Ex Parte Henze

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 1, 2016

12648859 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2016)

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.
12/648,859 12/29/2009 Chad M. Henze 55599US01-U74-012140 4569
88326 7590
Kinney & Lange, P.A.
312 South Third Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
12/05/2016 EXAMINER
DAVIS, JASON GREGORY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/05/2016 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):
U S PatDocket @ kinney. com
amkoenck @ kinney. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHAD M. HENZE
Appeal 2014-007836
Application 12/648,859
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Chad W. Henze (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3—8, 10-15, and
17—22. Claims 2, 9, and 16 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2014-007836
Application 12/648,859
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is directed to a propeller blade root airflow
system and a method for preventing choked flow conditions between
adjacent propeller blades. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative:
1. A propeller blade root airflow system for an aircraft
propulsion system, the airflow system comprising:
a spinner for shrouding a propeller hub and a plurality of
propeller roots;
a plurality of root holes disposed about a circumference of the
spinner for receiving propeller roots; and
a plurality of airflow ducts disposed about a circumference of the
spinner for drawing air into the spinner and away from the root
holes;
wherein the airflow ducts of the plurality of airflow ducts are
interspersed between root holes of the plurality of root holes; and
wherein each of the plurality of airflow ducts comprises an
opening that is elongated in a direction of airflow between
adjacent root holes such that each airflow duct opening has an
axial length that is greater than a circumferential width; and
wherein each airflow duct opening has an upstream portion that
is circumferentially narrower than a downstream portion.
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The Examiner has rejected:
(i) claims 1 and 3—5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Blanchard (US 2,719,592, issued Oct. 4,
2
Appeal 2014-007836
Application 12/648,859
1955) in view of Siercke (US 2010/0044522, published Feb. 25,
2010);
(ii) claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Blanchard in view of Siercke and Grimac (US 2,575,415,
issued Nov. 20, 1951);
(iii) claims 7, 8, 10-13, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Blanchard in view of Siercke and Riid
(US 4,999,994, issued Mar. 19, 1991);
(iv) claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Blanchard in view of Siercke, Riid, and Grimac; and
(v) claims 15, 17—19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Blanchard in view of Siercke.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 3—5—35 U.S.C. § 103(a)— Blanchard/Siercke
Appellant argues claims 1 and 3—5 as a group, with no arguments
being presented for the separate patentability of claims 3—5. See Appeal Br.
11. We select claim 1 as representative, and claims 3—5 stand or fall with
claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Blanchard discloses all elements in claim 1,
including a plurality of airflow ducts for drawing air into a spinner, but does
not disclose that the airflow ducts have an axial length that is greater than a
circumferential width, nor that the airflow duct openings have an upstream
opening that is narrower than a downstream portion. Final Act. 4—5. The
Examiner finds that Siercke discloses an air duct having these claimed
constructional features, and concludes that it would have been obvious to
3
Appeal 2014-007836
Application 12/648,859
modify Blanchard such that its airflow ducts are so configured. Id. at 5. The
Examiner states that the reason to modify Blanchard is for the purpose of
reducing drag and noise produced, citing to Siercke’s disclosure that such a
configuration would provide those benefits. Id. (citing Siercke ]Hf 6 and 10).
Appellant principally argues that neither Blanchard nor Siercke
addresses in any way efforts to reduce choked flow conditions between
propeller blades on a spinner, and thus, that the prior art provides no
suggestion to modify Blanchard in the manner proposed by the Examiner, in
order to reduce choked flow conditions. Appeal Br. 8—11. Appellant
maintains that, in the absence of any recognition of choked flow conditions
in the cited prior art, the proposed modification is made using impermissible
hindsight in view of Appellant’s disclosure. Id. at 10.
The Examiner, however, does not rely on a reduction of choked flow
conditions as a reason to modify Blanchard in view of Siercke. As noted
above, the Examiner cites to Siercke’s disclosure of obtaining reduced drag
and noise generation when configuring airflow ducts in the manner disclosed
therein. It is not necessary for the prior art to serve the same purpose as that
disclosed in Appellant’s Specification in order to support the conclusion that
the claimed subject matter would have been obvious. See In re Linter, 458
F.2d 1013, 1016 (CCPA 1972); see also KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 419 (2007) (“[Njeither the particular motivation nor the avowed
purpose of [Appellant] controls” in an obviousness analysis.)
Appellant belatedly, in the Reply Brief, criticizes the Examiner’s
stated reason to combine as being conclusory, but fails to substantiate the
assertion. Reply Br. 2—3. Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s
position that the proposed modification to Blanchard would have the stated
4
Appeal 2014-007836
Application 12/648,859
result, which position is, in any event, supported by evidence in the cited
portions of Siercke.
We are not apprised of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 1 as
being unpatentable over Blanchard and Siercke. The rejection is sustained
as to claim 1, and claims 3—5 fall with claim 1.
Claim 6—35 U.S.C. § 103(a)— Blanchard/Siercke/Grimac
Appellant’s arguments with respect to claim 6, aside from also
referencing Grimac, do not differ substantively from those advanced with
respect to claim 1. Appeal Br. 12. For the reasons noted above, those
arguments do not apprise us of Examiner error.
The rejection of claim 6 as being unpatentable over Blanchard,
Siercke, and Grimac is sustained.
Claims 7, 8, 10—13, 20, and21—35 U.S.C. § 103(a)—Blanchard/Siercke/RiXd
Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 7, 8, 10-13, 20, and 21,
aside from also referencing Riid, do not differ substantively from those
advanced with respect to claim 1. Appeal Br. 12—13. For the reasons noted
above, those arguments do not apprise us of Examiner error.
The rejection of claims 7, 8, 10-13, 20, and 21 as being unpatentable
over Blanchard, Siercke, and Riid is sustained.
Claim 14—35 U.S.C. § 103(a)—Blanchard/Siercke/Rud/Grimac
Appellant’s arguments with respect to claim 14, aside from also
referencing Riid and Grimac, do not differ substantively from those
5
Appeal 2014-007836
Application 12/648,859
advanced with respect to claim 1. Appeal Br. 13. For the reasons noted
above, those arguments do not apprise us of Examiner error.
The rejection of claim 14 as being unpatentable over Blanchard,
Siercke, Riid, and Grimac is sustained.
Claims 15, 17—19, and22—35 U.S.C. § 103(a)—Blanchard/Siercke
Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 15, 17—19, and 22 do
not differ substantively from those advanced with respect to claim 1. Appeal
Br. 13—14. For the reasons noted above, those arguments do not apprise us
of Examiner error.
The rejection of claims 15, 17—19, and 22 as being unpatentable over
Blanchard and Siercke is sustained.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3—8, 10-15, and
17—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
6