14097462 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2018)

Ex Parte Carlucci et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 29, 2018

14097462 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/097,462 12/05/2013 89955 7590 05/31/2018 HONEYWELL/LKGLOBAL Patent Services 115 Tabor Road P.O.Box 377 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Gregory C. Carlucci 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. H0040602 (002.2751) 4035 EXAMINER PRAGER, JESSE M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2018 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): patentservices-us@honeywell.com DL-PMT-SM-IP@Honeywell.com honeywell@lkglobal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GREGORY C. CARLUCCI, GLENN ALEXANDER KNIGHT, JIM RUMBO, DENNIS D. LOOTS, ROGER PECKHAM, MARKO BACIC, and JAMES KENNETH HABERSTOCK Appeal2017-008736 Application 14/097,462 Technology Center 3700 Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 6-12, and 15-19, which are the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants identify the real party as Honeywell International, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2017-008736 Application 14/097 ,462 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of controlling turbine blade tip-to-static structure clearance in a gas turbine engine installed on an aircraft, comprising the steps of: processing mode control data to determine that a fuel- saving mode is enabled; processing aircraft data to determine that the aircraft gas turbine engine is generating a substantially constant thrust; minimizing the turbine blade tip-to-static structure clearance in the aircraft gas turbine engine to a minimum clearance upon determining that (i) the aircraft gas turbine engine is generating a substantially constant thrust and (ii) the fuel- saving mode is enabled; processing aircraft data to determine (i) aircraft speed and (ii) if a thrust level change is, or will be, requested by a triggering event; comparing the determined aircraft speed to a preset cruise speed to generate a speed error; changing the aircraft gas turbine engine thrust at a predetermined throttle rate limit when (i) the speed error exceeds a predetermined limit and (ii) the thrust level change is not, or will not be, requested by a triggering event, increasing the turbine blade tip-to-static structure clearance in the aircraft gas turbine engine from the minimum clearance to a predetermined clearance when the thrust level change is, or will be, requested by a triggering event; and preventing the change in aircraft gas turbine engine thrust until the predetermined clearance is achieved. Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). 2 Appeal2017-008736 Application 14/097 ,462 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 10-12, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Adibhatla (US 2014/0058644 Al, published Feb. 27, 2014). Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Adibhatla and Hershey (US 8,126,628 B2, issued Feb. 28, 2012). ANALYSIS Anticipation of claims 1, 2, 6-8, 10-12, 15, and 17-19 by Adibhatla The Examiner finds that Adibhatla discloses all limitations of the method of controlling turbine blade tip-to-static structure clearance in a gas turbine engine recited in claim 1, and the turbine blade tip-to-static structure clearance control system recited in claim 11. Final Act. 4, 7 (citing Adibhatla i-fi-134, 36, 37; Figs. 4, 6). In contrast, Appellants contend that Adibhatla does not disclose preventing a change in aircraft gas turbine engine thrust until the predetermined clearance is achieved, as required by claims 1 and 11. Appeal Br. 12. Rather, Appellants argue, Adibhatla discloses increasing engine speed at a reduced rate while simultaneously bathing the engine casing in hot or cool air to cause the casing to expand with the turbine blades. Id. at 13. In other words, Adibhatla allows for a gradual change in engine thrust while making changes to ultimately arrive at a desired clearance. Appellants' argument is persuasive. Adibhatla discloses that the engine control system "increases 606 engine speed at a reduced rate to limit thermal and mechanical expansion of the turbine blades 70 ... to cause casing 75 expansion to track expansion of the turbine blades 70, facilitating reducing the clearance between the turbine blades 70 and the engine casing 3 Appeal2017-008736 Application 14/097 ,462 75." Adibhatla i-f 41 (emphasis added; bolding removed); see also id. i-f 45, Fig. 6. We note the Examiner's reference to Adibhatla's disclosure of "removal of up to a nominal 3.7 mils of headroom" for the high-pressure turbine and "removal of up to a nominal 5.0 mils of headroom" for the low- pressure turbine. Ans. 3; see Adibhatla i-fi-136-37. However, the Examiner does not establish that "[t]his headroom which designers factor in for additional clearance to prevent a rub condition, as described in par. 34, must be provided before the anticipated thrust increase to prevent a rub event." See Ans. 3 (emphasis added). Thus, the Examiner fails to establish that Adibhatla discloses preventing a change in aircraft gas turbine engine thrust until the predetermined clearance is achieved, as required by claims 1 and 1 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 11, or of claims 2, 6- 8, 10, 12, 15, and 17-19 depending therefrom, as anticipated by Adibhatla. Obviousness of claims 9 and 16 over Adibhatla and Hershey Claims 9 and 16 depend from claims 1 and 11, respectively. This rejection relies upon the same erroneous finding with respect to Adibhatla as the rejection of claims 1 and 11 discussed supra. Final Act. 8-9. As the Examiner does not apply Hershey in a manner that cures this deficiency, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 16 for the same reason as for claims 1 and 11. DECISION We reverse the rejections of claims 1, 2, 6-12, and 15-19. REVERSED 4