Ex Parte Schwarz et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 30, 201814663727 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2018) Copy Citation 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. 14/663,727 03/20/2015 Frederick M. Schwarz 64790US03; 4770 67097-2253US2 54549 7590 02/01/2018 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER RODRIGUEZ, WILLIAM H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/01/2018 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 FREDERICK M. SCHWARZ and KARL L. HASEL Appeal 2017-002503 Application 14/663,7271 Technology Center 3700 Before LINDA E. HORNER, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 6, 10, 22, 24, 25, and 28. Final Office Action (December 9, 2015) (hereinafter “Final Act.”).2 We have 1 United Technologies Corporation (“Appellant”) is the applicant as provided in 37 C.F.R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 1 (March 7, 2016) (hereinafter “Appeal Br.”). 2 Claims 5, 9, 12-20, 26, and 29 are canceled. Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Claims 7, 8, 21, 23, and 27 are pending and not rejected. Appeal 2017-002503 Application 14/663,727 jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appellant contests the Examiner’s finding of anticipation and determination of obviousness of the gas turbine engine of claim 1. The Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections are based on a finding that the prior art discloses the claimed inducer. This finding is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections also are based on a determination that the prior art discloses, and/or renders obvious, components of the second compressor section configured to operate at an average exit temperature within a particular range. This determination is premised on a sound basis, and Appellant has failed to adequately refute it. Appellant also contests the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 2, 10, 24, 25, and 28. For reasons discussed in detail in this opinion, we find sufficient evidence for sustaining all the rejections, except for the anticipation rejections of dependent claims 24 and 25. Accordingly, we AFFIRM-IN-PART. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to a two-spool, geared turbofan engine. The engine includes an inducer that forms an additional compression section in front of first and second compressor sections. The average exit temperature of the compressor section is between about 1000 -F and about 1500 -F. Specification || 3, 6, and 14 (filed March 20, 2015) (hereinafter “Spec.”). Claim 1 is the sole independent claim and is reproduced below. 2 Appeal 2017-002503 Application 14/663,727 1. A gas turbine engine comprising: a fan including a plurality of fan blades rotatable about an axis; a compressor section including at least a first compressor section and a second compressor section, and wherein the first compressor section comprises a low pressure compressor and the second compressor section comprises a high pressure compressor, and wherein components of the second compressor section are configured to operate at an average exit temperature that is between 1000 °F and 1500 °F; a combustor in fluid communication with the compressor section; a turbine section in fluid communication with the combustor, wherein the turbine section comprises a low pressure turbine that drives the low pressure compressor via a first shaft and a high pressure turbine that drives the high pressure compressor via a second shaft; a geared architecture driven by the turbine section for rotating the fan about the axis, and wherein the geared architecture couples the first shaft to the fan; and an inducer forming an additional compression section positioned in front of the high and low pressure compressors. Appeal Br. 22 (Claims Appendix). 3 Appeal 2017-002503 Application 14/663,727 REJECTIONS The Final Office Action, as modified by the Advisory Action3 and the Examiner’s Answer4, includes the following rejections: 1. Claims 1—4 and 28 stand provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims of co-pending Application 14/044,971 and Jane’s. 2. Claims 1,2, 10, 24, 25, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Jane’s. 3. Claims 1, 2, 6, 10, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jane’s, Allmon, Mao, and Chir. 3 In an Advisory Action issued after the Final Office Action, the Examiner withdrew rejections of claims 1, 2, 24, 25, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kohlenberg (US 2012/0073263 Al, published March 29, 2012), and of claims 1—4, 6, 11, 21-23, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kohlenberg, Allmon (US 5,201,845, issued April 13, 1993), Mao (US 6,630,244 Bl, issued October 7, 2003), and Chir (US 2010/0303616 Al, issued December 2, 2010). Advisory Action 2 (January 25, 2016). 4 In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner withdrew the following rejections: (1) claims 3, 4, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement; (2) claims 3, 4, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite; (3) claims 1-3, 24, 25, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Adamson (US 5,010,729, April 30, 1991); (4) claims 21, 23, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jane’s Aero-Engines, B. Gunston, ed., Issue Seven (2000) (hereinafter “Jane’s”), Allmon, Mao, and Chir; and (5) claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jane’s, Allmon, Mao, Chir, and Lammas (US 6,375,421 Bl, April 23, 2002). Examiner’s Answer 2 (October 4, 2016) (hereinafter “Ans.”). 4 Appeal 2017-002503 Application 14/663,727 ISSUES The appeal presents two issues as to the rejection of independent claim 1. The first issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Jane’s discloses an inducer. The second issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Jane’s discloses, or in combination with Allmon, Mao, and Chir renders obvious, components of a second compressor section that are configured to operate at an average exit temperature within the claimed range. The appeal presents additional issues as to the rejection of several dependent claims. We address these additional issues under the corresponding dependent claim headings below. ANALYSIS First Issue: Does Jane’s disclose an inducer? Claim 1 recites that the gas turbine engine includes “an inducer forming an additional compression section positioned in front of the high and low pressure compressors.” Appeal Br. 22 (Claims Appendix). Appellant’s Specification provides an example of an inducer. The Specification discloses that “inducer 70 comprises a blade that can be a slotted blade or a blisk, which comes off of a hub 72 that is coupled to rotate with the fan 42.” Spec. 147. This inducer is depicted in Figure 6, which is reproduced below: 5 Appeal 2017-002503 Application 14/663,727 Figure 6 of Appellant’s Specification depicts “a schematic representation of a compressor section with an inducer.” Spec. 134. As shown in Figure 6, inducer 70 includes a blade emanating from a hub 72, which is connected directly to the hub of fan blade 42, for rotation therewith. The Examiner found that Engine A, depicted on page 8 of Jane’s, depicts an inducer positioned in front of the high and low pressure compressors. Final Act. 17. Jane’s describes Engine A as being “a conventional turbofan with the fan driven by reduction gearbox G.” Jane’s 8. A copy of the annotated version of the Figure is reproduced below. 6 Appeal 2017-002503 Application 14/663,727 The Examiner identified in the annotated Figure above the following engine components, listed in order from upstream to downstream locations: a fan, an inducer, a low pressure compressor, a high pressure compressor, a high pressure turbine, and a low pressure turbine. In particular, the Examiner identified a component, located downstream of the fan and at the intake to the core path upstream of the low and high pressure compressors, as the inducer. The Examiner also provides in the Examiner’s Answer a side-by-side comparison of annotated Figure 6 of Appellant’s Specification and a partial view of the Figure relied on in Jane’s to demonstrate the similarity in structure of the two engines. Ans. 5. A copy of this comparison is provided below. INVENTION Vs. PRIOR ART (Jane’s page 8) 7 Appeal 2017-002503 Application 14/663,727 The Examiner identifies the following components in each of the annotated Figures pictured directly above: the fan blade, the rotating blade of the inducer, the stator vane, the shaft connecting the inducer with the fan, and the gearbox. Id. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the Examiner’s understanding of the Figure provided in Jane’s. We agree with the Examiner that the Figure in Jane’s shows a connection between the fan and a blade located at the input to the core. This connection in the Figure provides adequate evidence for the Examiner’s finding that this blade rotates with the fan. The Figure in Jane’s shows this rotating blade positioned between stator vanes. We understand these vanes to be stator vanes because they are not shown as connected to the fan. The general teachings in Jane’s as to the conventional use of a booster at the inlet to the core bolsters our understanding of the engine depicted in the Figure. For example, Jane’s describes the common use of an extra compressor, or booster, in two-shaft turbofans. Jane’s 17. Jane’s describes that this booster is located “immediately behind the fan and on the same shaft” and that it is “provided to raise the pressure entering the core.” Id. Jane’s defines a “booster” as an “[a]xial compressor (usually with from one to five stages) downstream of a fan and rotating with it (thus, at relatively low rpm) to supercharge the core, to which all its air flow is delivered.” Id., Glossary [8]. Jane’s further teaches that boosters are used to raise the pressure “because the higher the [pressure ratio], the better the engine’s efficiency.” Id. at 4. In light of this disclosure in Jane’s of common boosters used to increase the pressure of the air flow at the inlet to the core, we agree with the Examiner’s determination that Jane’s depicts a rotating 8 Appeal 2017-002503 Application 14/663,727 blade located between stator vanes at the input to the core in Engine A, and that this configuration acts as a compressor. We are not dissuaded from our view simply because “Jane’s provides no explanation as to the line that extends from the outer casing to the base structure associated with the fan blade.” Reply Brief 3 (December 5, 2016) (hereinafter “Reply Br.”). Here, Jane’s provides a schematic drawing that unmistakably depicts a shaft connecting a blade, located in the intake to the core path, to a rotating fan. See In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972) (“Description for the purposes of anticipation can be by drawings alone as well as by words.”) (quoting In re Bager, 47 F.2d 951, 953 (CCPA 1931)). We also decline to adopt Appellant’s characterization that “[t]he structures identified by the Examiner could be additional structures to provide support for rotating components to reduce vibrations, etc.” Reply Br. 3. We fail to see how the blade, identified by the Examiner as forming part of the inducer and shown in the Figure in Jane’s as being connected to the fan, is non-rotating. The fan hub and fan blade in the Figure are meant to rotate. The connection between the fan and inducer blade, and the placement of this connected blade between two blades that are not depicted as connected to the fan, is adequate evidence of a rotating blade between two stator vanes to compress the air flow delivered to the core. The Examiner additionally cites to Coplin (US 4,827,712, issued May 9, 1989) for the first time in the Examiner’s Answer as evidence that the Examiner’s interpretation of Jane’s is correct. Ans. 6. Typically, we would not consider such new evidence in our review on appeal. See infra, n.5. In 9 Appeal 2017-002503 Application 14/663,727 this case, however, Appellant argues in the Reply Brief that Coplin supports Appellant’s own interpretation of Jane’s. Reply Br. 8-9. As such, we consider this new evidence, because it was argued by both parties as supporting their respective positions, and Appellant availed itself of an opportunity to address Coplin in the Reply Brief. We disagree that Coplin supports a reading of Jane’s Engine A as disclosing a non-rotating component. Reply Br. 9 (Appellant contending that Coplin’s structure 82, which extends to the fan in a manner similar to the line identified by the Examiner in Jane’s, suggests that the connection in Jane’s is to a non-rotating structure). Coplin discloses a booster compressor positioned between a fan assembly 72 and a core engine 12 within an inlet duct 92. Coplin, col. 3,11. 62-65. Coplin teaches that the booster compressor boosts the pressure of the air supplied to core engine 12. Id. at col. 3,11. 64-65. The booster compressor includes non-rotating vanes 90, 100 upstream and downstream of a booster rotor 94, which carries rotating blades 96. Id. at col. 3,11. 57-61, 65-67, col. 4,11. 7-8. This structure of stator vanes positioned upstream and downstream of a rotating blade is to supercharge the air flow to the core in a similar manner to the structure depicted in Jane’s. We acknowledge that Coplin’s booster rotor 94 is driven by the stub shaft 60 via a conical shaft 98, instead of being connected directly to the fan. Id. at col. 4,11. 2—4. That difference, as to which side of the gearbox the Coplin’s rotating blade is connected, does not alter our understanding of the function of the blades in Coplin. For these reasons, Coplin does not urge us 10 Appeal 2017-002503 Application 14/663,727 to find error in the Examiner’s interpretation of the Figure in Jane’s as disclosing an inducer. Having disposed of the first issue in favor of the Examiner, we turn to the second issue as to the exit temperature limitation of claim 1. Second Issue: Does Jane’s disclose, or in combination with Allmon, Mao, and Chir render obvious, components of a second compressor section that are configured to operate at an average exit temperature within the claimed range? In the anticipation rejection, the Examiner found that “Jane’s teaches substantially identical structure as the claimed invention” and as such, Jane’s components of the second compressor are configured to operate at an average exit temperature within the claimed range. Final Act. 18-19. In the obviousness rejection, the Examiner cited Allmon and Mao to teach that it was well known in the art that gas turbine engines may have compressor exit temperatures that overlap the claimed range, and cited Chir to teach that take-off is a high-load condition that may result in elevated compressor discharge temperatures. Id. at 25. The Examiner determined, in light of the teachings of Allmon, Mao, and Chir, that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the high pressure compressor of Jane’s may have an exit temperature within the claimed range during take-off. Id. at 25-26. As such, the Examiner determined that the claimed structure does not patentably distinguish over the structure disclosed in Jane’s. Id. at 26. In response to the anticipation rejection, Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s finding that Jane’s structure is the same as the claimed structure, and argues that “operational temperatures for components are clearly based on structural characteristics of those components.” Appeal Br. 13 (“Two 11 Appeal 2017-002503 Application 14/663,727 components can appear to be physically identical to each other but have extremely different operating temperature capabilities”). A patent applicant is free to recite features of an apparatus either structurally or functionally. See In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212 (CCPA 1971) (“[T]here is nothing intrinsically wrong with [defining something by what it does rather than what it is] in drafting patent claims.”). “Yet, choosing to define an element functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries with it a risk.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As stated in Swinehart, 439 F.2d at 213: [W]here the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. Nevertheless, before an applicant can be put to this burdensome task, the examiner must provide sufficient evidence or scientific reasoning to establish there is a sound basis for the examiner’s belief that the functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In support of the anticipation finding, the Examiner found that Jane’s discloses the same structure as claimed: an engine having an inducer, a low pressure compressor, and a high pressure compressor. Final Act. 17-18. The Examiner further explains that this structure results in high compressor exit temperatures. Ans. 7 (“Jane’s teaches that as the operating pressure ratio (OPR) is increased, the exit temperature from the compression process is increased.”) (citing Jane’s 25, first col., 11. 23-25). We further note that 12 Appeal 2017-002503 Application 14/663,727 Jane’s teaches using boosters to supercharge the air flow to the core to increase the overall pressure ratio to improve the engine’s efficiency. Jane’s, Glossary [8], 4. Jane’s also describes that compressors used in conventional air propulsion systems emit air within the claimed temperature range. Jane’s 5 (“From the compressor the air, already very hot (perhaps 760-C, 1,400-F, a ‘bright orange’ temperature), passes to the combustion chamber, or combustor.”). Appellant’s Specification describes an embodiment in which the second compressor section has bladed disks to eliminate local boundary layer pumping at the rear of the high pressure compressor and uses a bladed disk and seal configuration at the front of the high pressure compressor to reduce intra-stage leakage. Spec. 48-53. The Specification describes that these features enable the last stage of the compressor section to operate within desired temperature parameters. Id. Although this disclosed configuration of the second compressor section enables the recited exit temperatures, Appellant has not pointed to this configuration as the only means by which to enable such exit temperatures. We find sufficient evidence in Jane’s, including an explicit disclosure of a compressor exit temperature within the claimed range, to establish a sound basis for the Examiner’s belief that the recited functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the engine in Jane’s. Once a prima facie case of anticipation has been established, the burden shifts to the Appellant to prove that the prior art product does not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (“Where, as here, the claimed 13 Appeal 2017-002503 Application 14/663,727 and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product.”). See also Spada, 911 F.2d at 708-09. Appellant fails to meet this burden. Appellant’s contention that Jane’s fails to explicitly disclose the recited exit temperature capability misses the mark. Further, as noted above, this contention is at least partly inaccurate, as Jane’s, in fact, discloses compressor exit temperatures of 1,400 °F. Appellant’s further general contention that operational temperatures are based on structural characteristics of the components is likewise unavailing. This general contention fails to identify any specific structural characteristics of the second compressor section that control the operational temperatures for the components so as to result in a structural difference between the structure depicted in Jane’s and the claimed structure. For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner’s finding of anticipation of claim 1 by Jane’s. We also agree with the Examiner’s further findings, as set forth in the obviousness rejection of claim 1, that exit temperatures within the claimed range were well known in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention. Allmon discloses a two-spool turbofan engine and describes that in such well-known engines “compressor exit temperature often exceeds 1100° F.” Allmon, col. 1,11. 34-35. Likewise, Mao discloses that “[i]n high- performance aircraft engines . . . the compressor discharge temperature could be as high as 1,600° F.” Mao, col. 1,11. 18-21. 14 Appeal 2017-002503 Application 14/663,727 Appellant argues that Allmon does not “teach[] or suggest[] that the components of the compressor section are configured to operate at an average exit temperature that is between 1000 -F and 1500 -F.” Appeal Br. 16. The Examiner, however, did not find that Allmon teaches an average exit temperature. Rather, the Examiner found that Allmon teaches it was well known to have exit temperatures in excess of 1100 -F. Such exit temperatures are within the claimed range of average exit temperatures, and Allmon’s disclosure of such known exit temperatures is a sufficient disclosure on which to base a determination of obviousness. Further, the fact that Appellant’s claim is discussed in terms of average exit temperature is not a patentable distinction over the art, which discloses compressor exit temperatures within the claimed temperature range. If the convention is to configure turbofan engines to operate within the claimed range, then the average of these exit temperatures also would fall within the range. Appellant has not explained why reciting the limitation in terms of “average” exit temperature differs over the art. Appellant also argues that because “the engine disclosed in Allmon is of a different configuration than that identified by the Examiner in Jane’s,” there is nothing to indicate that Jane’s configuration would have the same compressor exit temperatures as disclosed in Allmon. Appeal Br. 16 (Appellant arguing that “Allmon does not include a geared architecture”). Appellant does not provide, however, any support for the contention that this asserted difference in configuration would make a difference in the exit operating temperature. Appellant’s Specification does not teach that the geared architecture plays a critical role in enabling the second compressor to 15 Appeal 2017-002503 Application 14/663,727 operate at the claimed average exit temperature. In fact, the Specification describes that “the present invention is applicable to other gas turbine engines including direct drive turbofans.” Spec. 141. As to the Examiner’s reliance on Mao, Appellant argues that Mao does not suggest that the compressor components themselves are configured to operate at an average exit temperature that is in the claimed range, and that Mao does not suggest that Jane’s engine is capable of operating in the claimed average exit temperature range. Appeal Br. 16. As noted above, Mao teaches that “[i]n high-performance aircraft engines . . . the compressor discharge temperature could be as high as 1,600- F.” Mao, col. 1,11. 18-21. This suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art that when designing high-performance aircraft engines, such as the engine disclosed in Jane’s, the compressor components should be designed to withstand such discharge temperatures. See also Ans. 7 (Examiner noting that in order to reach the maximum temperature disclosed in Mao, the engine must pass through the claim ranges). Appellant further contends that the Examiner has not provided sufficient articulated reasoning to explain how the combined teachings result in the claimed compressor components. Appeal Br. 16-17 (arguing that the Examiner’s “argument is conclusory at best”). We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Allmon and Mao show that the claimed range of compressor exit temperatures is not new and that Chir teaches elevated temperatures occur at take-off. Ans. 7.5 These references, along with the 5 The Examiner cited an article to NASA, for the first time in the response to arguments section of the Answer. Ans. 8-9 (finding that the NASA article 16 Appeal 2017-002503 Application 14/663,727 explicit disclosure in Jane’s that it was known in the art to have compressor exit temperatures of 1,400 -F, establish that it was well known in the art to provide second compressor sections in two-spool turbofans that are configured to operate at an average exit temperature within the claimed range. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s determination of obviousness. For these reasons, we sustain the rejections of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Jane’s, and under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jane’s, Allmon, Mao, and Chir. Claim 2 The Examiner rejected claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 103. Final Act. 18, 25. Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites a slightly narrower range of average exit temperatures between 1100 -F and 1450 -F. Appeal Br. 22 (Claims Appendix). Appellant relies on the same arguments provides further evidentiary support of the well-known compressor exit temperatures). Our decision does not address the merits of the NASA article. This article was not part of the ground of rejection as articulated in the Final Action from which this appeal was taken. Final Act. 24-26 (rejection of claim 1); see also Advisory Act. 5 (responding to arguments with no mention of the NASA article). An appeal is taken from the decision of the Examiner twice rejecting the claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.31. As such, we review the decision of the Examiner as set forth in the Office action from which the appeal is taken, as modified by any advisory action and pre-appeal Brief conference decision. 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(a)(1); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(a)(2) (“For purposes of the examiner’s answer, any rejection that relies upon any Evidence not relied upon in the Office action from which the appeal is taken (as modified by any advisory action) shall be designated by the primary examiner as a new ground of rejection”). 17 Appeal 2017-002503 Application 14/663,727 discussed in detail above to rebut both grounds of rejection. Appeal Br. 13, 17. As we found supra, the prior art disclosures include compressor exit temperatures within this narrower range. As such, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejections of claim 2 for the same reasons provided above in our analysis of claim 1. We sustain the rejections of claim 2 under 35U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 103. Claim 6 The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Final Act. 24. Appellant did not present any separate arguments for patentability of this claim. Appeal Br. 17 (Appellant grouping claim 6 with claim 1). Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), claim 1 is representative; claim 6 falls with claim 1. Claim 10 The Examiner rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 103. Final Act. 19, 27. Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and recites “the inducer is configured to rotate at a speed common with that of the fan.” Appeal Br. 23 (Claims Appendix). Appellant argues that there is nothing in Jane’s or in the combination of references “to indicate or suggest that the structure identified by the Examiner rotates at a speed that is common with the fan.” Appeal Br. 13, 17. As we found above, Jane’s discloses that the rotatable blade of the inducer is connected directly to the fan. Thus, we find adequate support for the Examiner’s finding that the inducer rotates at a speed that is common with the fan. We sustain the rejections of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 103. 18 Appeal 2017-002503 Application 14/663,727 Claim 22 The Examiner rejected claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Final Act. 24. Appellant did not present any separate arguments for patentability of this claim. Appeal Br. 17 (Appellant grouping claim 22 with claim 1). Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), claim 1 is representative; claim 22 falls with claim 1. Claims 24 and 25 The Examiner rejected claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Final Act. 18. Claim 24 depends from claim 1 and recites “the fan is configured to operate at a redline speed of at least 3200 rpm at the average exit temperature.” Appeal Br. 23 (Claims Appendix). Claim 25 depends from and further limits claim 24. Id. Appellant argues that there is insufficient support in Jane’s for a finding of anticipation because “there is no disclosure or teaching found anywhere in Jane’s that relates fan speed to a specific exit temperature from a high pressure compressor.” Appeal Br. 14. We could not find adequate evidence in Jane’s of an explicit connection between fan speed and compressor exit temperature to support a finding that the engine of Jane’s necessarily is configured to operate at the recited redline speed. As such, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 24 and 25. Claim 28 The Examiner rejected claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Final Act. 18. Claim 28 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the average exit temperature is defined at Sea Fevel, end of takeoff power and at a rated thrust for the gas turbine engine.” Appeal Br. 24 (Claims Appendix). 19 Appeal 2017-002503 Application 14/663,727 Appellant argues, “Jane’s makes no mention of an average exit temperature for the high pressure compressor that can be as high as 1500 °F. Further, there is no disclosure or teaching found anywhere in Jane’s to indicate the specific operating conditions that would be used to define the claimed average exit temperature for the high pressure compressor.” Reply Br. 7. We find that Jane’s supports a finding that these specific operating conditions recited in claim 28 to define the average exit temperature are conventional. Jane’s discusses the efficiency of engines with reference to the pressure ratio of the compressors when measured “on take-off at sea level.” Jane’s 4. Jane’s also notes that “[m]ass flows are measured in kg and lb per second, unless other stated under [sea level] static conditions at [take-off] power.” Id. at Glossary [11] (defining “Mass” units). Jane’s uses the same default conditions for measuring pressure ratio and bypass ratio. Id. As such, it appears to be the practice in Jane’s to measure particular parameters of air propulsion systems at sea level and at take-off power unless otherwise stated. Based on this finding, we find that the Examiner’s anticipation finding is premised on a sound basis, and Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the subject matter of claim 28 further limits the structure of the claimed engine so as to patentably distinguish it from the engine disclosed in Jane’s. For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Provisional Double Patenting Rejection The Final Office Action includes a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1—4 and 28 as unpatentable over claims 20 Appeal 2017-002503 Application 14/663,727 1, 2, 6, and 7, or claims 8, 9, 13, and 14, or claims 15 and 16 of Application 14/044,971 in view of Jane’s. Final Office Action 9-11. Since the Final Office Action, the claims of the ’971 application that form the basis of this double patenting rejection have been amended. We do not reach this provisional rejection because the claims of the ’971 application originally considered by the Examiner at the time of the rejection have been amended, and we have no analysis from the Examiner as to whether the now-pending claims of the ’971 application raise an obviousness-type double patenting issue. DECISION The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1,2, 10, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and of claims 1, 2, 6, 10, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) is reversed. We do not reach provisional rejection of claims 1-4 and 28 based on obviousness-type double patenting. 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-IN-PART 21 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation