Ex Parte Agrawal et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 21, 201613271196 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/271,196 10/11/2011 74187 7590 06/23/2016 Carlson, Gaskey, & Olds, P,C,/Sikorsky 400 West Maple Road, Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Rajendra K. Agrawal 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. CONFIRMATION NO. PA4378US;67008-255PUS1 1034 EXAMINER SUNG, GERALD LUTHER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/23/2016 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 cgolaw@yahoo.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAJENDRA K. AGRAWAL and GREGORY E. REINHARDT Appeal2014-005727 Application 13/271,196 Technology Center 3700 Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JILL D. HILL, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. HILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Rajendra K. Agrawal and Gregory E. Reinhardt ("Appellants") appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-8 and 21-31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appeal2014-005727 Application 13/271,196 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Independent claims 1, 27, and 29 are directed to a method of powering a rotary-wing aircraft. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method of powering a rotary-wing aircraft, comprising: selectively coupling and uncoupling a first power turbine which drives a rotor system and a second power turbine which drives a secondary propulsion system to change a power distribution between the rotor system and the secondary propulsion system, wherein exhaust gas from the first power turbine is free to move to the second power turbine when the first and second power turbines are both coupled and uncoupled, wherein work is extracted from the second power turbine to drive the secondary propulsion system when coupled to the first power turbine and negligible work is extracted from the second power turbine to drive the secondary propulsion system when uncoupled from the first power turbine. REJECTIONS I. Claims 30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, as being of improper dependent form. II. Claims 1-8 and 21-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. ANALYSIS Rejection I The Examiner finds that claims 30 and 31 are of improper dependent form because both claims depend from non-existent claim 32. Final Act. 2. Appellants do not contest this rejection and instead respond that the improper dependency is due to a typographical error that they will amend. 2 Appeal2014-005727 Application 13/271,196 Appeal Br. 6. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the rejection of claims 30 and 31. Rejection II Regarding independent claims 1, 27, and 29, and therefore the claims depending therefrom, the Examiner finds that the phrase "negligible work" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear what constitutes "negligible work." Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner reasons that there must a difference in pressure across second power turbine 22, i.e., a difference between the pressure in chamber 52 (P2) and the pressure at the downstream end of second power turbine 22 (P3); however there is no guidance regarding how much pressure difference results in "negligible work." Final Act. 4; Ans. 6. Appellants argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the meaning of the term "negligible work" because the Specification explains this phrase in detail. Appeal Br. 4--5; Reply Br. 1-2. The Specification explains that the "pressure differential [between P2 and P3] is 'approximately equal to zero and negligible work is extracted from the second power turbine 22'," such that "pusher propeller 16 is free to windmill." Appeal Br. 4--5; Reply Br. 2 (citing Spec. i-f 22). In other words, "negligible work" requires a pressure differential between P2 and P3 to be approximately equal to zero so that the pusher propeller is not driven but may windmill. Reply Br. 2. Appellants have the better argument. The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is whether "those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification." Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F .2d 3 Appeal2014-005727 Application 13/271,196 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). In the present case, the term "negligible" is a term of degree, and terms of degree are not necessarily indefinite if the specification provides some standard for measuring that degree. See Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 201 O); Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F .2d 818 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Here, the Specification explains that when retractable port 46 is retracted, pressure chamber 52 is open to passage 54, which is open to the atmosphere, and this results in pressure P2 in pressure chamber 52 becoming approximately equal to ambient pressure PA. Spec. i-f 22; Fig. 2A. In this configuration, pressure P3 at the downstream end of second power turbine 22 is exposed to the atmosphere and also becomes approximately equal to pressure PA, which results in a pressure differential between P2 and P3, i.e., the pressure differential across second power turbine 22, of approximately zero. Id. In other words, negligible work is extracted from second power turbine 22 when the pressure differential (Pz---P3) across second power turbine 22 is approximately zero, because both of the pressures are approximately equal to ambient pressure PA. See id. "Due to the negligible pressure differential, pusher propeller 16 is not driven by combustion gas Aa and is free to 'windmill' in the atmosphere as helicopter 12 travels." Spec. i-f 22. Thus, the Specification provides sufficient guidance such that those skilled in the art would understand the meaning of the phrase "negligible work" as used in independent claims 1, 27, and 29. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-8 and 21-31 as indefinite. 4 Appeal2014-005727 Application 13/271,196 DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 30 and 31under35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph. We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8 and 21-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation