Ex Parte Suciu et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 30, 201914874560 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/874,560 10/05/2015 Gabriel L. Suciu 54549 7590 06/03/2019 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. 82032US01; 67097-3271US1 CONFIRMATION NO. 3484 EXAMINER FRAZIER, BRADY W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3647 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/03/2019 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, JESSE M. CHANDLER, WESLEY K. LORD, ALAN H. EPSTEIN, and STEVEN M. O'FLARITY Appeal 2018-008821 Application 14/874,560 Technology Center 3600 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BRETT C. MARTIN, and ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2018-008821 Application 14/874,560 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 12, and 13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Appellants' claims are directed generally "to a single core engine having mechanical drives for driving two associated propulsor units in a tail section of an aircraft." Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A drive arrangement for an aircraft comprising: a pair of propulsor units each having a fan and a fan shaft for driving the fan; a core engine, the core engine having a turbine driving a core engine shaft; a mechanical connection to connect said core engine shaft to drive the fan shafts for each of said propulsor units; wherein a pair of transfer drive shafts each connect the core engine shaft to respective ones of the fan shafts for each of the propulsor units; wherein an inlet housing to the core engine is vertically offset with respect to an inlet to the propulsor units; wherein one of the propulsor units is driven to rotate in a first direction and a second of the propulsor units is driven to rotate in an opposed direction; and wherein there are gears between the transfer drive shaft, the core engine shaft, and the fan shafts and the gears result in the fans being driven at a slower speed than the core engine turbine. 2 Appeal 2018-008821 Application 14/874,560 REFERENCES The references relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Brand Oliver Christians US 2006/0011780 Al Jan. 19, 2006 US 2011/0168835 Al July 14, 2011 US 2013/0327060 Al Dec. 12, 2013 REJECTION The Examiner made the following rejection: Claims 1, 3, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Brand, Oliver, and Christians. Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 3. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Brand teaches essentially all of the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach at least that the propulsor units are driven in opposite directions. Ans. 4. The Examiner then looks to Oliver as teaching oppositely driven propulsor units and concludes obviousness by asserting that the combination would "cancel out rotational moments about the yaw axis due to torque created by the rotating propulsor units." Ans. 5 ( emphasis added) ( citing Oliver ,r 61 ). Although it is true that Oliver teaches counter-rotating propulsor units for controlling yaw, this is done to counteract yaw during vertical flight, which Appellants specifically point out as a flaw in the rejection. Reply Br. 1. Given that Brand does not involve vertical flight, but is strictly a horizontally propelled aircraft, it is unclear why one would look to a solution involving vertical flight. Furthermore, Oliver specifically notes that in horizontal flight, yaw control is not performed by the counter-rotating propulsor units, as "[ t ]he rudder provides conventional yaw control during 3 Appeal 2018-008821 Application 14/874,560 forward flight." Oliver ,r 64 (emphasis added). Given that Oliver's counter- rotating propellers for yaw control is only an issue during vertical flight, we agree with Appellants that one would not look to Oliver's oppositely driven propulsor units for a solution related to yaw control in forward/horizontal flight. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection. DECISION For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3, 12, and 17. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation