United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 22, 2021

2021002544 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 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.
15/143,412 04/29/2016 Becky E. Rose 93040US01;
67097-3359PUS1
4425
54549 7590 11/22/2021
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
WALTHOUR, SCOTT J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/22/2021 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BECKY E. ROSE

Appeal 2021-002544
Application 15/143,412
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 11, 13, and 23–29. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Raytheon
Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2021-002544
Application 15/143,412

2
BACKGROUND
The Specification “relates generally to a propulsor for gas turbine
engines, and more particularly to a propulsor having a low solidity guide
vane arrangement.” Spec. ¶ 1.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 11 is the only independent claim on appeal and recites:
11. A gas turbine engine comprising:
a turbine section configured to drive a compressor section;
a propulsor configured to be driven by the turbine
section, the propulsor comprising:
a bypass duct defining a bypass flow path;
a rotor including a row of propulsor blades
extending in a radial direction outwardly from a hub, the
propulsor blades configured to deliver airflow into the
bypass flow path;
a row of guide vanes situated in the bypass flow
path axially aft of the row of propulsor blades relative to
an engine longitudinal axis;
wherein at least two of the guide vanes extend
radially between inner and outer surfaces of the bypass
duct, extend in a chordwise direction between a first
leading edge and a first trailing edge to define a vane chord
dimension (VCD) at a first span position of the respective
guide vane, and define a vane circumferential pitch (VCP)
at the first span position of the respective guide vane and
an adjacent guide vane of the at least two of the guide
vanes;
wherein the row of guide vanes has a vane solidity
(VR) defined as VCD/VCP, the vane solidity (VR) being
between 0.7 and 1.3, and the first span position
corresponds to a midspan of the respective guide vane;
Appeal 2021-002544
Application 15/143,412

3
wherein the row of propulsor blades is configured
to define a total pressure ratio across the propulsor blades
alone of equal to or less than 1.35;
wherein each propulsor blade extends in the radial
direction outwardly from a root to a tip, extends in the
chordwise direction between a second leading edge and a
second trailing edge to define a blade chord dimension
(BCD) at the tip, and defines a blade circumferential pitch
(BCP) at the tip of the respective propulsor blade and an
adjacent propulsor blade of the row of propulsor blades;
and
wherein the row of propulsor blades has a blade
solidity (BR) defined as BCD/BCP, the blade solidity
(BR) being equal to or less than 0.9;
wherein the row of guide vanes includes a vane
quantity (VQ) of guide vanes, the row of propulsor blades
includes a blade quantity (BQ) of propulsor blades, a ratio
of VQ/BQ is between 2.2 and 2.5, the blade quantity (BQ)
is between 10 and 20, and the vane quantity (VQ) is
between 14.0 and 40.0; and
a geared architecture configured to drive the rotor at a
different speed than the turbine section.
Appeal Br. 7–8.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 11, 13, and 23–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Gallagher 1442 in view of Gliebe3 and Gallagher 187.4

2 Gallagher et al., US 2013/0008144 A1, pub. Jan. 10, 2013.
3 Gliebe et al., US 5,169,288, iss. Dec 8, 1992.
4 Gallagher et al., US 2016/0069187 A1, pub. Mar. 10, 2016.
Appeal 2021-002544
Application 15/143,412

4
DISCUSSION
With respect to claim 11, the Examiner finds that Gallagher 144
teaches a gas turbine engine as claimed, except that:
Gallagher [144] does not explicitly teach the row of guide vanes
comprises at least two guide vanes with a circumferential pitch
(VCP) at the first span position of the respective guide vane and
an adjacent guide vane of the at least two guide vanes. Gallagher
[144] further does not expressly teach the ratio of VQ/BQ is 2.4,
and the vane quantity (VQ) is between 14.0 and 40.0.
Final Act. 4 (citing Gallagher 144 Figs. 1, 2; ¶¶ 5, 12, 16, 18, 22).
Regarding these limitations, the Examiner relies on the combination with
Gliebe. Id. at 4–5 (citing Gliebe Fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 35–39; col. 8, ll. 33–36).
The Examiner also finds that it was well known in the art to provide a
VQ/BQ ratio between 2.2 and 2.5. Id. at 5. The Examiner also
acknowledges that Gallagher 144 “fails to teach the row of guide vanes
[having] a vane solidity . . . between 0.7 and 1.3.” Id. at 6. Regarding this
limitation, the Examiner relies on the further combination with Gallagher
187. Id. (citing Gallagher 187 Fig. 5; ¶¶ 64, 86).
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and determinations
with respect to the rejection of claim 11. See Final Act. 3–6, 9–11; Ans. 3–
9. As discussed below, we are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s
arguments.
Appellant first argues that “[t]he rejection does not point to any
objective evidence establishing that one would have been motivated to
utilize the alleged ratio of 2.4 independent of the disclosed blade count of
Gliebe, much less in an arrangement having a blade quantity less than half of
. . . Gliebe.” Appeal Br. 3. Yet, as the Examiner explains, “Gliebe discusses
the disclosed VQ/BQ ratios (2.4 being one of these ratios) without regard to
Appeal 2021-002544
Application 15/143,412

5
specific blade count and solely with regard to selected harmonic number
pairs.” Ans. 3 (citing Gliebe col. 11, l. 64–col. 12, l. 14). Gliebe discloses
that the ratio VQ/BQ is 2.4 when the harmonic number pair used is n=2 and
n=3. Gliebe col. 12, ll. 4–8. Gliebe discloses the use of 34 blades in this
ratio only as exemplary and not limited thereto. See id. at col. 6, ll. 16–18.
The exemplary nature of the use of 34 blades with the ratio of 2.4 is shown
in the claims, which claim the use of 22 blades and 54 blades to achieve this
ratio. See id. at col. 13, ll. 4–5 (claim 7). Thus, we agree with the
Examiner’s assessment and response and do not see any disclosure in Gliebe
that limits the blade count to any particular range at this ratio. Thus,
Appellant’s argument fails to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s reliance
on Gliebe’s disclosed ratio.
Further regarding the Examiner’s reliance on Gliebe, Appellant argues
that “the rejection does not point to any objective evidence that Gliebe
discloses a geared architecture, or that it was known to utilize the alleged
vane/blade ratio of 2.4 in a geared engine such as Gallagher [144].” Appeal
Br. 3. We are not persuaded of error for the reasons provided by the
Examiner. In response, the Examiner explains that “[a]s Gliebe teaches the
determination of the unique ratio 2.4 of vane quantity to blade quantity is
independent of blade tip speed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that Gliebe’s teachings would be applicable to either a geared
turbofan architecture or a direct-drive turbofan architecture.” Ans. 4–5. The
Examiner also explains that there is no record evidence showing that
Gliebe’s teachings are incompatible with a geared turbofan, and notably,
Appellant does not explain why there may be such incompatibility.
Appeal 2021-002544
Application 15/143,412

6
We are also not persuaded of error to the extent Appellant expands on
this argument in the Reply Brief, asserting that Gallagher 144 already
produces less noise. Reply Br. 4–5. Appellant asserts that Gallagher 144
teaches a low speed of air passing over propulsor blades that would result in
less noise. Id. at 5. However, we do not see how this is incompatible with
the proposed combination of Gliebe and Gallagher 187 for the reason of
further lowering engine noise.
Next, Appellant discusses the Examiner’s citation of evidence to show
ratios of vane count to blade count known in the art. Appeal Br. 3–4. For
example, Appellant addresses Hughes5 and argues that “[w]ere one to follow
the teachings of Hughes as a whole, one would set the midspan vane solidity
of Gallagher [144] to be above the claimed range and/or set the ratio VQ/BQ
of Gallagher [144] to be below the claimed range.” Id. at 4. We are not
persuaded of error by this discussion. As the Examiner makes clear, the
rejection relies on these references only to the extent they teach the use of
ratios in the claimed range. Ans. 4–5. Further, Appellant does not explain
adequately why one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily “follow the
teachings of Hughes as a whole,” rather than combining the art as proposed
by the Examiner. Although the art of record must be considered as a whole
in determining obviousness, Appellant does not adequately explain why one
of ordinary skill in the art would not have pursued the combination proposed
by the Examiner. Appellant points to examples in Hughes, but we disagree

5 Hughes, “Aerodynamic Performance of Scale-Model Turbofan Outlet
Guide Vanes Designed for Low Noise,” 40th AIAA Aerospace Sciences
Meeting & Exhibit, 2001.
Appeal 2021-002544
Application 15/143,412

7
that these examples contradict the Examiner’s findings and determination.
See Reply Br. 3.
Next, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred to the extent the
rejection relies on Gallagher 187. Appellant asserts that “[t]he rejection
does not point to any particular vane count associated with curve 92 of
Gallagher” 187, which the Examiner relies on to support the rejection.
Appeal Br. 4. Appellant also asserts that the Examiner provides no objective
evidence or technical reasoning to show that “vane solidity can be applied to
a row of guide vanes irrespective of vane count.” Id. at 4–5. Appellant also
asserts that evidence of record contradicts the Examiner’s assertion
regarding vane solidity because it shows different solidity values for
different numbers of vanes. Id. at 5.
Appellant’s arguments regarding Gallagher 187 do not persuade us of
any error in the rejection. As explained by the Examiner, “vane solidity is
defined with respect to a gap between airfoils.” Ans. 6 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner explains that at a given vane or blade count, the solidity could
be varied by other factors. Id. But, contrary to Appellant’s assertion, the
Examiner does not assert that solidity is entirely independent of vane count.
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that solidity, as defined by
Appellant, could be altered by vane count, changing the chord dimension, or
changing the hub diameter. Yet, even though the solidity may be changed
by varying the number of vanes, the ratio of gap/chord itself is “without
regard to the actual number of vanes or blades,” as the Examiner explains.
Ans. 6–7 (emphasis omitted). Thus, even though Gallagher 187 may not
point to any specific vane count, we fail to see how that shows error in the
rejection.
Appeal 2021-002544
Application 15/143,412

8
Finally, we are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s argument that
“the rejection improperly resorts to picking and choosing vane quantity and
vane solidity values across the cited references with no objective evidence to
support the Examiner’s proposed combination.” Appeal Br. 5. For the
reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has failed
to provide objective evidence to support the combination proposed.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection of claim 11. Appellant does not raise separate arguments regarding
the rejection of the dependent claims, and thus, we are also not persuaded of
error in the rejection of claims 13 and 23–29 for the same reasons.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 11, 13, and 23–29
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 11, 13, and 23–29.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
11, 13, 23–29 103 Gallagher 144,
Gliebe,
Gallagher 187
11, 13, 23–
29

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)(l)(iv).

AFFIRMED