claims 21 and 25 depend from claims 1 and 12, respectively, and
further require that "buffer supply air is communicated in a downstream
direction to condition other portions of the gas turbine engine separate from
said bearing structure" and hardware. Appeal Br. 13. The Examiner finds
that Jenkinson discloses providing buffer supply air "downstream into pipe
16, ejector 18, pipe 19, [and] oil separator 20." Final Act. 6 (citing
Jenkinson Figure).
We are persuaded of Examiner error by Appellants' argument that the
air flow relied upon in Jenkinson flows in an upstream direction relative to
the gas turbine engine. Appeal Br. 8. These claims require that "air is
communicated in a downstream direction," which we interpret to refer to the
direction of flow in relation to the gas turbine engine. This interpretation is
consistent with the Specification, which describes the flow path of air
through the engine from the fan section toward the turbine section and also
specifically discloses that flow toward the spinner 45 is in the upstream
10
Appeal2017-007989
Application 13/366,445
direction and flow in the opposite direction is in the downstream direction
and may be used to condition other parts of the engine. See Spec. ,r 30, 45.
In contrast, the Examiner interprets the phrase "downstream direction" to
only refer to the flow path of the buffer supply air without relation to the
engine as a whole. However, all air that flows would necessarily flow in the
downstream direction, which would render the claim phrase superfluous.
"[I]nterpretations that render some portion of the claim language superfluous
are disfavored." Power Mosfet Techs., L.L.C. v. Siemens AG, 378 F.3d
1396, 1410 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Based on the foregoing, we find that the other
portions of the engine in Jenkinson identified by the Examiner as being
conditioned by the buffer supply are provided in the upstream direction
relative to the engine. Thus, we are persuaded of error and we do not sustain
this rejection.
Rejection 2
With respect to the rejection of claims 8, 15, and 16 here, Appellants
do not provide separate arguments. Rather, Appellants argue only that
Grabowski does not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claims 1 and 12.
Appeal Br. 8-9. Having found not such deficiencies, we also sustain the
rejection of claims 8, 15, and 16 here, for the reasons discussed above.
Rejection 3
Claims 16 and 17
Claim 16 depends from claim 12 and further requires that the engine
is "a high bypass geared aircraft engine having a bypass ratio of greater than
six," and Claim 1 7 depends from claim 12 and further requires that the
engine "includes a low Fan Pressure Ratio of less than 1.45." Appeal Br. 12.
The Examiner finds that "it was well known in the art to provide a bypass
11
Appeal2017-007989
Application 13/366,445
ratio of greater than 6 and a fan pressure ratio of less than 1.45, as taught by
Seda." Final Act. 8 ( citing Seda Abstract). The Examiner determines that it
would have been obvious to modify the art of record to include the claimed
ratios as a matter of design choice and optimization. Id. Appellants state:
In addition, Seda discloses a bypass ratio between 5 and
15 but not with respect to a "high bypass geared aircraft engine,"
and also discloses an operational fan pressure ratio between 1.4
and 2.5 but not a "low" fan pressure ratio of less than 1.45.
Claims 16-17 are not obvious for these additional reasons.
Appeal Br. 9. However, Appellants fail to explain adequately why this
shows error in the rejection. Further, Seda discloses that the invention is
related to "[l]arge modem commercial turbofan engines ... with higher
bypass ratio configurations," and one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that these include geared aircraft engines, including those with
high bypass ratios, as claimed. See Seda col. 1, 11. 43---60; see also Ans. 6-7
(explaining how Seda's disclosed engine may be considered a geared
engine). Further, we agree with the Examiner that Seda teaches the claimed
"low Fan Pressure Ratio" and Appellants do not point to anything in the
claims or the Specification indicating otherwise. See Ans. 7. Accordingly,
we are not persuaded of error, and we sustain the rejection of claims 16 and
17 here.
Rejection 4
Appellants do not present separate arguments with respect to the
rejection of claims 23 and 24 and assert only that Bowman does not cure the
deficiencies in the rejection of claims 1 and 12. Appeal Br. 10. As
discussed above, we find no deficiencies in the rejection of the independent
claims, and thus, we also sustain the rejection of claims 23 and 24.
12
Appeal2017-007989
Application 13/366,445
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1-8, 12, 15-17, 22-24, and 26.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 21 and 25.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
13