Ex Parte Davis et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 201713304053 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/304,053 11/23/2011 Todd A. Davis PA18720U;67097-1628PUS1 2303 54549 7590 04/04/2017 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER PRAGER, JESSE M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/04/2017 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 TODD A. DAVIS, GREGORY E. REINHARDT, and ENZO DIBENEDETTO Appeal 2015-005237 Application 13/304,053 Technology Center 3700 Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Todd A. Davis et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) claims 1—7, 9, 11—13, 16—18, and 20-28 as anticipated by DiBenedetto (US 2011/0047959 Al; pub. Mar. 3, 2011) and to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claims 1—5, 9—13, 21—23, and 25—27 as unpatentable over Coplin (US 4,827,712; iss. May 9, 1989), Sheridan ’018 (US 2008/0006018 Al; pub. Jan. 10, 2008), and Adamson (US 4,916,894; iss. Apr. 17, 1990); (2) claims 6, 7, and 16 as unpatentable over Coplin, Sheridan ’018, Adamson, and Sheridan ’674 (US 5,433,674; iss. July 18, 1995); (3) claims Appeal 2015-005237 Application 13/304,053 29 and 30 as unpatentable over Coplin, Sheridan ’018, Adamson, and Orlando (US 2008/0098715 Al; pub. May 1, 2008); (4) claims 17, 18, 20, 24, and 28 as unpatentable over Coplin and Sheridan ’018; and (5) claim 31 as unpatentable over Coplin, Sheridan ’018, and Orlando. Claims 8, 14, 15, and 19 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter “relates to a gas turbine engine, and in particular, to a case structure therefor.” Spec. 12; Figs. 5, 6. Claims 1,11, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites: 1. A gas turbine engine comprising: a low pressure compressor along an axis; a first bearing system which at least partially supports an inner shaft along said axis; a second bearing system which at least partially supports an outer shaft along said axis, the second bearing system positioned upstream from inlet stage vanes of a high pressure compressor; and a low pressure compressor hub mounted to said inner shaft, said low pressure compressor hub extends forwardly to said low pressure compressor between said first bearing system and said second bearing system, wherein said low pressure compressor hub supports a plurality of stages of said low pressure compressor, wherein at least one of the plurality of stages is positioned axially between the first bearing system and the second bearing system, said inner shaft to drive a fan through a geared architecture. 2 Appeal 2015-005237 Application 13/304,053 ANALYSIS Anticipation by DiBenedetto Claims 1—7, 9, 11—IS, 16—18, and 20—28 Independent claim 1 is directed to a gas turbine engine including a low pressure compressor hub that is mounted to the inner shaft of the first bearing system and that extends forwardly to the low pressure compressor between the first bearing system and the second bearing system. See Appeal Br. 12, Claims App. The Examiner finds that the low pressure compressor hub “is shown on the RHS [right hand side] of Figure 2 [of DiBenedetto] and extends radially from the inward to the outside of the 1 st bearing, thus any bearing position downstream (at the high pressure compressor) would result in the hub extending between 1st bearing and the 2nd bearing.” Final Act. 2; see also id. at 4; Ans. 3, 20. Appellants contend that “[t]here is no compressor hub in [DiBenedetto] shown as extending in the manner of the claimed compressor hub. There is no compressor hub in [DiBenedetto] supported on an inner shaft that is supported by a first bearing system.” Appeal Br. 5; see also id. at 3^4. At the outset, we note that the Examiner does not specifically direct us to what the Examiner considers to represent the first bearing system. See Final Act. 4 and Ans. 3 (“a first bearing system (shown in Fig. 2) which at least partially supports an inner shaft (shown in Fig. 2) along said axis.”). We acknowledge that DiBenedetto discloses a low pressure compressor 20, which is illustrated on the right hand side of Figure 2. See DiBenedetto | 11, Fig. 2. However, DiBenedetto is silent as to a low pressure compressor hub. In this case, the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence to 3 Appeal 2015-005237 Application 13/304,053 establish that (1) “[t]he [low pressure] compressor hub is shown [as] being a separate element that is mounted to [the inner shaft of the first bearing system]'’'’; or (2) the low pressure compressor hub extends forwardly to the low pressure compressor between the first bearing system and the second bearing system, as claimed. See Final Act. 2 (emphasis added); see also id. at 4; Ans. 3, 20; Appeal Br. 3—5. “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Each of independent claims 11 and 17 are directed to a gas turbine engine and includes language similar to that discussed above for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 13, 14, Claims App. The Examiner relies on similar unsupported findings for claim 11 and 17 as those discussed above for claim 1. See Final Act. 5—7; see also Ans. 4—6. Thus, the Examiner’s findings with respect to DiBenedetto are deficient for claims 11 and 17 as well. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1,11, and 17 and their respective dependent claims 2—7, 9, 12, 13, 16, 18, and 20-28 as anticipated by DiBenedetto. Obviousness over Coplin, Sheridan ’018, and Adamson Claims 1—5, 9—13, 21—23, and 25—27 Appellants do not offer separate arguments in favor of independent claim 11 or dependent claims 2—5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 21—23, and 25—27 separate from those presented for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6—8. We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2—5, 9-13, 21—23, and 25—27 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 4 Appeal 2015-005237 Application 13/304,053 Independent claim 1 recites “at least one of the plurality of stages is positioned axially between the first bearing system.” Appeal Br. 12, Claims App. ; see also id. at 6. The Examiner relies on Sheridan ’018 for this limitation. See Final Act. 9; see also Ans. 7—8. Appellants contend that “Coplin teaches away from” the proposed modification with Sheridan ’018. Appeal Br. 7. In particular, Appellants contend that Coplin makes clear that the preferred booster rotor 94, which the Examiner relies on as teaching the claimed low pressure compressor, “only carries a single stage of blades 96.” This is critical to the design of Coplin because, in Coplin, the link between the fan and the core engine “must be minimized.” (See Coplin, column 6, lines 62—63.) Coplin teaches that the single stage of the booster compressor is an advantage. Coplin teaches that a single stage produces corresponding reductions in the length, weight and drag of the engine. (See Coplin, column 6, lines 26—30.) Id. Appellants conclude that “[gjiven Coplin’s specific teaching away from lengthening the booster compressor, a person having skill in this art would not think to modify the booster compressor to include more than one stage of blades.” Id. In response to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner maintains that Coplin also teaches having multiple stages. In particular, Coplin describes that “the booster compressor means comprising a plurality of wide chord blades arranged circumferentially on a rotor in one or more stages” (Col. 2, lines 11—14). Additionally Coplin discloses the features of the invention could be applied to a core engine with a lower pressure ratio where “the booster compressor ... would require more than one stage of wide chord blade, i.e. two, three or four stages” (Col. 8, lines 20-29). 5 Appeal 2015-005237 Application 13/304,053 Ans. 22; see also Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner’s findings and conclusions are supported by the record and based on rational underpinnings. Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument apprising us of error in the Examiner’s findings or conclusions. Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that “a preferred embodiment of having one stage does not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure and nonpreferred embodiments directed towards having multiple stages of the booster compressor.” Ans. 22; See In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976) (A reference disclosure is not limited only to its preferred embodiments, but is available for all that it discloses and suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art). Independent claim 1 further recites that “the second bearing system positioned upstream from inlet stage vanes of a high pressure compressor.” Appeal Br. 12, Claims App.; see also id. at 7. The Examiner relies on Adamson for this limitation. See Final Act. 9—10; see also Ans. 8. Appellants contend that Given Coplin’s clear teachings of a desire to minimize axial length between the fan and the core engine, the skilled person would not modify Coplin [in view of Adamson] such that bearings are positioned axially forward of Coplin’s compressor 14. Repositioning the bearings this way would, contrary to Coplin’s express teachings, increase the axial length between the fan and the core engine. Appeal Br. 7—8; Coplin 1:31—34. In particular, Appellants contend that moving the bearing 47 in Coplin upstream from Coplin’s compressor to be positioned between the fan and core engine would increase the axial length between the fan and the core engine. 6 Appeal 2015-005237 Application 13/304,053 Coplin’s current structure, which is axially minimized, does not include a bearing positioned between the fan and core engine. Structure would have to be stretched axially to accommodate the placement of the bearing in this new position. The bearing would require axial packaging space that is currently not required in Coplin. This additional axial packaging space would increase the axial length of the Coplin design. Reply Br. 2. At the outset, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because it amounts to unsupported attorney argument, and, thus, is entitled to little, if any, weight. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (arguments and conclusions unsupported by factual evidence carry no evidentiary weight); see also Ans. 23. Specifically, Appellants fail to provide sufficient evidence to support the contention that “moving the bearing 47 in Coplin upstream from Coplin’s compressor to be positioned between the fan and core engine” “would require axial packaging space” which “would increase the axial length of the Coplin design.” See Reply Br. 2; see also Ans. 23. Even if the Examiner’s modification would not permit Coplin’s design to operate in the same manner or not as well, we note that “[a] known or obvious [product] does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit... should not nullity its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.” Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In this case, the Examiner demonstrated the 7 Appeal 2015-005237 Application 13/304,053 constituent claim elements were known in the art and the Examiner’s stated motivation for the proposed combination, “to achieve the predictable results of supporting the inner shaft at the transition duct” is uncontroverted. See Final Act. 9-10; see also Ans. 8; Appeal Br. 7—8; Reply Br. 2. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Coplin, Sheridan ’018, and Adamson. We further sustain the rejection of claims 2—5, 9—13, 21—23, and 25—27, which fall with claim 1. Obviousness over Coplin, Sheridan ’018, Adamson, and Sheridan ’674 Claims 6, 7, and 16 Appellants do not offer separate arguments in favor of dependent claims 7 and 16 separate from those presented for dependent claim 6. See Appeal Br. 8—9. We select claim 6 as the representative claim, and claims 7 and 16 stand or fall with claim 6. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellants present similar teach away arguments for Coplin as those for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 8—9. As discussed above, these arguments are not persuasive. Accordingly, for reasons similar to those discussed above for claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 as unpatentable over Coplin, Sheridan ’018, Adamson, and Sheridan ’674. We further sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 16, which fall with claim 6. 8 Appeal 2015-005237 Application 13/304,053 Obviousness over Coplin, Sheridan ’018, Adamson, and Orlando Claims 29 and 30 Each of claims 29 and 30 calls for the low pressure compressor hub to include a frustro-conical web extending from a rear portion of the tubular hub to the low pressure compressor across the space between the first bearing system and the second bearing system. See Appeal Br. 16, Claims App. The Examiner relies on Orlando for this limitation. See Final Act. 16— 17; see also Ans. 14—15, 24. Appellants contend that “[t]he drive cone 130 [of Orlando] includes no frustro-conical web extending from a rear portion of a tubular hub to a low pressure compressor.” Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 2. At the outset, we disagree with the Examiner that “the claimed term low pressure compressor is ambiguous.” Ans. 24. Appellants’ Specification clearly describes “the low pressure compressor.” See e.g., Spec. 148(“Core airflow is compressed by the low pressure compressor 144”); see also id. at || 56, 57, Fig. 5. We acknowledge that web 130 of Orlando extends from a rear portion of what the Examiner considers the tubular hub of Orlando. See Ans. 24 (the Examiner’s annotated version of Figure 3 of Orlando). However, the Examiner does not direct us to what the Examiner is considering to represent the low pressure compressor (compressor region) or compressor rotor for that matter1, let alone the first and second bearing systems. See id.', see also id. at 14—15; Final Act. 16—17; 1 The Examiner states that “[t]he web extends to the low pressure compressor region and appears to contact the rotor of the compressor.” Ans. 24 (emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 2 9 Appeal 2015-005237 Application 13/304,053 Reply Br. 2. As such, the Examiner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Orlando discloses a low pressure compressor hub including a frustro-conical web extending from a rear portion of the tubular hub to the low pressure compressor across the space between the first bearing system and the second bearing system, as claimed. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 29 and 30 as unpatentable over Coplin, Sheridan ’018, Adamson, and Orlando. Obviousness over Coplin and Sheridan ’018 Claims 17, 18, 20, 24, and 28 Appellants do not offer separate arguments in favor of dependent claims 18, 20, 24, and 28 separate from those presented for independent claim 17. See Appeal Br. 10. We select claim 17 as the representative claim, and claims 18, 20, 24, and 28 stand or fall with claim 17. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claim 17 recites, “said second bearing system upstream from an inlet stage of a high pressure compressor.” Appeal Br. 14, Claims App.; see also id. at 10. Appellants contend [t]hat the bearing 47 may be upstream a rotor of Coplin’s compressor does not cause the bearing 47 to be upstream from an inlet stage. The claim recites upstream from an inlet stage, not upstream from a rotor stage. The inlet stage in Coplin would include the guide vanes 104. The guide vanes 104 are described as a “stage” (see Coplin, column 5, lines 23 to 25). Appeal Br. 10. 10 Appeal 2015-005237 Application 13/304,053 In response to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner takes the position that the inlet stage of a high pressure compressor is broadly being interpreted as the first stage within the high pressure compressor (ex. the first rotor blade stage of the compressor). Note that the specification is silent about the term “inlet stage”. Coplin[’s] disclosure of a guide vanes (104) upstream of the compressor are not defined as an inlet stage of a high pressure compressor. Although this is perhaps what [Appellants] intended to claim, the Examiner maintains that the inlet stage of a high pressure compressor can be broadly interpreted as the first stage of the high pressure compressor. Ans. 25. The Examiner’s position is reasonable and is based on rational underpinnings. Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 as unpatentable over Coplin and Sheridan ’018. We further sustain the rejection of claims 18, 20, 24, and 28, which fall with claim 17. Obviousness over Coplin, Sheridan ’018, and Orlando Claim 31 Claim 31 depends from claim 17 and recites the same language as claims 29 and 30. See Appeal Br. 16, Claims App. The Examiner’s rejection is based on the same unsupported findings to Orlando as discussed above for claims 29 and 30. See Final Act. 20-21; see also Ans. 18—19. Accordingly, for reasons similar to those discussed above for claims 29 and 30, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 31 as unpatentable over Coplin, Sheridan ’018, and Orlando. 11 Appeal 2015-005237 Application 13/304,053 DECISION We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—7, 9, 11—13, 16—18, and 20-28 as anticipated by DiBenedetto. We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—5, 9—13, 21—23, and 25—27 as unpatentable over Coplin, Sheridan ’018, and Adamson. We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 6, 7, and 16 as unpatentable over Coplin, Sheridan ’018, Adamson, and Sheridan ’674. We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 29 and 30 as unpatentable over Coplin, Sheridan ’018, Adamson, and Orlando. We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 17, 18, 20, 24, and 28 as unpatentable over Coplin and Sheridan ’018. We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claim 31 as unpatentable over Coplin, Sheridan ’018, and Orlando. 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 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation