Ex Parte Suciu et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 201711846095 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2017) 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. 11/846,095 08/28/2007 GabrielL. Suciu 67097-841PUSl;PA0004585US 9814 54549 7590 09/05/2017 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER SUNG, GERALD LUTHER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/05/2017 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 GABRIEL L. SUCIU, BRIAN D. MERRY, and CHRISTOPHER M. DYE Appeal 2016-000575 Application 11/846,095 Technology Center 3700 Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, LISA M. GUIJT, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-000575 Application 11/846,095 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants, Gabriel L. Suciu et al.,1 2appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated December 11, 2014 (“Final Act.”), rejecting claims 1—9, 11, 12, 14, and 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a gas turbine engine. Claim 1, the independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized for emphasis: 1. A turbine engine comprising: a fan case surrounding a fan rotatable about an axis; a core supported relative to the fan case by a support structure and arranged downstream from the fan, the core including a core housing having an inlet case arranged to receive airflow from the fan, a compressor case axially adjacent to the inlet case and surrounding a compressor stage having a first rotor blade with a blade leading edge and a second rotor blade with a blade trailing edge, both blades rotatable about the axis, and an intermediate case arranged axially adjacent to the compressor case, the support structure arranged axially forward of the intermediate case; a gear train interconnected between the fan and a spool that is arranged within the core; and wherein the support structure is axially aligned with the compressor case, the support structure including a support structure leading edge facing the fan and a support structure trailing edge on a side opposite the support structure leading edge, the support leading edge arranged axially rearward of the blade leading edge, and the support structure trailing edge arranged axially forward of the blade trailing edge. 1 Appellants identify United Technology Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief, dated April 20, 2015, at 1 (“Appeal Br.”). 2 Appeal 2016-000575 Application 11/846,095 REFERENCES In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the following prior art: Clark US 3,797,561 Chaplin US 4,722,184 Delonge US 5,472,314 Suciu US 2006/0130456 A1 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: 1. Claims 1—5 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suciu and Chaplin. 2. Claims 6—9 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chaplin, Suciu, and Schilling. 3. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suciu, Chaplin, Schilling, and Delonge. 4. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suciu, Chaplin, Schilling, and Clark. Appellants seek our review of these rejections. DISCUSSION The Rejection of Claims 1—5 and 11 as Unpatentable Over Suciu and Chaplin Appellants argue claims 1—5 and 11 as a group. Appeal Br. 3—5. We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2—5 and 11 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that Suciu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 except for “the support structure trailing edge arranged axially forward of Mar. 19, 1974 Feb. 2, 1988 Dec. 5, 1995 June 22, 2006 3 Appeal 2016-000575 Application 11/846,095 the blade trailing edge.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds, in part, that this missing limitation is disclosed by Chaplin, which discloses “a support structure 50, 52 where the leading edge of the support structure 50 is downstream of the leading edge of the blade 70a and upstream of the trailing edge of the blade 70d.” Id. The Examiner finds that support structure 50, 52 “increase [s] the rigidity of the fan casing and stiffness of the engine to increase efficiency.” Id. (citing Chaplin 2:60-3:17). Appellants argue that the Examiner’s findings are erroneous. According to Appellants, the “Chaplin text cited by the Examiner has nothing to do with axially positioning of the fan/flow exit guide vanes to improve rigidity or stiffness.” Appeal Br. 3. Appellants assert that “Chaplin considers the problem as not the axial positioning of the exit guide vanes but the inner diameter of the exit guide vanes.” Id. at 3^4 (citing Chaplin 2:2—7, 18—21; 3:12—17). Appellants acknowledge that Chaplin’s exit guide vanes stiffen and structurally support the engine case but argue without persuasive explanation that this fact is “not significant.” Id. at 4 (citing Chaplin 2:18— 21, 3:12—17). Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive for several reasons.2 First, Appellants do not dispute that Chaplin’s exit guide vanes (i.e., support 2 To the extent that Appellants argue that Chaplin “leads away” or “teaches away” from claim 1 (Appeal Br. 3), Appellants’ citations to columns 2—3 does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage positioning the exit guide vanes rearward of the blade leading edge, and forward of the blade trailing edge, as recited in claim 1. Thus, we are not persuaded that Chaplin teaches away from the proposed combination. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1199-1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (To teach away, a reference’s disclosure must “criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.”). 4 Appeal 2016-000575 Application 11/846,095 structure) are located rearward of the blade leading edge, and forward of the blade trailing edge, as recited in claim 1. Second, Appellants’ arguments “fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.” In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982); see also In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (Unclaimed features cannot impart patentability.). Contrary to Appellants’ argument that Chaplin does not “improve rigidity or stiffness,” claim 1 does not recite the disputed support structure component improves rigidity or stiffness. Third, Appellants’ argument that Chaplin’s discussion of the problems in the prior art, such as Fitton, somehow limits the advantages and structure in Chaplin’s device is legally and factually unsupported. Appeal Br. 3^4. In contrast to prior art designs concerned with “aerodynamic function only” (Chaplin 2:2—7), Chaplin discloses that its design achieves advantages in “the stiffness and weight of the engine [] from using an existing aerodynamic component... as both an aerodynamic component and a structural component by pretensioning the component.” Chaplin 3:12—17 (emphasis added). Thus, one of Chaplin’s advantages is improved rigidity and stiffness resulting from the exit guide vanes (i.e., support structure). Fourth, Appellants argue that “a skilled worker would not modify Suciu with Chaplin to position Suciu’s flow exit guide vanes as set forth in claim 1 with respect to the compressor blades since there is no reason to do so as there is no apparent benefit.” Appeal Br. 5. Contrary to Appellants’ argument that the Examiner offers no rationale for combining the references, the Examiner determines it would be obvious to modify Chaplin with Suciu’s exit guide vanes “to increase the rigidity of the fan casing and 5 Appeal 2016-000575 Application 11/846,095 stiffness of the engine to increase efficiency.” Final Act. 4 (citing to Chaplin 2:60-3:17). Appellants do not address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner, and, thus, do not identify error. For the reasons above, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. Claims 2— 5 and 11 fall with claim 1. The Rejection of Claims 6—9 and 14 as Unpatentable Over Chaplin, Suciu, and Schilling The Examiner determines that it would be obvious to modify Suciu and Chaplin, to include Schilling’s forward and rearward attachments as recited in claim 6, to provide “a suitable support for [the] fan casing.” Final Act. 7. Appellants argue that Chaplin discloses a “suitable, desirable support” and “[t]here is nothing to indicate that the Schilling configuration offers any improvement or benefit over the Chaplin arrangement, so there is no reason for a skilled worker to make the proposed modification.” Appeal Br. 5. In response, the Examiner does not address Appellants’ arguments, and merely states that “Schilling discloses the claimed load path and points and that the claimed load paths are well known in the art.” Answer, dated August 14, 2015, at 4 (“Ans.”). The Examiner offers no articulated reasoning with rational underpinning for modifying Chaplin’s support attachment with Schilling’s attachment. The rejection of claim 6, and claims 7—9 and 14, which depend from claim 6, is not sustained. 6 Appeal 2016-000575 Application 11/846,095 The Rejection of Claim 12 as Unpatentable Over Suciu, Chaplin, Schilling, and Delonge Claim 12 depends from claim 6. Because the rejection of claim 6 is not sustained, the rejection of claim 12 is also reversed. The Rejection of Claim 15 as Unpatentable Over Suciu, Chaplin, Schilling, and Clark Appellants argue that “[cjlaim 15 depends from claim 1 and is allowable for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1 above.” Appeal Br. 6. Because the rejection of claim 1 is sustained and Appellants do not identify any patentable features in claim 15, the rejection of claim 15 is sustained. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—5, 11, and 15 are AFFIRMED. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 6—9, 12, and 14 are REVERSED. 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-IN-PART 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation