Ex Parte Mast et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2017

13584286 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 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.
13/584,286 08/13/2012 Thomas M. Mast 0021-00076 3693
130674 7590 12/19/2017
Lightfoot & Alford PLLC (BHTI)
4100 Eldorado Parkway
Suite 100-271
McKinney, TX 75070
EXAMINER
MEADE, LORNE EDWARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2017 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):
patentdocket@lightfootalford.com
lightfootalfordpllc @ gmail. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS M. MAST, KEITH C. PEDERSEN,
DAVID L. MILLER, and STEVEN RAY IVANS
Appeal 2017-008456
Application 13/584,2861
Technology Center 3700
Before CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 and 6—13. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Bell Helicopter
Textron Inc. (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2017-008456
Application 13/584,286
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ claimed invention “relates to a vectored exhaust system
for an aircraft,” and, in particular, for a tiltrotor aircraft. (Spec, 1, 3.)
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal. It recites:
1. An exhaust system for a tiltrotor aircraft, the exhaust
system comprising:
a fixed exhaust in gaseous communication with an engine;
a primary exhaust duct in gaseous communication with the
fixed exhaust, the primary exhaust duct being rotatable relative
to the fixed exhaust about a nozzle rotational axis, the primary
exhaust duct having a central axis that defines an exit exhaust
direction; and
a nacelle configured as a housing for the engine, the
nacelle being rotatable relative to a wing of the tiltrotor aircraft
about a nacelle rotational axis;
wherein the nacelle is rotatable between a vertical
orientation for a helicopter mode operation of the tiltrotor aircraft
and a horizontal orientation for an airplane mode operation of the
tiltrotor aircraft;
wherein the primary exhaust duct is configured to
selectively rotate such that the exit exhaust direction aligns in an
upward/outboard direction while the nacelle is in the vertical
orientation;
wherein the primary exhaust duct is configured to
selectively rotate such that the exit exhaust direction aligns in the
upward/outboard direction while the nacelle is in the horizontal
orientation; and
wherein the primary exhaust duct is configured to
selectively rotate during operation of the tiltrotor aircraft
between the airplane mode and the helicopter mode.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1,12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Doyen (US 6,296,378 Bl, iss. Oct. 2, 2001); Alan
2
Appeal 2017-008456
Application 13/584,286
Peaford, 2007 Pocket Guide to Business Aircraft (Aerocomm Ltd. 2006)
(hereinafter “Peaford”); PT6C, http://www.pwc.ca/en/engines/pt6c (as
visited Apr. 2, 2015) (hereinafter “PT6C”); AgustaWestland AW609,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AW609 (as visited Apr. 2, 2015) (hereinafter
“AW609”); Hollimon (WO 2008/127260 Al, pub. Oct. 23, 2008); and
Toulmay (US 4,662,174, iss. May 5, 1987).
Claims 6—10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Doyen; Peaford; PT6C; AW609; Hollimon; Toulmay; and
Nightingale (US 4,732,324, iss. Mar. 22, 1988).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Doyen; Peaford; PT6C; AW609; Hollimon; Toulmay; and Kawashita
(US 2011/0014031 Al, pub. Jan. 20, 2011).
Claims 1, 12, and 13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Doyen; Peaford; PT6C; AW609; Hollimon; and
David Hambling, Hot-Breathing Osprey Sparks Five-Acre Fire,
http://www.wired.com/2009/06/hot-breathing-osprey-sparks-five-acre-fire
(as visited Apr. 4, 2015) (hereinafter “Hambling”).
Claims 6—10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Doyen; Peaford; PT6C; AW609; Hollimon; Hambling;
and Nightingale.
Claim 11 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Doyen; Peaford; PT6C; AW609; Hollimon; Hambling;
and Kawashita.
3
Appeal 2017-008456
Application 13/584,286
ANALYSIS
With regard to the rejection of claim 1 in view of Doyen, Peaford,
PT6C, AW609, Hollimon, and Toulmay, Appellants argue that “one having
ordinary skill in the art would not look to either Hollimon or Toulmay as a
source of solutions for management of tiltrotor aircraft exhaust.” (Appeal
Br. 3.) With regard to the rejection of claim 1 in view of Doyen, Peaford,
PT6C, AW609, Hollimon, and Hambling, Appellants argue that “one having
ordinary skill in the art would not look to either Hollimon or Hambling as a
source of solutions for management of tiltrotor aircraft exhaust.” {Id. at 4—
5.) We consider these to be arguments that Hollimon, Toulmay, and
Hambling are non-analogous art.
“The pertinence of the reference as a source of solution to the
inventor’s problem must be recognizable with the foresight of a person of
ordinary skill, not with the hindsight of the inventor’s successful
achievement.” Scientific Plastic Prods., Inc. v. Biotage AB, 766 F.3d 1355,
1359 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In making this finding, we look to the analogous-art
test.
The analogous-art test requires that the Board show that a
reference is either in the field of the applicant’s endeavor or is
reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was
concerned in order to rely on that reference as a basis for
rejection. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed.Cir.1992).
References are selected as being reasonably pertinent to the
problem based on the judgment of a person having ordinary skill
in the art. Id. (“[I]t is necessary to consider ‘the reality of the
circumstances,’—in other words, common sense—in deciding in
which fields a person of ordinary skill would reasonably be
expected to look for a solution to the problem facing the
inventor.” (quoting In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (C.C.P.A.
1979))).
4
Appeal 2017-008456
Application 13/584,286
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986—87 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Whether a prior art
reference is ‘analogous’ is a question of fact.” Innovention Toys, LLC v.
MGS Entertainment, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The “Background” section of the Specification discloses that “there is
a need for an improved exhaust system for a tiltrotor aircraft.” (Spec. 13.)
Claim 1 recites “[a]n exhaust system for a tiltrotor aircraft.” The
Specification also discloses a vector nozzle that may be “selectively oriented
to direct exhaust gases.” {Id. Tflf 25, 27.) The Specification further discloses
aircraft 101 ... illustrated in an airplane mode with vector nozzle
113 selectively oriented to direct exhaust gases in an upward
direction. In such a configuration, a hot interior portion of
exhaust system 103 is hidden from line-of-site of most potential
threats, thereby directionally suppressing the perceived infrared
(IR) signature of aircraft 101.
{Id. 126.) The Specification also discloses that
[t]he particular embodiments disclosed above are illustrative
only, as the apparatus may be modified and practiced in different
but equivalent manners apparent to those skilled in the art having
the benefit of the teachings herein. Modifications, additions, or
omissions may be made to the apparatuses described herein
without departing from the scope of the invention.
{Id. 139.)
In view of the above, we find that the inventors’ field of endeavor was
tiltrotor aircraft engine exhaust systems, and that a reference related to
directing aircraft engine exhaust gases would be reasonably pertinent to the
problem with which the inventors were concerned, i.e., directing tiltrotor
aircraft engine exhaust gases.
5
Appeal 2017-008456
Application 13/584,286
Hollimon is entitled “Engine Exhaust System with Directional
Nozzle” and discloses “engine exhaust systems for aircraft” and directing
engine exhaust gases. (Hollimon, p. 1,11. 1, 4; p. 2,1. 25—p. 3,1. 2.)
Toulmay is entitled “Plume Diluter Diverter Assembly for a Turbine
Engine of a Heavier Than Air Machine” and discloses “an assembly for
diluting and diverting the exhaust plume from a turbine engine of a heavier
than air machine.” (Toulmay, col. 1,11. 2-4, 7—9.)
Hambling is entitled “Hot-Breathing Osprey Sparks Five-Acre Fire.”
(Hambling 1.) Hambling discloses that “the tilt-rotor’s fearsomely hot
exhaust can cause real problems” {id.), and Hambling suggests possible
solutions, including “angl[ing] the nacelles forward rather than leaving them
vertical” {id. at 2), i.e., redirecting the engine exhaust gases.
In short, Hollimon, Toulmay, and Hambling are all related to directing
aircraft engine exhaust gases, and are all reasonably pertinent to the problem
with which the inventors were concerned, i.e., directing tiltrotor aircraft
engine exhaust gases. Therefore, we do not find Appellants’ argument
persuasive of error.
Appellants also argue that “Hollimon cannot be interpreted as being
compatible with the requirements of independent claim 1” (Appeal Br. 3),
that “Toulmay cannot be interpreted as being compatible with the
requirements of independent claim 1 ” {id. at 4), and that “Hambling merely
discloses the potential solutions of angling the entire nacelle forward rather
than leaving them vertical during landing” {id. at 5). In short, Appellants
argue the references individually. However, the Examiner does not rely on
the references individually in making the obviousness determination nor
does the Examiner propose bodily incorporation of structures disclosed in
6
Appeal 2017-008456
Application 13/584,286
the references. (See, e.g., Answer 7.) Rather, the Examiner relies on what
the combination of references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art. (See, e.g., Final Action 3—11.) That is, the Examiner is relying on
how one skilled in the art would have modified the teachings of Doyen in
view of Peaford, PT6C, AW609, Hollimon, and Toulmay, and also how one
skilled in the art would have modified the teachings of Doyen in view of
Peaford, PT6C, AW609, Hollimon, and Hambling. Moreover, “one cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here,
the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Therefore, we do not find Appellants’
arguments persuasive of error.
Appellants also argue that “Hambling actually teaches away from use
of the primary exhaust duct of claim 1 since it focuses on aiming the entire
nacelle away from the landing area.” (Appeal Br. 5.) However, Appellants’
argument does not indicate where Hambling “criticize[s], discredits], or
otherwise discourage[s] the solution claimed.” See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d
1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Therefore, we do not find Appellants’
argument persuasive of error.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 6—13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7