Ex Parte Malecki

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 13, 2017

13406924 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 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.
13/406,924 02/28/2012 Robert E. Malecki 61090US01; 3701
67097-1732PUS1
54549 7590 12/15/2017
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
IBRONI, STEFAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/15/2017 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 ROBERT E. MALECKI
Appeal 2016-008268
Application 13/406,924
Technology Center 3700
Before KEN B. BARRETT, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Robert E. Malecki (Appellant)1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies United Technologies Corporation as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-008268
Application 13/406,924
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 9, and 14 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A thrust reverser blocker door, comprising:
a blocker door moveable from a stowed position to a
deployed position, wherein flow moves through an area of a
bypass flowpath when the blocker door is in the stowed position,
and the blocker door blocks between no less than 70% and no
more than about 85% of flow through this area when the blocker
door is in the deployed position, wherein the area does not extend
circumferentially past the blocker door.
Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-3, 6, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Nikkanen (US 5,575,147, issued Nov. 19, 1996).
II. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Stretton (US 6,434,927 Bl, issued
Aug. 20, 2002) and Nikkanen.2
III. Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nikkanen and Rudolph (US 4,183,478, issued Jan. 15,
1980).
IV. Claims 4, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Stretton, Nikkanen, and Rudolph.
2 The heading of the rejection does not list claims 18-20 (Final Act. 4), but
these claims are addressed in the statement of the rejection {id. at 8). For
this reason, we understand that claims 18-20 are included in this rejection.
This appears to be Appellant’s understanding also. See Appeal Br. 5-7.
2
Appeal 2016-008268
Application 13/406,924
5. Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Stretton, Nikkanen, and Harris (US 4,216,923, issued
Aug. 12, 1980).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Claims 1-3 and 6
As to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Nikkanen discloses, inter alia,
a blocker door 36, which blocks between no less than 70% and no more than
about 85% of flow through an area of a bypass flowpath 24 when blocker
door 36 is in the deployed position. Final Act. 3 (citing Nikkanen, Abstract,
col. 3,11. 35-36, Fig. 2). -In support, the Examiner finds that Nikkanen
discloses a blocker door having 30% open area, and states that one having
ordinary skill in the art would know that 30% open area (i.e., 70% closed
area) in the blocker door would block 70% of the flow cross sectional area
(i.e., the area parallel to the front surface of the blocker door). Id. at 2. The
Examiner defines the “blocked flow” as the portion of fan flow 24 that does
not leak through blocker door 36. Id. (citing Nikkanen, col. 3,11. 40—41).
Figure 2 of Nikkanen shows blocker door 36 in a deployed position.
Nikkanen, col. 2,11. 65-67. Blocker door 36 includes passageways formed
by openings 68, 70 through which fan flow 24 passes. Id. at col. 3,11. 5-8,
30-34, Fig. 2. Nikkanen discloses that “a blocker door having 30% open
area results in an approximately 70% loss of forward thrust of the fan flow
that leaked therethrough.” Id. at col. 3,11. 36-38 (emphasis added).
Appellant contests the Examiner’s finding that Nikkanen discloses
that “the blocker door blocks between no less than 70% and no more than
about 85% of flow through this area when the blocker door is in the
3
Appeal 2016-008268
Application 13/406,924
deployed position.” Appeal Br. 3 (hereafter “blocking percentage
limitation”). Appellant contends that Nikkanen does not teach a particular
percentage of flow blocked by a blocker door. Id. Appellant also contends
that Nikkanen does not teach that a 70% loss of forward thrust is the same as
“no less than 70% and no more than about 85% of flow being blocked.” Id.
Appellant asserts that “[a] percentage of open area in a blocker door does not
correlate directly to a percentage of flow that is blocked,” and “just because
a blocker door . . . has 30% open area and 70% closed area does not mean
that the blocker door would block 70% of flow.” Id.
The Examiner responds that:
The claim does not recite what “flow” is. . . . The specification
provides no explicit indication what flow property the door is
blocking. Therefore the examiner has interpreted “flow” to mean
flow area, wherein the flow area is at an orientation that is
parallel to the front surface of the blocker door.
Ans. 2. The Examiner states that this interpretation is supported by the
claim recitation of “blocks between no less than 70% and no more than
about 85% of flow through this area.” Id.
Appellant replies that interpreting “flow” as meaning “flow area”
conflicts with the explicit language in claim 1 that “the flow is flow ‘that
moves through an area of a bypass flowpath.’ ” Reply Br. 1-2. Appellant
contends that the claim term “area” is an “area of the bypass flowpath.” Id.
at 2.
We agree with Appellant. As shown in Appellant’s Figures 2 and 4,
when the blocker door 60 is stowed, the flow F that enters bypass flowpath
66 exits through flowpath exhaust 76. As shown in Figures 3 and 5, when
blocker door 60 is deployed, it blocks a portion of the flow F that enters
bypass flowpath 66, such that a portion of the flow Fe continues to move
4
Appeal 2016-008268
Application 13/406,924
through flowpath exhaust 76 and the remaining portion of flow Fc is
directed through cascades 84. See Spec. 48^19, Figs. 2, 3.
Further, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not
established with evidence that, in Nikkanen, a 70% loss of forward thrust
necessarily equates to “no less than 70% and no more than about 85% of
flow being blocked.” See Appeal Br. 3. Nikkanen does not describe any
such relationship between percentage loss of forward thrust and percentage
flow blockage.
We also agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not established
with evidence that a blocker door having 30% open area means that the
blocker door would necessarily block 70% of flow. See id. The Examiner
reasons that such blocker door “does block 70% of the flow in terms of area
(i.e. flow area),” and “[a] door with 30% open area would mean it contains
70% closed area that would contact and block the flow area.” Ans. 2.
However, the Examiner has not established with evidence a one-to-one
correlation between a percentage of blocked area in Nikkanen’s blocker door
and a percentage of fan flow that is blocked by the blocker door and does not
leak through it. Consequently, the Examiner has not established by a
preponderance of the evidence that Nikkanen discloses all of the limitations
of claim 1.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or claims 2, 3, and 6
depending therefrom, as anticipated by Nikkanen.
Claims 14 and 16
The Examiner finds that Nikkanen discloses all limitations of claim
14, including “redirecting no less than about 70% to no more than about
85% of flow from a bypass flowpath through a cascade arrangement” and
5
Appeal 2016-008268
Application 13/406,924
“moving the remaining flow through a bypass flowpath exhaust.” Final Act.
3 (citing Nikkanen, col. 3,11. 25-36, 40^41); Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.)
(emphasis added).
Nikkanen describes that a portion of fan flow 24 leaks through
perforated blocker door 36 and another portion of fan flow 24 that does not
leak through blocker door 36 passes through the cascade 38. Nikkanen, col.
3,11. 25-26, 40^41, Fig. 2. Nikkanen does not disclose a particular
percentage of fan flow 24 that leaks through blocker door 36 or that passes
through cascade 38. Accordingly, even assuming blocker door 36 redirects
all flow that does not pass through blocker door 36 through cascade 38, and
assuming the “another portion” of fan flow 24 is this redirected flow,
because the Examiner has not established what percentage of fan flow 24
passes through blocker door 36, the Examiner has not established that the
“another portion” of fan flow 24 is “no less than about 70% to no more than
about 85% of flow from a bypass flowpath.” Thus, based on the record
before us, the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the
evidence that Nikkanen discloses all of the limitations of claim 14.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 14, or claim 16
depending therefrom, as anticipated by Nikkanen.
Rejection II
Claims 1-3 and 5-7
As to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Stretton discloses a blocker
door 26 moveable from a stowed position (Figure 2) to a deployed position
(Figure 3), wherein flow moves through an area of a bypass flowpath
(annular duct 13) when blocker door 26 is in the stowed position. Final Act.
4. The Examiner finds that Stretton discloses that the blocker door blocks
6
Appeal 2016-008268
Application 13/406,924
most or all of the duct, but is silent regarding the block amount and does not
disclose the blocking percentage limitation. Ans. 3. The Examiner relies on
Nikkanen to teach this limitation. Final Act. 4. The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to modify Stretton to include this teaching
of Nikkanen for the purpose of reversing thrust and improving the overall
efficiency of the gas turbine engine. Id. (citing Nikkanen, col. 3,11. 35-39,
11. 46-64).
Appellant contends that Nikkanen does not cure the deficiency of
Stretton. Appeal Br. 5. We agree for reasons discussed above.
The Examiner also states that nothing in the claims or the
Specification directs that the claimed “deployed position” is stationary, and
any position of the thrust reverser during its activation during operation can
be defined as a deployed position. Ans. 3. The Examiner states that Stretton
discloses that the blocker doors block most or all of the duct, and when the
blocker door is commanded to deploy, it will gradually block from 0% to
100%. Id. at 3-4 (citing Stretton, col. 2,11. 35-38).
Appellant replies that the Examiner’s position that any position of the
thrust reverser during activation can be defined as a deployed position
conflicts with Stretton’s teaching that Figure 3 shows the “deployed
position.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant contends that when the door is moving to
the position shown in Figure 3, it is not in the deployed position. Id.
Appellant’s contentions are persuasive. Stretton discloses:
When the thrust reverser is deployed, FIG. 3, the cowl
portion 16 translates rearwards. The blocker doors 26 pivot
across the annular duct 13 to a position where they block most
or all of the duct 13 at a position downstream of the cascades 20,
22. The cascade 22 moves as the cowl portion 16 translates
rearwards. The deflector vanes 24 in the cascade 22 are exposed
7
Appeal 2016-008268
Application 13/406,924
and air deflected by the blocker doors 26 passes through the
deflector vanes 24 to produce a braking force.
Stretton, col. 2,11. 34^42, Fig. 3 (emphasis added). Stretton does not appear
to describe any “deployed” position of blocker doors 26 in which they do not
block most or all of duct 13. As Stretton also does not disclose the meaning
of “most or all,” to the extent the Examiner finds that Stretton discloses the
blocking percentage limitation of claim 1, Stretton does not support such
finding.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or claims 2, 3,
and 5-7 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Stretton and Nikkanen.
Claims 9, 10, 12, and 13
The Examiner’s findings and reasoning in rejecting claim 9 are similar
to those discussed above with regard to claim 1. Final Act. 6-7.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 9, or claims 10, 12,
and 13 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Stretton and Nikkanen.
Claims 14 and 16
As to claim 14, the Examiner finds that Stretton does not disclose
redirecting no less than about 70% to no more than about 85% of flow from
a bypass flowpath through a cascade arrangement. Final Act. 7. The
Examiner relies on Nikkanen to teach this limitation. Id. As the Examiner
has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Nikkanen
discloses this limitation, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 14, or claim
16 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Stretton and Nikkanen.
Claims 18-20
Claim 18 depends from claim 1 and recites that “the blocker door is
unapertured such that no flow blocked by the blocker door is moved through
any aperture provided by the blocker door.” Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.)
8
Appeal 2016-008268
Application 13/406,924
(emphasis added). Claims 19 and 20, which depend from claims 9 and 14,
respectively, recite similar limitations as claim 18. Id. The Examiner finds
that Stretton meets the limitation of claim 18. Final Act. 8 (citing Stretton,
Fig. 2).
Appellant contends that, if Stretton’s blocker door 26 were
unapertured and extended across the duct as shown, blocker door 26 would
block all flow through annular duct 13. Appeal Br. 6-7. Appellant contends
that Stretton, as modified, fails to teach or suggest the blocking percentage
limitation while also being unapertured. Id. at 7. The Examiner responds
that Stretton’s blocking doors are unapertured while blocking most of the
duct because the flow travels under the blocking door, as indicated by the
“gap under 26” in Figure 3. Ans. 5. Appellant replies that Stretton’s
drawing figures do not clearly show unapertured blocking doors, and thus,
cannot be used to teach the “unapertured” feature of claim 18, and of claims
19 and 20. Reply Br. 2-3.
Stretton does not appear to explicitly describe whether blocker doors
26 include or do not include flow apertures. Nikkanen’s blocker door 36 is
apertured. Further, the Examiner has not established that Nikkanen
discloses the blocking percentage limitation of claim 1. Accordingly, we
agree with Appellant that, even if Stretton’s blocker door 26 were
unapertured, Stretton as modified in view Nikkanen still fails to teach or
suggest the blocking percentage limitation. Appeal Br. 7.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 18, or claims 19 and 20,
as unpatentable over Stretton and Nikkanen.
9
Appeal 2016-008268
Application 13/406,924
Rejection III
The Examiner’s reliance on Rudolph to reject claims 4 and 15, which
depend from claims 1 and 14, respectively, does not cure the deficiencies of
the rejection of claims 1 and 14 (Rejection I). Final Act. 8-9. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 15 as unpatentable over
Nikkanen and Rudolph.
Rejection IV
The Examiner’s reliance on Rudolph to reject claims 4, 11, and 15,
with claim 11 depending from claim 9, does not cure the deficiencies of the
rejection of claims 1, 9, and 14 over Stretton and Nikkanen (Rejection II).
Final Act. 9-11. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 4,
11, and 15 as unpatentable over Stretton, Nikkanen, and Rudolph.
Rejection V
The Examiner’s reliance on Harris to reject claims 8 and 17, which
depend from claims 1 and 14, respectively, does not cure the deficiencies of
the rejection of claims 1 and 14 over Stretton and Nikkanen. Final Act. 11.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 17 as
unpatentable over Stretton, Nikkanen, and Harris.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
10