Ex Parte James et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 201813741425 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/741,425 01/15/2013 Denman H. James 54549 7590 09/05/2018 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 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. 64747US02; 67097-2238PUS1 2011 EXAMINER HAMO, PATRICK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3746 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/05/2018 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): ptodocket@cgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DENMAN H. JAMES and JORN A. GLAHN Appeal2017-007531 Application 13/741,425 1 Technology Center 3700 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4--9, and 12-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 The Appellants identify United Technologies Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2017-007531 Application 13/741,425 ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM 1. A gas turbine engine comprising: a fan section including a plurality of fan blades rotatable about an axis; a core engine including a compressor section, a combustor in fluid communication with the compressor section, a turbine section in fluid communication with the combustor, and a geared architecture driven by the turbine section for rotating the fan; and a lubrication system for directing lubricant to components of the core engine and fan section, the lubricant system including a total flow capacity of lubricant equal to or less than about 110% of core engine and fan section lubricant flow requirements, wherein the total flow capacity includes a primary flow capacity routed to the core engine and fan section and a bypass flow capacity routed around the core engine and fan section and the bypass flow capacity is less than about 10% of the total flow capacity. CITED REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following references: DiBenedetto US 2011/0108360 Al Sheridan et al. US 2011/0297485 Al (hereinafter "Sheridan") REJECTIONS 2 May 12, 2011 Dec. 8, 2011 I. Claims 1, 4--9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over DiBenedetto and Sheridan. 2 The Final Office Action (pages 2-3) includes a rejection of claims 1, 4--9, and 12-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the Appellants regard as the invention. This rejection is withdrawn. See Answer 3--4. 2 Appeal2017-007531 Application 13/741,425 II. Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sheridan. FINDINGS OF FACT The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis. ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 recites a "lubrication system" with a "total flow capacity" that includes a "primary flow capacity" and a "bypass flow capacity," in which "the bypass flow capacity is less than about 10% of the total flow capacity." According to the Examiner, these features "would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art," in view of Sheridan's teachings - specifically, "[ t ]he bypass flow capacity of Sheridan is controlled by a pressure responsive valve 54, such that the amount of bypass flow is a results effective variable dependent on the pressure in the system, aimed at the result of providing lubrication in abnormally low pressure conditions." Final Action 5 ( citing Sheridan ,r 15). The Appellants acknowledge that Sheridan discloses the use of a bypass flow, but the Appellants contend that Sheridan does not disclose any relationship between the "bypass flow capacity" and the "total flow capacity," as claim 1 requires. See Appeal Br. 5---6. Notably, the rejection does not address the relative "capacit[ies ]" of the "primary" and "bypass" flows; instead, the rejection refers to "the amount of bypass flow" (not its "capacity," as claimed) as being "dependent on the pressure in the system." Final Action 5. 3 Appeal2017-007531 Application 13/741,425 The disagreement between the Appellants and the Examiner turns, in part, on the meaning of the term "capacity" in the expression "bypass flow capacity." Claim 1 illustrates that the "total flow capacity" of lubricant includes a "primary flow capacity" and a "bypass flow capacity" - each of which is a quantity having a relationship to the others. The word "capacity" typically refers to an upper limit or maximum. See Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language 267 (2d ed. 1980) ( defining "capacity" as, e.g., "all that can be contained"). Neither the claims, nor the Specification, suggests any other or unusual meaning for the term "capacity," which denotes, in the context of claim 1, the maximum flow of lubricant for particular parameters. The Examiner appears to conflate the claimed "bypass flow capacity" with the varying amount of flow diverted to Sheridan's bypass passage (by a valve), finding that "Sheridan teaches a bypass passage with a capacity that varies with the position of a pressure responsive valve." Answer 6. By contrast, the Appellants use the "flow capacity" expressions in a manner consistent with the meaning of the word "capacity," as discussed above- i.e., denoting a maximum upper limit of the lubricant flow. For example, the Appellants argue: The actual capacity to accommodate lubricant flow through a passage is not an operating feature that varies, but is a structural feature that does not change. Regardless of fluctuations in pressure and flow volume, the relative capacity between the primary and bypass passages does not change. Reply Br. 2. Thus, according to the Appellants: The Examiner's argument mistakes the flow of lubricant through a bypass passage as a capacity of that passage. The 4 Appeal2017-007531 Application 13/741,425 Id. mere existence of a bypass passage does not teach any specific relationship between capacities of a primary and bypass lubricant passage. The Examiner's arguments are directed to the amount of lubricant bypass flow, not the capacity of the passage. Accordingly, because the Examiner does not point to any teaching in Sheridan addressing the relative "flow capacit[ies]," we agree with the Appellants that portions of Sheridan relied upon do not teach that the relationship of "bypass flow capacity" to "primary flow capacity" is a result- effective variable: Sheridan does not disclose any ratio between the total flow capacity of the lubrication system and the capacity of a bypass. All that Sheridan discloses is the generic existence of a bypass passage and discloses that in some instances more or less flow is directed through that bypass passage. However, nothing in Sheridan discloses a relationship between lubricant flows in the primary or bypass passages. For this reason, even under the Examiner's incorrect reading of the recited features, Sheridan does not evidence that the relationship between flows in primary and bypass passages is a known result effective variable. Id. at 3. In view of the foregoing analysis, the Examiner has not demonstrated sufficiently the existence of a reason to modify the prior art, so as to achieve the claimed subject matter of independent claim 1. The same analysis applies equally to the rejections of independent claims 9 and 15 - each of which contains similar language to that discussed above. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 1, 4--9, and 12-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 5 Appeal2017-007531 Application 13/741,425 DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4--9, and 12-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation