2020002971 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2020)

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 23, 2020

2020002971 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2020)

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. 15/218,138 07/25/2016 Gabriel L. Suciu 94274US01; 67097-3410US1 7610 54549 7590 11/23/2020 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER HARRINGTON, ALYSON JOAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/23/2020 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, and BRIAN D. MERRY ____________________ Appeal 2020-002971 Application 15/218,138 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, and 9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. According to Appellant, the invention “relates to a gas turbine engine having a thrust reverser structure wherein at least a portion of the moveable 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, United Technologies Corporation is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-002971 Application 15/218,138 2 structure is mounted on a fixed fan case.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as representative of the appealed claims. 1. A gas turbine engine comprising: a core engine and a fan; a pivoting D-door structure including a pivoting inner D- door portion and an outer D-door portion, which is axially moveable relative to said inner D-door portion between a stowed and thrust reverse position; a fan case surrounding said fan; cascades axially moveable along with said outer D-door portion between said stowed and said thrust reverse position, and structure supporting said cascades being mounted on said fan case; wherein an actuator is provided on said fan case for driving said cascades and said outer D-door portion between said stowed and thrust reverse positions; wherein said cascades include a plurality of openings for directing air in a direction opposing further movement of an aircraft receiving the gas turbine engine; and wherein blocker doors are moved to a blocking position when said cascades and said outer D-doors portions are moved to said thrust reverse position. REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: I. Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Foutch2 and Bart;3 and II. Claims 5, 6, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Foutch, Bart, and Vauchel.4 2 US 2016/0363097 A1, published Dec. 15, 2016. 3 US 5,157,915, issued Oct. 27, 1992. 4 US 9,004,855 B2, issued Apr. 14, 2015. Appeal 2020-002971 Application 15/218,138 3 ANALYSIS Rejection I—Obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “an actuator . . . provided on said fan case for driving said cascades and said outer D-door portion between said stowed and thrust reverse positions.” Appeal Br., Claims App. The Examiner relies on Foutch’s translating sleeve assembly 16 to disclose the claimed “outer D-door portion,” Foutch’s cascade sets 20 to disclose the claimed “cascade,” and Foutch’s actuation system 29 to disclose the claimed “actuator . . . provided on . . . [a] fan case for driving . . . [the] cascades and . . . [the] outer D-door portion.” Answer 3–4. Nonetheless, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is in error because “Foutch does not disclose D-doors.” Appeal Br. 4. This is not sufficient to persuade us that there is error in the Examiner’s express finding that Foutch’s translating sleeve assembly 16 discloses the claimed “outer D- door portion.” Appellant further argues that “[i]f one includes D-doors [from Bart] into Foutch[, then] there is no showing that the actuator for the cascade of Foutch would not also be mounted on those D-doors.” Id. However, this is not sufficient to persuade us that there is error in the Examiner’s express finding that Foutch’s actuation system 29 is provided on bypass duct 52’s outer wall 50, driving cascade sets 20 and sleeve assembly 16, such that Foutch discloses an “actuator . . . provided on . . . [a] fan case for driving . . . [the] cascades and . . . [the] outer D-door portion,” as claimed. Appeal 2020-002971 Application 15/218,138 4 Based on the foregoing, Appellant does not persuade us that the Examiner errs. Consequently, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. Rejection II—Obviousness rejection of dependent claims 5, 6, and 9 Appellant does not argue separately against the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 5, 6, and 9 that depend from claim 1. Thus we also sustain the dependent claims’ rejection. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1, 5, 6, and 9. In summary: 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed 1 103 Foutch, Bart 1 5, 6, 9 103 Foutch, Bart, Vauchel 5, 6, 9 Overall Outcome 1, 5, 6, 9