United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 15, 2021

2020005290 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2021)

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.
15/864,079 01/08/2018 William G. Sheridan 1213-100534 7064
11943 7590 04/15/2021
Getz Balich LLC
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205
Farmington, CT 06032
EXAMINER
PRAGER, JESSE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/15/2021 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):
shenry@getzbalich.com
uspto@getzbalich.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM G. SHERIDAN and KURT LINK
Appeal 2020-005290
Application 15/864,079
Technology Center 3700
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 4.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United Technologies
Corporation. Appeal Br. 3. On April 23, 2020, Appellant filed a Real Party
in Interest Notice Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.8 stating that “United
Technologies changed its name to Raytheon Technologies Corporation.”
2 According to the version of claims filed February 3, 2020, claims 6 and 7
remain pending but withdrawn, and claims 3, 5, and 8–20 have been
canceled. The rejections of canceled claims are thus withdrawn. Answer 3.
Appeal 2020-005290
Application 15/864,079

2
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an oil breather air venting system in a gas
turbine engine. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter, with disputed subject matter italicized:
1. A gas turbine engine, comprising:
a fan that rotates about a central longitudinal axis;
a nacelle having an outer wall that radially circumscribes
the fan;
a fan drive gear system that drives the fan;
a rotating shaft that is coupled to and drives the fan drive
gear system;
an air vent line in fluid communication with a bearing
compartment to remove air from the bearing compartment and
provide the removed air to a deoiler that removes oil droplets
from the removed air and provides deoiler filtered air; and
a vent output line that receives the deoiler filtered air and
discharges the deoiler filtered air along a radially interior surface
of the nacelle outer wall, where fan air static air pressure adjacent
to the nacelle outer wall is less than bearing compartment static
air pressure such that deoiler filtered air exiting the vent output
line remains radially proximate to the nacelle outer wall as it
mixes with fan air, where the vent output line includes a vent line
exit that is flush with the interior surface of the nacelle outer wall
and through which the deoiler filtered air is discharged, where
the vent output line exit discharges the deoiler filtered air at an
acute angle with respect to fan air flowing adjacent to the nacelle
outer wall.
Appeal 2020-005290
Application 15/864,079

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Sheaf US 8,572,984 B2 Nov. 5, 2013
Sheridan US 2013/0098058 A1 Apr. 25, 2013
Beier ’663 US 2015/0135663 A1 May 21, 2015
Burghardt US 2016/0177825 A1 June 23, 2016
Beier US 2017/0314470 A1 Nov. 2, 2017

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, and 4 stand rejected as follows:
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1, 2 103 Beier, Sheridan, Beier ’663, Sheaf
4 103 Beier, Sheridan, Beier ’663, Sheaf,
Burghardt
OPINION
The Rejections
The Examiner finds Beier discloses the claimed engine, except for the
drive gear system taught in Sheridan. Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner also
finds Beier’s engine has an air vent output line 21, but not that the air vent
output line vents a bearing compartment, which the Examiner finds in Beier
’663, where air vent line 22 vents from deoiler 17 connected to bearing
compartment 20/21. Id. The Examiner further finds that the combination of
Beier, Sheridan, and Beier ’663 fails to disclose that the vent output line “is
flush with the interior surface of the nacelle outer wall.” Id. at 6. However,
the Examiner finds Sheaf teaches a vent line exit 42 that is flush with the
nacelle wall surface, at Figures 2–8. Id.
Appeal 2020-005290
Application 15/864,079

4
The Examiner finds it would have been obvious to modify the jet
engine, of the combined Beier/Sheridan/Beier ’663, with the flush vent
opening of Sheaf, “to provide an exit arrangement that does not penalize
engine performance.” Id. at 6–7 (citing Sheaf, 1:45–47). The Examiner
reasons that this arrangement “would provide the advantage of not blocking
the airflow past the breather exhaust and reduce drag.” Answer 4 (citing
Sheaf, 1:58–59).

Appellant’s Argument
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rationale to modify Beier is
insufficient, because “[m]odifying the pipeline end 22 of Beier [] by
applying the external exhaust port 42 of Sheaf to discharge to the secondary
flow channel of Beier [] . . . involves substantially more technical
consideration than a mere reduction in drag.” Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply
Br. 4 (“the Examiner’s proposed modification of Beier [] with the flush vent
of Sheaf is inconsistent with the teachings of both Beier [] and Sheaf”).
For example, Appellant contends that a “general objective of Beier
[is] to prevent soiling of gas turbine engine surfaces with oil-entrained
breather air.” Appeal Br. 9 (citing Beier ¶ 16). Further, Appellant contends
Beier seeks to vent the oil-containing air close to the interior wall
(essentially the exterior wall of the jet engine itself) of the secondary flow
channel (the flow that is driven by the turbofan, but does not flow through
the jet engine – Beier ¶¶ 42–43). Id. According to Appellant, doing so will
maximize mixing with the overall air flow through the engine, by mixing the
vent air over a “maximum area,” to dilute the oil-containing vent air as much
as possible. Id.
Appeal 2020-005290
Application 15/864,079

5
Thus, according to Appellant, to locate the vent exit in Beier flush
with the outer surface of the secondary flow channel (which is also the
interior surface of the nacelle), “would forego the benefits taught by Beier []
and render the apparatus of Beier [] unsatisfactory for its intended purpose
by causing oil-entrained breather air to flow along the outer wall 43, thereby
soiling it, as well as preventing the vented breather air from interfacing with
the mixer 45.” Id. at 10.
Addressing Sheaf, Appellant contends, “[l]ike Beier[], Sheaf is
concerned with preventing staining/soiling of external aircraft surfaces with
oil-entrained breather air.” Id. at 11 (citing Sheaf 1:5–31). According to
Appellant, “Sheaf teaches against the use of only a flush external exhaust
port to exhaust oil-entrained breather air,” and “teaches the [additional] use
of a deflection feature (i.e., components 48, 50, 56) to prevent staining
which would otherwise be caused by the flush external exhaust port 42.” Id.
(emphasis added). Thus, one “would not be motivated to use the flush
external exhaust port 42 of Sheaf, as proposed.” Id.

The Examiner’s Response
The Examiner reiterates that “Sheaf et al. has provided a motivation
since it has identified advantages for providing a breather outlet being flush
to a nacelle surface.” Answer 4. Since Sheaf concerns a vent exit on an
external (rather than internal) surface of a nacelle, the Examiner asserts that
“the benefit(s) of drag reduction and weight reduction (Sheaf et al. Col. 1,
lines 39-47, Col. 58-59) is applicable to both an inner or outer vent,” and is a
matter of “common knowledge.” Id. at 5.
Appeal 2020-005290
Application 15/864,079

6
The Examiner also contends that, rather than having a vent exit “away
from the interior nacelle surface,” Beier “merely describe[s] that the vent
line exit is positioned inside the secondary flow channel,” but is “silent as to
the specific location of the vent line exit,” and “does not exclude forming the
exit line flush on the nacelle inner surface.” Id. at 6; see also id. (“Beier et
al. does not establish that the vent line exit is away from the surface of the
nacelle.”).
In addressing Appellant’s argument regarding Sheaf, the Examiner
opines, “the oil staining of Sheaf et al. pertains to an exterior of the nacelle.
Accordingly, it is not clear that an oil staining on an interior of the nacelle
would result in unsightly and visible issue that would cause customer
irritation.” Id. at 8.

Analysis
We are not persuaded that a skilled artisan would have modified Beier
by making its vent line flush with the inner wall.
First, we disagree with the Examiner’s contention that Beier does not
describe the location of the vent line exit within the secondary flow channel.
Beier teaches that “breather air is diluted in such a manner that no visible
residues can be perceived” (Beier ¶ 10), that it seeks “to distribute the
breather air with the rests of oil over an outlet area that is as large as
possible” (id. ¶ 15). Beier accomplishes this by ensuring the vent “end is
arranged closer to the inner wall” of the secondary flow channel, because
“[b]y observing a minimum distance [from the nacelle inner wall], it is
ensured that the adjacent wall of the secondary flow channel is not soiled by
the rests of oil that are present in the breather air.” Id. ¶ 16. In particular,
Appeal 2020-005290
Application 15/864,079

7
according to Beier, “the placement of the end of the air discharge line inside
the engine [is] of particular importance.” Id. ¶ 47. Indeed, in Beier, vent
exit 22 “projects into the secondary flow channel” (id. ¶ 54) and “ends
adjoining the inner wall 42, but at a defined distance from the same” (id.
¶ 55). Instead of being flush, Beier describes “a minimum distance d3 of the
pipeline end 22 to the outer wall 43” of the secondary flow channel (which
is the inner surface of the nacelle). Id. ¶ 66.
Thus, rather than being silent on the location of the end vent, or not
excluding the end vent from being flush-mounted, Beier clearly discourages
a flush-mounted vent exit, and instead positions its vent exit a minimum
distance away from the nacelle surface.
Second, we disagree with Examiner’s motivation for modifying Beier.
As with Beier, Sheaf also discourages a flush-mounted vent air exit, because
of staining that leads to the additional, required use of a diverter along with
the flush-mounted vent exist. Sheaf, 1:23–26. To avoid this, Sheaf teaches
that the flush vent exit is accompanied by either a “sheet flow of clean air
that forms an aerodynamic barrier or shield between the external surface 40
of the nacelle 30 and the oil/air mixture” behind the vent, or a physical
“diverter” mounted behind the vent exit to keep the oil/air mixture away
from the nacelle surface. Id. at 3:9–30. Sheaf thus discourages the use of a
flush-mounted air/oil mixture vent unless it is accompanied by some manner
of diverting the flow away from a nacelle surface.
Third, Beier is clear that staining within a secondary air flow’s outer
surfaces is to be avoided due to the high temperature of the engine. Beier ¶
5 (“This soiling is undesirable due to esthetic reasons and can only be
removed my means of elaborate cleaning measures, since it burns into the
Appeal 2020-005290
Application 15/864,079

8
cowling as a result of the high temperature of the engine.”) (emphasis
added). This high temperature would be present inside the primary and
secondary flow channels of the engine, but not as great on the exterior of the
engine and its nacelle. This counters the Examiner’s speculation that stains
on an internal, secondary flow channel surface are unimportant.
It is undisputed that making flush the vent exit pipe would reduce
weight and drag. The Examiner’s motivation to modify Beier, however,
does not overcome the specific teachings of both Beier and Sheaf, which
both discourage the very modification the Examiner proposes. Thus, the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness is not supportable. For this
reason, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 as obvious
over Beier, Sheridan, Beier ’663, and Sheaf, or of dependent claim 2.
Further, because Burghardt does not remedy the shortcoming in the rejection
of claim 1, we also do not sustain the rejection of claim 4 that additionally
relies on Burghardt.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are REVERSED.
Appeal 2020-005290
Application 15/864,079

9
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2 103 Beier, Sheridan, Beier ’663,
Sheaf
1, 2
4 103 Beier, Sheridan, Beier ’663,
Sheaf, Burghardt
4
Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4

REVERSED