Ex Parte Kupratis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

13645626 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017)

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.
13/645,626 10/05/2012 Daniel Bernard Kupratis 64167US08;67097-1876PUS2 7422
54549 7590 03/01/2017
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
SUTHERLAND, STEVEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 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 DANIEL BERNARD KUPRATIS and
FREDERICK M. SCHWARZ
Appeal 2015-005291
Application 13/645,626
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Daniel Bernard Kupratis and Frederick M. Schwarz (Appellants)
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims
1—4, 8—18, and 20—24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2015-005291
Application 13/645,626
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A gas turbine engine comprising:
a compressor section;
a combustor in fluid communication with the compressor
section;
a turbine section in fluid communication with the
combustor, the turbine section including a fan drive turbine and
a second turbine, the fan drive turbine including a plurality of
turbine rotors;
a fan including a plurality of blades rotatable about an axis
and a ratio between the number of fan blades and the number of
fan drive turbine rotors is between about 2.5 and about 8.5; and
a speed change system driven by the fan drive turbine for
rotating the fan about the axis;
wherein the fan drive turbine includes a first aft rotor
attached to a first shaft and the second turbine includes a second
aft rotor attached to a second shaft that circumscribes the first
shaft, and
wherein a first bearing assembly is in direct contact with
the first shaft, supports the first shaft and is disposed axially aft
of a first connection between the first aft rotor and the first shaft,
and a second bearing assembly is disposed axially aft of a second
connection between the second aft rotor and the second shaft and
radially outward of the second shaft.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 3, 10, 12—14, 16, 17, 21, and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jane’s (Jane’s Aero-
Engines (Bill Gunston ed., iss. 7, 2000)) and Langley (US
3,713,748, iss. Jan. 30, 1973).
2
Appeal 2015-005291
Application 13/645,626
II. Claims 2 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jane’s, Langley, and Venter
(US 2010/0080700 Al, pub. Apr. 1, 2010).
III. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jane’s, Langley, and Giffin (US 4,809,498,
iss. Mar. 7, 1989).
IV. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jane’s, Langley, and Sessions (Ron Sessions,
Turbo Hydra-Matic 350 Handbook (1985)).
V. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jane’s, Langley, Venter, and Sessions.
VI. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jane’s, Langley, and Seda (US 6,619,030 Bl,
iss. Sept. 16, 2003).
VII. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jane’s, Langley, and Schwark
(US 2009/0229242 Al, pub. Sept. 17, 2009).
VIII. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jane’s, Langley, and Orlando (US 7,685,808
B2, iss. Mar. 30, 2010).
IX. Claims 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jane’s, Langley, and Hunsaker
(US 2,608,821, iss. Sept. 2, 1952).
3
Appeal 2015-005291
Application 13/645,626
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that Jane’s discloses a gas turbine engine,
substantially as claimed, except for “a first bearing assembly in direct
contact with the first shaft axially aft of the first aft rotor and shaft, and a
second bearing assembly axially aft of a second aft rotor and shaft and
axially outward of the second shaft.” Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 2 (the
Examiner explaining that Jane’s “is silent to the use of bearings on the shaft
of a turbofan engine”). However, the Examiner finds that
Langley teaches a first bearing assembly (16) in direct contact
with the first shaft (13) axially aft of the first aft rotor and shaft
(aft of 6), and a second bearing assembly (11) axially aft of a
second aft rotor and shaft (aft of 5) and axially outward of the
second shaft (radially outward from shaft 9).
Final Act. 3. The Examiner determines that “[i]t would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the
bearing assemblies of Langley with the engine of Jane’s, in order to support
the aft ends of the low and high pressure shafts.” Id. (citing Langley, col. 1,
11. 51-60).
Appellants argue that the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness because “nothing in the proposed combination provides
a supportable reason for modification of the engine disclosed in Jane’s to
include the features provided in Langley.” Appeal Br. 4. In particular,
Appellants assert that the Examiner’s stated reasoning for the proposed
combination is conclusory, without evidentiary support, and based upon
impermissible hindsight. See id. at 4—5; see also Reply Br. 1—2. According
to Appellants, “nothing in Jane’s provides any support for this reasoning and
neither does Langley.” Appeal Br. 5.
4
Appeal 2015-005291
Application 13/645,626
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s
rejection. To the extent that Appellants appear to insist upon an explicit
motivation in the prior art to establish obviousness, the Supreme Court has
stated that a rigid insistence on a teaching, suggestion, or motivation is
incompatible with its precedent concerning obviousness. KSR Int 7 Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). The Court noted that an
obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for [an examiner] can take
account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would employ.” Id. at 418. Instead, the relevant inquiry is whether
the Examiner has set forth “some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at
418). As discussed supra, the Examiner articulates a reason for the
proposed modification of the Jane’s engine (i.e., “to support the aft ends of
the low and high pressure shafts”) (Final Act. 3), in light of Langley ’s
teachings (id., citing Langley, col. 1,11. 51—60), and Appellants do not point
out any specific flaws in the Examiner’s reasoning. Moreover, Appellants
do not identify, nor do we discern, any knowledge relied upon by the
Examiner that was gleaned only from Appellants’ disclosure and that was
not otherwise within the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention,
and, accordingly, Appellants’ assertion of hindsight is unsupported. See In
re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392 (CCPA 1971). Thus, we do not agree with
Appellants that the Examiner’s rejection “is simply the result of selecting
dissimilar references improperly using [Appellants’] disclosure as a guide.”
Appeal Br. 5 (emphasis omitted).
5
Appeal 2015-005291
Application 13/645,626
Appellants argue that Jane’s and Langley teach away from the
claimed invention. See Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 2—3. In particular,
Appellants assert that “Jane’s provides for faster speeds of both the
compressor and rotor based on the gearbox that in turn provides for a more
compact turbine and compressor for an overall smaller engine size.” Appeal
Br. 5. According to Appellants, “[t]he modification argued by the Examiner
is contrary to the smaller overall engine size as the additional bearing would
require a longer rigid case structure extending from a rear of the engine to
support the bearing.” Id. This argument is not convincing. A reference
teaches away from a claimed invention or a proposed modification if “a
person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged
from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a
direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re
Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re Gurley, 27 F.3d
551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Prior art does not teach away from claimed
subject matter merely by disclosing a different solution to a similar problem
unless the prior art also criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the
solution claimed. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appellants do not point to, nor do we find, any disclosure in Jane’s or
Fangley criticizing, discrediting, or otherwise discouraging using bearing
assemblies at the aft ends of the high pressure and low pressure shafts. The
fact that Jane’s discloses that gearing allows the low pressure compressor
and turbine to rotate at higher speeds and have smaller diameters, which
6
Appeal 2015-005291
Application 13/645,626
reduces engine weight,1 does not constitute a teaching away from placing a
shaft bearing assembly at the aft end of each shaft. Jane’s simply discloses
an advantage of geared turbofan engines relative to non-geared engines. Id.
Appellants argue that “one of ordinary skill in the art would see no
reason to sacrifice the stated efficiency goals of Jane’s with the less efficient
structure set forth in Langley by combining the two.” Appeal Br. 6. In
particular, Appellants assert that “Langley discloses an engine that adds
additional fan stages (31 shown in Figure 1 of Langley) to be driven at the
same speed as the drive turbine,” and this “configuration increases the load
required by the drive turbine and thereby reduces overall engine efficiency.”
Id. Appellants also assert that “Langley discloses three bearing assemblies
14, 15 and 16 supporting a low shaft 13,” and “[modification of Jane’s to
include the Langley bearing structure would therefore add an additional
bearing assembly.” Reply Br. 3. Appellants’ argument is not convincing
because it is not directed to the modification proposed by the Examiner in
the rejection. The Examiner does not propose incorporating Langley’s fan
stages or adding an additional bearing assembly to the engine of Jane’s. As
discussed supra, the Examiner’s rejection relies on Langley for providing
evidence that it was known in the turbofan engine art at the time of the
1 See, e.g., Jane’s 510 (discussing difficulty in matching the rotational speeds
of the turbine and fan in a direct-drive engine and noting that “[a]s bypass
ratio is increased (to improve fuel economy and reduce noise), the rotational
speed of the larger fan must fall, demanding either a large, heavy and costly
multistage turbine or the insertion of a speed-reducing gearbox”), 511
(observing that because the LP compressor “is not constrained to rotate at
the same speed as the fan, but at up to 9,200 rpm,... its diameter can be
greatly reduced, making the engine lighter and giving a more direct overall
gas path”), 512 (describing the LP turbine diameter as “significantly less
than for a direct fan drive turbine”).
7
Appeal 2015-005291
Application 13/645,626
invention to place shaft bearing assemblies aft of turbine rotors. See Final
Act. 3 (the Examiner finding that Langley discloses a “first bearing
assembly (16) in direct contact with the first shaft (13) axially aft of the first
aft rotor and shaft (aft of 6), and a second bearing assembly (11)”).
Appellants do not specifically address the Examiner’s reasoning articulated
in support of the proposed modifications of Jane’s based on the specific
teachings of Langley. See id. Moreover, Appellants’ argument appears to
rely on bodily incorporation of specific structural details of the overall
engine disclosed by Langley (i.e., additional fan stages and bearing
assembly) into Jane’s, which is not the standard for an obviousness
rejection. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
For the above reasons, Appellants’ arguments do not apprise us of
error in the Examiner’s determination that the subject matter of claim 1
would have been obvious. Appellants do not present any separate arguments
for patentability of claims 3, 10, 12—14, 16, 17, 21, and 22, aside from their
dependence from claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 3, 10, 12—14, 16, 17, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Jane’s and Langley.
Rejections II—IX
In contesting the rejections of claims 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, 15, 18, 20, 23, and
24, Appellants rely on the arguments presented for patentability of claim 1,
from which these claims depend, and assert that none of the remaining
references cures the purported deficiencies of Jane’s and Langley. See
Appeal Br. 6—8. For the reasons discussed supra, Appellants’ arguments fail
to apprise us of deficiencies in the combination of Jane’s and Langley.
8
Appeal 2015-005291
Application 13/645,626
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, 15, 18, 20, 23,
and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 8—18, and 20—24 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9