Ex Parte Gilson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 11, 2014

12147432 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2014)

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.
12/147,432 06/26/2008 Jonathan Gilson PA0007388U;67097-1090PUS1 6929
54549 7590 09/12/2014
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
c/o CPA Global
P.O. Box 52050
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
SUTHERLAND, STEVEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JONATHAN GILSON, DENNIS CICON,
and OLIVER V. ATASSI
____________

Appeal 2012-008018
Application 12/147,4321
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and
JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges.

WORTH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 3–8, and 10–20.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is United
Technologies Corp. (App. Br. 1).
2 Our decision refers to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
Jan. 16, 2012) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 24, 2012) and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 8, 2012).
Appeal 2012-008018
Application 12/147,432

2
Introduction
Appellants’ disclosure relates to a nacelle assembly for a gas turbine
engine (Spec. ¶ 4).
Claims 1, 8, 10, 13, 17, and 19 are the independent claims at issue.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A nacelle assembly for a for a high-bypass gas turbine
engine comprising:
a core nacelle defined about an engine centerline axis;
a fan nacelle mounted at least partially around said core
nacelle to define a fan bypass flow path; and
a variable area fan nozzle in communication with said fan
bypass flow path, said variable area fan nozzle having a first fan
nacelle section and a second fan nacelle section, said second fan
nacelle section axially movable relative said first fan nacelle
section to define an auxiliary port at a non-closed position to
vary a fan nozzle exit area and adjust fan bypass airflow, said
second fan nacelle section having a leading edge region with an
acoustic system which provides an acoustic impedance when
said second fan nacelle section is positioned at said non-closed
position.

App. Br. 15, Claims App’x.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Clark US 3,820,719 June 28, 1974
Bourland US 4,475,624 Oct. 9, 1984
Yasukawa US 5,594,216 Jan. 14, 1997
Cariola US 5,806,302 Sept. 15, 1998

Appeal 2012-008018
Application 12/147,432

3
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants appeal, the following
rejections:
I) Claims 1, 13, 16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Clark;
II) Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Cariola;
III) Claims 3, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Clark, Bourland, and Yasukawa;
IV) Claims 4 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Clark and Cariola;
V) Claims 5, 6, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Clark and Bourland;
VI) Claims 8 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Clark and Yasukawa; and
VII) Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Clark, Bourland, Yasukawa, and Cariola.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 13, 16, 19, and 20
Appellants argue that Clark fails to disclose acoustic impedance when
the second fan nacelle is positioned in a non-closed position, i.e., “acoustic
impedance when said second fan nacelle section is positioned at said non-
closed position,” as required by claims 1, 13, and 19 (App. Br. 5–6).
Specifically, Appellants argue that material 32 of Clark is operable
irrespective of whether movable portion 20 is open or closed (App. Br. 6–7).
Appeal 2012-008018
Application 12/147,432

4
The Examiner responds that the claim language does not specify that there is
impedance “only when” the fan nacelle section is non-closed (Ans. 12).
We agree with the Examiner that the claim limitation is satisfied
because there is acoustic impedance when the second fan nacelle is non-
closed, even if there is also acoustic impedance at other times. We,
therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 1, 13, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Clark.
As to dependent claims 16 and 20, Appellants do not separately argue
the patentability of claims 16 and 20 from independent claims 13 and 19,
from which they respectively depend. As such, we sustain the rejection of
claims 16 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Clark for the
same reasons.
Claims 17 and 18
Appellants argue that Cariola fails to disclose “a leading edge region
with an acoustic system which provides an acoustic impedance when said
second fan nacelle section is positioned at said non-closed position,” as
required by claim 17 (App. Br. 8). Specifically, Appellants argue that
blocker doors 48 redirect the fan air stream away from the sound
attenuations structures 32 and 36, such that structures 32 and 36 cannot
provide an acoustic impedance (Id.). The Examiner replies that Cariola
(Fig. 8) describes an outer surface of the acoustic system (the downstream
end of acoustic system 32) that will provide an acoustic impedance when the
system is in a non-closed position (Ans. 13).
We agree with Appellants that Cariola (col. 5, ll. 11–15) discloses that
acoustic system 32 occurs on trailing edge portion 14 rather than a “leading
edge,” as required by claim 17. Claim 17 provides that the first and second
Appeal 2012-008018
Application 12/147,432

5
sections “define a [sic] auxiliary port.” The leading edge of the second
section is the edge after the opening or “port” through which air flows.
Although items 12 and 14 of Cariola can be considered first and second
sections, Cariola does not disclose air flow between these sections. See
Cariola, col. 4, l. 48–col. 5, l. 2 (preventing leaking of air between items 12
and 14).
The Examiner also finds that during the transition between the fully
open and closed positions (of Figures 5 and 7) there will be a non-closed
position where air will bypass the blocker door and come into contact with
the inner surface of the acoustic system (Ans. 13). We have carefully
reviewed the cited portions of Cariola on which the Examiner relies, and we
find that there is insufficient evidence in the disclosure of Cariola of the air
flow during the transition state. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection
of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Cariola.
Claim 18 depends from claim 17. We do not sustain the rejection of
claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Cariola for the same
reason.
Claims 4, 7, and 10–12
Appellants argue that Clark fails to disclose an aft acoustic system
that comprises or is along “at least a portion of an upper surface of said
second fan nacelle section,” as recited by independent claims 4 and 10
(App. Br. 10) (emphasis in Brief). Specifically, Appellants argue that sound
absorbing material 21 of Clark is exclusively located on an inner surface of
moving section 20 (Id.). The Examiner relies on Figure 2 of Clark for the
finding that the aft end of acoustic system 21 has both an upper and a lower
surface (Ans. 14).
Appeal 2012-008018
Application 12/147,432

6
We agree with Appellants that Clark (Fig. 2; col. 2, ll. 49–51) places
sound absorbing material 32 on the lower surface of acoustic system 21, i.e.,
inside the nacelle assembly, rather than on the upper surface.
The secondary references do not cure the deficiency in Clark. As to
claim 4, Cariola does not disclose an upper surface, only an inner surface,
for air flow, as set forth above (i.e., air does not flow between items 12 and
14 of Cariola). As to claim 10, the Examiner only relies on Bourland (col. 2,
ll. 52–59) for the teaching of a honeycomb structure along the wall, not
through the wall (Ans. 9). We, therefore, cannot sustain the rejection of
claims 4 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clark
and one or more of Cariola, Bourland, and Yasukawa.
Claims 7, 11, and 12 each depend from one of claims 4 and 10.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 7, 11, and 12 as being
unpatentable over Clark and one or more of Cariola, Bourland, and
Yasukawa for the same reasons.
Claims 5 and 14
Appellants argue that Clark fails to disclose an acoustic system that
comprises “a perforated inner face sheet and a perforated outer face sheet
supported by a structure,” as required by claims 5 and 14 (App. Br. 12)
(emphasis in Brief). However, the Examiner (Ans. 10) relies on Bourland
(col. 2, ll. 52–59) for the teaching of an acoustic panel with a perforated
inner sheet and a perforated outer sheet sandwiching a honeycomb core.
Bourland teaches the use of a honeycomb structure in a panel for use
as an acoustic liner (col. 1, ll. 55–56), but Bourland does not disclose that an
entire nacelle assembly may be composed of honeycomb. The rejection
proposes modifying panel 32 of Clark to use a sandwich structure for panel
Appeal 2012-008018
Application 12/147,432

7
32, but the proposed combination would not create a second panel on the
upper surface of the assembly. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of
claims 5 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clark
and Bourland.
Claim 8
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Clark and Yasukawa. The Examiner finds that Clark does
not teach the use of sintered metal, but concludes that it would have been
obvious to modify Clark with this teaching of Yasukawa in order to absorb
engine noise (Ans. 11).
Appellants argue that the Examiner provided insufficient reasoning
for the combination of Yasukawa with Clark because Clark already reduces
engine noise (App. Br. 13). The Examiner submits that using an acoustic
system with sintered metal, as taught by Yasukawa, would provide
additional noise reducing capability to Clark’s system (Ans. 14). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to combine the teaching of using a bulk absorbing
material of a sintered metal as an acoustic system, as taught by Yasukawa, to
the assembly taught by Clark, in order to absorb engine noise at the fan
nozzle (Ans. 11 (citing col. 5, ll. 1–9)).
We agree with the Examiner that Yasukawa is directed to an
improvement in engines that already have a sound-absorbing compartment,
i.e., an improvement in the structure of the insulation material (col. 1, ll. 46–
49; col. 8, ll. 50–57). Thus, Appellants’ argument that one of ordinary skill
in the art would not have sought to improve Clark’s system with the
teachings of Yasukawa is not persuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the
Appeal 2012-008018
Application 12/147,432

8
rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Clark and Yasukawa.
Claims 3, 6, and 15
Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of dependent
claims 3, 6, and 15 from independent claims 1 and 13. As such, we sustain
the rejection of claims 3, 6, and 15 under as being unpatentable over Clark
and one or more of Bourland and Yasukawa.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 13, 15, 16, 19,
and 20 is affirmed. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 4, 5, 7,
10–12, 14, 17, and 18 is reversed.
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

mls