Ex Parte Sheridan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2018

13340838 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/340,838 12/30/2011 William G. Sheridan
54549 7590 06/28/2018
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.
67097-1677PUS1;
4710USAB
CONFIRMATION NO.
8110
EXAMINER
RNERA, CARLOS A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2018 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 WILLIAM G. SHERIDAN
Appeal2017-002284 1
Application 13/340,8382
Technology Center 3700
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 7, 9, 13, 15, and 18-20.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed July 8,
2016), Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Nov. 29, 2016), the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Sept. 29, 2016), and the Final Office Action ("Final
Act.," mailed Feb. 24, 2016).
2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is United Technologies
Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
3 The Examiner has indicated that claims 1, 3, 4, and 21-24 are allowed and
claims 17, 25, and 26 are only objected to based on their dependence from
Appeal2017-002284
Application 13/340,838
BACKGROUND
According to Appellant, "[ t ]he present invention is generally directed
to gas turbine engines and, more particularly, to gear systems for use in
variable cycle gas turbine engines." Spec. i-f 2.
CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claims 1, 7,
and 13 are illustrative of the appealed claims and recite:
1. A turbine engine comprising:
a first fan;
a second fan spaced axially from the first fan;
a turbine-driven fan shaft; and
an epicyclic gear train that is coupled to be driven by the
turbine-driven fan shaft and that is coupled to drive the first fan
and the second fan, the epicyclic gear train including a carrier
supporting intermediate gears that mesh with a sun gear, and a
ring gear surrounding and meshing with the intermediate gears,
the intermediate gears being supported on respective journal
bearings, wherein the epicyclic gear train has a gear reduction
ratio such that coSecond-Stage = coFirst-Stage x [(NR+Ns)/NR],
where coFirstStage is a rotational speed of the first fan, coSecond-
Stage is a rotational speed of the second fan, NR is the number
of teeth on the ring gear and NS is the number of teeth on the sun
gear.
7. The turbine engine as recited in claim 1, wherein the
epicyclic gear train has a gear reduction ratio of greater than or
equal to 2.3.
rejected claims. Final Act. 13-14. The Examiner has also indicated that
claim 16 is allowed. See Advisory Action mailed Apr. 15, 2016.
2
Appeal2017-002284
Application 13/340,838
13. The turbine engine as recited in claim 1, wherein the first
fan and the second fan define a bypass ratio of greater than ten
(10) with regard to a bypass airflow and a core airflow.
Appeal Br. 10-11.
REJECTIONS 4
1. The Examiner rejects claims 7, 9, 13, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
2. The Examiner rejects claims 7, 9, 13, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as indefinite.
DISCUSSION
Enablement
The Examiner finds that claims 7, 9, 13, and 18-20 are not enabled in
the disclosure as originally filed based on the open-ended ranges for the gear
reduction ratio and bypass ratio in the claims. Final Act. 3--4. The
Examiner finds that the claimed quantities, i.e. the bypass and gear ratios,
"do not have an inherent upper limit[] because the gas turbine bypass ratio
and gear ratio [are] engineering design variables" and not inherent
properties. Id. at 4--5. The Examiner states that "[t]he claimed ratios are
variables dependent of, among other factors, design constraints, available
tools, available materials, and available technology" and can have whatever
numerical value an engineer specifies on paper. Id. at 5 (emphasis omitted).
4 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claims 15 and 16. See
Ans. 2. Further, the Examiner has indicated that claim 16 is allowed, and
thus, we also consider the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 18 and
19 to have been withdrawn. See Advisory Action mailed Apr. 15, 2016.
3
Appeal2017-002284
Application 13/340,838
The Examiner further finds that undue experimentation would be needed to
make and use the claimed invention at the upper limits of these ratios. Id.
at 6. The Examiner also finds that the claims are broad in that there is an
infinite number of possible ratios; the claimed engine is "complex to the
extreme;" the related "art has an extremely low level of predictability"; the
disclosure "does not teach how to make or use the invention" at its upper
limits; and "Appellant has not stated whether or not a working example
exists, and it is not known whether [there is] a working model satisfying said
claimed ratios." Id. at 6-7 (citing MPEP § 2164.0l(a)); see also In re
Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Appellant argues that "one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that bypass ratios and gear reduction ratios have inherent upper limits based
on the practical physical limitations and basic architecture of a bypass
turbine engine and the related constraints of fixed wing aircraft." Appeal
Br. 4. In particular, Appellant asserts that "[t]here would inherently be
limits on the engine size, dictated by practical dimensions of aircraft and
mounting the engine, clearance between the wing and ground surfaces, and
mechanical and aerodynamic stresses imposed by the engine and
surrounding nacelle on the mounting." Id. Thus, according to Appellant,
"an infinite bypass ratio would impractically and unachievably require
infinite engine size and infinite strength of the aircraft, engine, and mount."
Id. Appellant also asserts that the Specification provides sufficient detail
regarding the fans, gear train, shaft, etc. to enable one of ordinary skill in the
art "to achieve bypass ratios and gear reduction ratios between the claimed
lower limits and the inherent upper limits." Id. at 5.
4
Appeal2017-002284
Application 13/340,838
We are persuaded of error by Appellant's arguments. We agree that
there are inherent upper limits to the claimed ratios, and we find that the
Specification provides sufficient information with which a person of
ordinary skill in the art could approach any practical upper limits for the
ratios claimed. In particular, the Specification provides details regarding the
structure of the gear train and the first and second fans and sufficient detail
explaining how the gear reduction ratios and bypass ratios are obtained
based on these structures. See, e.g., Spec. i-fi-128-31, 38, 40-45. Ultimately,
we conclude that other embodiments beyond those provided in the
Specification can be made without difficulty, and given the practical limits
on engine structure as noted by Appellant, one of ordinary skill in the art
could make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
See In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839 (CCPA 1970) ("In cases involving
predictable factors, such as mechanical or electrical elements, a single
embodiment provides broad enablement in the sense that, once imagined,
other embodiments can be made without difficulty and their performance
characteristics predicted by resort to known scientific laws.")
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 7, 9, 13,
and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Indefiniteness
Each of claims 7, 9, and 18-20 recites an open-ended range for the
gear reduction ratio of the epicyclic gear train, e.g., "a gear reduction ratio of
greater than or equal to 2 .3" in claim 7. Claim 13 recites an open ended
range for the fan bypass ratio, i.e., "greater than 10." The Examiner finds
that these open-ended claim ranges "[are] indefinite as [they are] not
bounded at its upper limit, therefore, [Appellant] has failed to define the
5
Appeal2017-002284
Application 13/340,838
metes and bounds of [the] claimed invention." Final Act. 8. Further, the
Examiner asserts that "[Appellant] has failed to provide, even in view of the
specification, a 'ballpark estimation' of what would be the 'so-called'
inherent practical upper limits of the claimed invention. Therefore the
claims are indefinite." Ans. 7.
Definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is determined
based upon whether "those skilled in the art would understand what is
claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification." Orthokinetics,
Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, we agree with Appellant that there is no ambiguity in the claims and
that claim breadth does not equate to indefiniteness. See In re Johnson,
558 F.2d 1008, 1016 n. 17 (CCPA 1977) (breadth is not indefiniteness).
Thus, the claims are not made unclear simply because an upper boundary
has been specified, and the claims expressly reach any gear reduction ratio
greater than or equal to the claimed values, no matter how large the ratios
may be. Hence, the scope of the claims, although broad, is nonetheless
clear.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 7, 9, 13, and 18-20.
REVERSED
6