UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 11, 2020

15021060 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 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.
15/021,060 03/10/2016 Jeffrey S. Beattie 67097-2661US1;
73414US02
5634
54549 7590 05/11/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
LEGENDRE, CHRISTOPHER RYAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/11/2020 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 JEFFREY S. BEATTIE, JASON D. HIMES,
MATTHEW ANDREW HOUGH, and
CHRISTOPHER CORCORAN
____________________

Appeal 2019-005514
Application 15/021,060
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 13, 14, 16–18, and 21–24. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

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. 1.
Appeal 2019-005514
Application 15/021,060

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 13, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
13. A method for providing fluid flow to a rotating section of a
gas turbine engine comprising:
communicating a fluid from a tangential on board
injector to a first cavity, the first cavity provided by a cover
plate attached to a first axial side of a disk; and
allowing the fluid to flow across an outer surface of the
disk and through an exit at a second axial side opposite the first
axial side.
EVIDENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Corsmeier US 3,768,924 Oct. 30, 1973
Glasspoole US 6,183,193 B1 Feb. 6, 2001
Tibbott US 2012/0082568 A1 Apr. 5, 2012
Hough US 2016/0222788 A1 Aug. 4, 2016
REJECTIONS2
I. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
indefinite.3

2 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of claims 1, 5, 7, 10–12, and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tibbott and Tiemann (US 7,059,835
B2, iss. June 13, 2006), as evidenced by Ahmad (US 2012/0070310 A1, pub.
Mar. 22, 2012), and a rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Tibbott, Tiemann, and Glasspoole. Ans. 3; see also Final
Act. 4–7, 9–10.
3 The Final Action included a rejection of claims 5, 7, and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. See Final Act. 3. Appellant submitted an
after-final amendment dated December 6, 2018 (“Amendment”), which was
entered per the Advisory Action dated December 31, 2018. The Examiner
indicated that the Amendment overcame the indefiniteness rejection of
Appeal 2019-005514
Application 15/021,060

3
II. Claims 13, 14, and 16–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Tibbott and Glasspoole.
III. Claims 21, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hough and Corsmeier.
IV. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Hough, Corsmeier, and Glasspoole.
OPINION
Rejection I – Indefiniteness
Claim 24 recites that “the first blade shelf includes a third axial
portion that extends circumferentially from the upper portion a third distance
different from the first distance and the second distance.” Appeal Br. 17
(Claims App.). The Examiner rejects claim 24 as being indefinite for
lacking proper antecedent basis for “the upper portion.” Final Act. 3.
Appellant does not present any arguments contesting this rejection.
See Appeal Br. 5–11 (presenting arguments only with respect to the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103). Consequently, Appellant has waived any
argument of error, and we summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. See In re Berger, 279 F.3d
975, 984–85 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that the Board did not err in
sustaining an indefiniteness rejection when the appellant failed to contest the

claims 5 and 7, which was withdrawn. Advisory Act. 3. However, it
appears that the Examiner did not withdraw the indefiniteness rejection of
claim 24. See id. (explaining that, “[s]ince the previous 112(b) rejection has
not been addressed, the previous corresponding rejection is maintained”);
see also Amendment 6 (retaining the language identified by the Examiner as
lacking antecedent support). Thus, we understand the indefiniteness
rejection of claim 24 to be before us on appeal.
Appeal 2019-005514
Application 15/021,060

4
rejection on appeal); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c) (“An appeal, when taken,
is presumed to be taken from the rejection of all claims under rejection
unless cancelled by an amendment filed by the applicant and entered by the
Office.”).

Rejection II – Obviousness based on Tibbott and Glasspoole
In contesting this rejection, Appellant presents arguments without
regard to any particular claim. See Appeal Br. 9–10. Thus, we select claim
13 as representative, and claims 14 and 16–18 stand or fall with claim 13.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (providing that when multiple claims subject
to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group by an appellant, the
Board may select a single claim from the group to decide the appeal with
respect to the group as to the ground of rejection on the basis of the selected
claim alone).
The Examiner finds that Tibbott discloses
communicating a fluid from a fluid source to a first
cavity (i.e., the space delimited by and between cover plate 38
and disk 33 - see Figure 4), the first cavity provided by a cover
plate (38 - Figure 7a) attached to a first axial side of a disk (33);
and
allowing the fluid to flow across an outer surface (42 -
Figure 7a) of the disk and through an exit at a second axial side
opposite the first axial side.
Final Act. 7–8 (boldface and italics omitted). The Examiner finds that
Tibbott does not disclose that “the fluid source is a tangential on board
injector.” Id. at 8 (boldface and italics omitted). However, the Examiner
finds that Glasspoole discloses “a gas turbine engine comprising a rotor
cooling system that includes a tangential on board injector, which is
effective at providing the cooling flow to the rotor (see col.1:ll.20-29) by
Appeal 2019-005514
Application 15/021,060

5
imparting a swirling movement to the cooling flow.” Id. The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious “to modify the method of
Tibbott to include a tangential on board injector, as disclosed by Glasspoole,
for the purpose of imparting swirling movement to the cooling flow.” Id.
Appellant argues that Tibbott teaches away from swirling cooling
flows. Appeal Br. 9–10 (citing Tibbott ¶¶ 14–15). According to Appellant,
“one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to impart
swirling movement to the cooling flow of Tibbott’s Figure 7(a) arrangement,
as the Examiner proposes.” Id. at 10 (italics omitted). We are not persuaded
by this argument.
A reference teaches away from a claimed invention or a proposed
modification if “a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference,
would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or
would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the
applicant.” In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re
Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Prior art does not teach away
from claimed subject matter merely by disclosing a different solution to a
similar problem unless the prior art also criticizes, discredits, or otherwise
discourages the solution claimed. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201
(Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, Appellant does not point to, nor do we find, any
disclosure in Tibbott criticizing, discrediting, or otherwise discouraging the
combination of teachings proposed by the Examiner in the rejection. The
fact that Tibbott discloses problems associated with the cooling arrangement
shown in Figure 3, in which cooling air swirls around in cavity 41 (Tibbott
¶¶ 14–15), does not constitute a teaching away from the Examiner’s
proposal to use Glasspoole’s tangential on board injector (TOBI) to provide
Appeal 2019-005514
Application 15/021,060

6
cooling air to Tibbott’s rotor in the arrangement shown in Figure 7(a) (see
Final Act. 8; Ans. 4–5).
The Examiner also explains that,
since Tibbott[’s] cooling flow D is in Tibbott[’s]
circumferentially-bounded cavity 41, it is already fully
incorporated into the Tibbott rotor assembly 38,33,35,34,36 and
rotating therewith around the centerline X-X of the gas turbine
engine such that any upstream circumferential/tangential vector
component (such as that produced by the TOBI of Glasspoole)
is negated. Accordingly, the local circulation of Tibbott[’s]
flow D within cavity 41 is unrelated to and not influenced by
the circumferential/tangential flow around the centerline of the
gas turbine engine produced by the TOBI of Glasspoole.
Ans. 5 (emphasis omitted). In this regard, Appellant does not persuasively
refute the Examiner’s position. Appellant asserts that “[t]he Office’s
unsubstantiated argument that lead[s] to its conclusion that the flows are
unrelated (Examiner’s Answer, Page 5) do[es] not cure this deficiency”
(Reply Br. 2), but does not provide any explanation as to why the
Examiner’s position would be deficient. Moreover, Appellant does not
proffer any evidence to support the contention that using a tangential on
board injector to impart swirling movement to Tibbott’s arrangement shown
in Figure 7(a) would result in cooling air swirling in cavity 41. See Reply
Br. 2. Appellant’s assertion amounts to nothing more than attorney
argument unsupported by evidence and, thus, is entitled to little, if any,
weight. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470; see also In re Pearson, 494
F.2d 1399, 1405.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s determination that the subject matter of claim 13 would have
been obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 13, and claims
Appeal 2019-005514
Application 15/021,060

7
14, and 16–18 falling therewith, as unpatentable over Tibbott and
Glasspoole.

Rejection III – Obviousness based on Hough and Corsmeier
In contesting this rejection, Appellant presents arguments without
regard to any particular claim. See Appeal Br. 10–11. We select claim 21 as
representative, and claims 23 and 24 stand or fall with claim 21. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Hough discloses an assembly including, in
relevant part,
a cover plate (74A - Figure 6) providing a cavity at a first
axial side of the disk, a passageway (i.e., the radial space
between surface 51 and seal 58 - Figure 6) including an inlet,
and the passageway extending from the inlet to an exit (72A -
Figure 5) provided at a second axial side of the disk opposite
the first axial side, the passageway is provided by an upper
surface (51 - Figure 6) of the disk, the exit in fluid
communication with the inlet, and the passageway configured
to provide fluid flow from the cavity to the exit.
Final Act. 10 (boldface and italics omitted). The Examiner finds that Hough
does not disclose that “the inlet is provided by a notch provided in at least
one of the disk and the cover plate in fluid communication with the cavity.”
Id. at 11 (boldface and italics omitted). However, the Examiner finds that
Corsmeier discloses “a gas turbine engine rotor comprising a passageway
(26) located radially between the blade root and the disk, wherein the
passageway includes an inlet formed by a notch . . . in the disk.” Id.
(referencing a mark-up of Corsmeier’s Figure 2 on page 11 of the Final
Action, showing a notch). The Examiner determines that it would have been
obvious “to modify the assembly of Hough to include forming the inlet as a
Appeal 2019-005514
Application 15/021,060

8
notch in the disk, as disclosed by Corsmeier, for the purpose of reducing
resistance/obstruction of the flow into the passageway.” Id.
Appellant argues that “there would have been no such motivation for
the design in Hough. The Examiner points to no resistance or obstruction of
flow into Hough’s passageway, and there would be no need for removal of
such a resistance.” Appeal Br. 11 (italics omitted). Appellant asserts that
“the Examiner’s proposed reasoning for the modification is to resolve a
problem that doesn’t exist in Hough.” Id. (italics omitted). This argument is
unpersuasive.
Appellant appears to insist on an explicit teaching, suggestion, or
motivation in the cited art to establish obviousness, but such a requirement
has been foreclosed by the Supreme Court. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007) (stating that a rigid insistence on teaching,
suggestion, or motivation is incompatible with its precedent concerning
obviousness). The Court noted that an obviousness analysis “need not seek
out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for [an examiner] can take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418.
Instead, the relevant inquiry is whether the Examiner has set forth “some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006),
cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
Here, the Examiner articulates adequate reasoning based on rational
underpinnings as to why it would have been obvious to modify Hough to
include a notch in the rotor disk, as taught by Corsmeier. See Final Act. 11.
The Examiner further explains, in the Answer, “that the identified notch
Appeal 2019-005514
Application 15/021,060

9
provides (i.e., by avoiding a 90 degree turn/elbow leading into space/passage
26) a more direct fluid path from hole 28 to space/passage 26 than would
otherwise exist, which one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize
as limiting obstruction/resistance to flow.” Ans. 7 (citing Corsmeier, Fig. 2).
The Examiner takes the position that
[t]he modification over Hough involving removal of material
such that a notch, as identified in Corsmeier, is formed in rotor
dis[k] 46 to establish a more direct fluid path (i.e., reducing
obstruction/resistance to flow) from hole 60 to the passageway
between surface 51 and seal 58 results in the same advantages
that can be inferred from the disclosure of Corsmeier.
Ans. 7. In this regard, Appellant does not offer any factual evidence or
persuasive technical rationale to refute the Examiner’s reasoning or explain
why it would be deficient.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s determination that the subject matter of claim 21 would have
been obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 21, and claims
23 and 24 falling therewith, as unpatentable over Hough and Corsmeier.

Rejection IV – Obviousness based on Hough, Corsmeier, and Glasspoole
In contesting the rejection of claim 22, Appellant relies on the
aforementioned arguments asserted against the rejection of independent
claim 21, and argues that the Examiner’s application of Glasspoole does not
cure the purported deficiencies in the combination of Hough and Corsmeier.
See Appeal Br. 11. For the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s arguments
fail to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 21 and, likewise, fail to
apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 22, which we sustain.
Appeal 2019-005514
Application 15/021,060

10
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
24 112(b) Indefiniteness 24
13, 14,
16–18
103 Tibbott, Glasspoole 13, 14,
16–18

21, 23, 24 103 Hough, Corsmeier 21, 23, 24
22 103 Hough, Corsmeier,
Glasspoole
22
Overall Outcome 13, 14,
16–18,
21–24

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