Ex Parte Suciu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 9, 2016

13116116 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/116,116 05/26/2011 Gabriel L. Suciu
54549 7590 06/13/2016
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.
PA9087U;67097-1439PUS1 4815
EXAMINER
KIM, CRAIG SANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2016 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 GABRIEL L. SUCIU,
IOANNIS AL VANOS, and BRIAND. MERRY
Appeal2014-002218
Application 13/116,116
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES P. CALVE, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal2014-002218
Application 13/116,116
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 4, and 10 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A turbine exhaust case for a gas turbine engine
compnsmg:
a CMC core nacelle aft portion;
a CMC tail cone; and
a multiple of CMC turbine exhaust case struts between
said CMC core nacelle aft portion and said CMC tail cone.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tse (US 2002/0073690 Al, pub. June 20, 2002) in view
of Chakrabarti (US 2009/0226746 Al, pub. Sept. 10, 2009).
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Tse, Chakrabarti, and Blanchard (US 7,866,162 B2, iss. Jan. 11, 2011).
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Peterson (US 2,938,336, iss. May 31, 1960) in view of
Chakrabarti.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, and 12-14 unpatentable over Tse and Chakrabarti
The Examiner found that Tse teaches a gas turbine engine, as recited
in claims 1, 4, and 10, with turbine case 32 and turbine exhaust with a core
nacelle aft portion, a tail cone, and exhaust case struts. Final Act. 2-3. The
Examiner relied on Chakrabarti to teach a gas turbine engine exhaust nozzle
and plug made of CMC materials. Id. at 3. The Examiner determined that it
would have been obvious to form the turbine exhaust case of Tse from CMC
materials of Chakrabarti so the engine can withstand high temperatures of a
gas turbine engine exhaust. Id.
2
Appeal2014-002218
Application 13/116,116
The Examiner illustrated the findings regarding Tse on Figure 1 of
Tse, which is reproduced below.
f
32
The figure reproduced above shows rear exhaust shroud 60 of the gas
turbine engine illustrated in Figure 1 of Tse with the Examiner's annotations
indicating which portions correspond to the claimed tail cone, struts, exhaust
outlet, and core nacelle aft portion. See Final Act. 4.
Appellants argue that independent claim 1 recites "a multiple of CMC
turbine exhaust case struts between said CMC core nacelle aft portion and
said CMC tail cone," and the Examiner relied on only a pair of vertical lines
that extend between tail cone 40 and turbine case 32 in Figure 1 of Tse, but
Tse's specification makes no mention of a strut. Appeal Br. 6. Appellants
argue that independent claim 4 recites "a CMC tail cone connected to said
CMC core nacelle aft portion," but the rejection does not address how tail
cone 40 is connected to the core nacelle aft portion as claimed. Id. at 4--5.
3
Appeal2014-002218
Application 13/116,116
In response, the Examiner asserts:
The fact that [the vertical lines in the drawings of Tse] are
neither mentioned nor called struts in the specification is
inconsequential. The fact is they are part of the disclosure as
shown in the drawings as a form of support for the tail cone,
which would classify it a strut. The struts must be bonded,
fixed in some manner, as they will not stay in place and would
result in a failed engine part otherwise.
Ans. 10. The Examiner also asserts that the core nacelle aft portion of Tse
(casing 32 or exhaust shroud 60) is connected to tail cone 40 via struts. Id.
The Examiner's finding that Tse discloses tail cone 40 connected to a
core nacelle aft portion (engine casing 32 or exhaust shroud 60) via struts is
not supported by a preponderance of evidence. Drawings can be relied upon
for what they disclose, but the Examiner has not explained sufficiently why
two vertical lines extending between exhaust plug 40 and engine casing 32
in Figure 1 necessarily are struts that connect these elements. Tse identifies
some elements that extend radially bet\'l/een engine 10 and nacelle 44 as fan
blades 14, 84, stator vanes 46, 89, and mixer 90. See, e.g., Tse i-fi-125-26,
32-33, Figs 1, 2. Tse provides no disclosure of the vertical lines that the
Examiner characterizes as struts. It is not clear that these unidentified lines
represent elements that support tail cone 40. Other vertical lines extending
from tail cone 40 are identified as forward end 64 of exhaust shroud 60 and
exhaust outlet 42 in Figure 1. Id. i-fi-127-28. Figure 2, which illustrates core
engine 82 in a similar way, does not include any vertical lines from the tail
cone. Id. i133. Thus, the Examiner's finding is speculative, and we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 4. We also do not sustain the rejection
of claim 10, which recites "a CMC tail cone connected to said CMC core
nacelle aft portion," or dependent claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, and 12-14.
4
Appeal2014-002218
Application 13/116,116
Claims 8 and 11 unpatentable over Tse, Chakrabarti, and Blanchard
The Examiner relied on Blanchard to disclose features of claims 8 and
11 rather than to overcome the deficiencies of Tse and Chakrabarti discussed
above for claims 4 and 10, from which claims 8 and 11 depend respectively.
Final Act. 5. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 11.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, and 15-20 unpatentable over Peterson and Chakrabarti
Appellants argue claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 15-17, and 20 as a group and
present separate arguments for claims 18 and 19. See Appeal Br. 9-12. We
select claim 1 as representative of the group (37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv))
and address Appellants' arguments for claims 18 and 19 separately.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 15-17, and 20
The Examiner found that Peterson teaches a gas turbine engine and
exhaust case, as recited in claim 1, including struts 32 between the nacelle
and tail cone, but not components made of CMC materials. Final Act. 6-7.
The Examiner found that Chakrabarti teaches these materials and that it
would have been obvious to make the turbine exhaust case of Peterson out of
the CMC materials of Chakrabarti so that the engine could withstand the
high temperatures of exhaust gases. Id. at 7.
Appellants argue that Chakrabarti' s disclosure of CMC materials that
are capable of withstanding high temperatures does not support a finding
that the same structure would be suitable for withstanding structural loads
and stresses imposed on struts 32 of Peterson because CMC is strong but
brittle. Appeal Br. 10. Appellants also argue that Chakrabarti discloses that
non-structural features, such as nozzle 22 and exhaust plug 24, may be made
of CMC material but provides no teaching to use this material for structural
components such as struts. Reply Br. 5.
5
Appeal2014-002218
Application 13/116,116
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of error in the Examiner's
findings that Chakrabarti teaches that its CMC materials may be used for gas
turbine engine exhaust components like an "aircraft exhaust subassembly"
and, as such, would have provided a reason to a skilled artisan to make the
struts of Peterson of such CMC materials. See Ans. 11 (citing claim 8 and
paragraph 25 of Chakrabarti). Appellants' arguments that exhaust nozzle 22
and exhaust plug 24 are non-structural features does not persuade us that
Chakrabarti's teaching to make an "aircraft exhaust subassembly" of CMC
material would not have motivated a skilled artisan to make Peterson's struts
32 of a CMC material. Chakrabarti discloses an improved hybrid CMC
structure with greater resistance to localized impact loading and improved
ductility. Chakrabarti i-f 6. Moreover, claim 1 merely recites "a multiple of
CMC turbine exhaust case struts between said CMC core nacelle aft portion
and said CMC tail cone." Claim 1 does not recite any structural features that
distinguish the claimed struts over Chakrabarti's CMC material. See Spec.
i-f 16 (describing aerodynamic properties of Appellants' struts 72). Thus, we
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 15-17, and20.
Claims 18 and 19
Claims 18 and 19 depend from claim 10 and recite, respectively, that
the "struts are bonded to and extend between a pair of circular shaped CMC
hoop rings ... to form said CMC core nacelle aft portion and said CMC tail
cone," and "integrally forming said CMC core nacelle aft portion and said
CMC tail cone with a multiple of CMC turbine exhaust case struts extending
there between." The Examiner found that Peterson and Chakrabarti teach
struts bonded to and extending between hoop rings, and determined it would
have been obvious to form the parts integrally. Final Act. 8-9; Ans. 11.
6
Appeal2014-002218
Application 13/116,116
Appellants argue that Peterson does not show vanes 34 bonded to
nose cone 30 or outer casing 21 because vanes 34 pivot and float. Appeal
Br. 11-12. Appellants also argue that Peterson's struts 32 and rods 40 must
be pivotable to accommodate the expansion of outer casing 21, and vane 34
is slidably received in slot 178 of outer bracket to allow this. Reply Br. 5---6.
Appellants' arguments amount to individual attacks on the references
where the Examiner has relied on the combined teachings of Peterson and
Chakrabarti to render obvious claims 18 and 19. The Examiner proposes to
make the gas turbine exhaust case of Peterson, to include the struts and hoop
rings, of Chakrabarti' s CM C material to withstand exhaust gases of higher
temperature. Final Act. 6-7. The combination is supported by a rational
underpinning of Chakrabarti' s teaching to form parts like exhaust nozzle 22,
exhaust plug 24, and an "aircraft exhaust subassembly" of CMC materials to
withstand higher temperatures and provide "greater resistance to localized
impact loading and improved ductility." Chakrabarti i-fi-16, 25, and claim 8.
The Examiner reasonably found that the modification would allow the
modified exhaust case of Peterson to flex to a certain degree and compensate
for thermal expansion as desired by Peterson. Final Act. 8-9, Ans. 11. The
Examiner had a sound basis for this finding based on Chakrabarti' s teaching
that CMC structures formed integrally in various shapes with continuous
ceramic fibers in a matrix provide good mechanical strength, expansion, and
creep resistance at high temperatures. See Chakrabarti i-fi-126-33, Figs. 2-13;
see also In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (when the PTO
shows sound basis to believe that the prior art and claimed invention are the
same, applicant has the burden of showing that they are not). Appellants'
arguments do not persuade us otherwise.
7
Appeal2014-002218
Application 13/116,116
As modified by the teachings of Chakrabarti, Peterson's struts and
hoop rings would be made of CMC material and would be bonded together
and formed integrally, as claimed. 1 Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims
18 and 19.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 10, and 12-14 over Tse
and Chakrabarti.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 8 and 11 over Tse, Chakrabarti,
and Blanchard.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 10, and 15-20 over
Peterson and Chakrabarti.
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
1 Peterson teaches that components of the struts and hoop rings are bonded
by welding and are fixed to one another. See Peterson, 5:21-50, 6:15--41.
8