Application of Chandler
Decision Date | 20 June 1963 |
Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 6982. |
Parties | Application of Milton E. CHANDLER and Alexander M. Wright. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
A. M. Prentiss, West Hartford, Conn., for appellants.
Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D. C. (S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for the Commissioner.
Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the action of the examiner rejecting claims 3 to 17, 19 to 24, 26 to 33 and 35 to 43 of appellants' application1 for a patent on a fuel regulating apparatus for an aircraft turbojet engine. No claims have been allowed.
Appellants' application describes the claimed invention as directed to a fuel flow regulating apparatus to control the engine speed and power by regulating the fuel supply as a function of a manual control and several variables, including engine inlet air temperature and pressure, engine speed, and other engine operating conditions.
The application states, in part, that engines of the type under consideration cannot be operated at maximum speed under all flight conditions; that fuel and speed control should enable the operator to vary speed and power as conditions of flight may require; that engine speed responds to fuel flow, varying as a function of the pressure and temperature of the engine inlet air flow, engine air compressor characteristics and other operating factors; that maximum fuel flow is limited by the maximum permissible compression ratio of the air compressor which results from that fuel flow, under any combination of engine speed, engine inlet air temperature and pressure, and rate of air flow through the engine, that may obtain under varying operating conditions; that for proper regulation of engine operation, and to avoid compressor stall, burner blowout and other causes of engine failure, it is not feasible to rely upon automatic regulation of fuel flow as a function of variables which do not include these factors; that an important requirement of a satisfactory fuel and speed control is responsiveness to engine acceleration at maximum rate without causing compressor stall, and to deceleration of the engine at a maximum rate without causing burner blowout; and that another important requirement is the provision of an emergency fuel supply and control system responsive to operation in the event of failure of the normal fuel supply and control system.
It is stated that in turbojet engine fuel control systems in prior use, engine performance is controlled by regulating the fuel supply by a control apparatus which varies the delivery of a fuel pump by introducing correction factors which modify the delivery, in order to compensate the fuel flow for variations in pressure and temperature of the air entering the engine caused by variations in flight altitude, ambient air temperature, and other operating conditions. Applicants state that they have found that better control of engine operation can be obtained by providing a fuel control system in which inlet air pressure and temperature compensation of the fuel flow to the engine is inherent in the system, and hence, such corrective factors are not required to compensate for changing operating conditions.
More specifically, the application states the salient features of the claimed invention as follows:
Claims 3 and 40 are sufficiently illustrative and read as follows:
The references relied upon are:
Davies et al. 2,674,847 April 13, 1954 Kunz 2,720,751 October 18, 1955 Fox 2,836,957 June 3, 1958
The Board of Appeals affirmed the rejection by the examiner of claims 3 to 8, 10, 11, 13 to 17, 19 to 23, 26 to 33, 35, 36, and 39 to 43 as unpatentable over Kunz in view of Davies et al.; of claim 9 as unpatentable over Kunz; of claims 3, 5 to 8, 10, 12, 14 to 17, 19, 20, 26 to 29, 31 to 33, 35, 36 and 39 to 43 as unpatentable over Fox in view of Davies et al.; and of all of the claims on the ground of undue multiplicity.
In aid of analysis and correlation of the cited references to the relevant features of appellants' claimed invention, we reproduce the following figures from the drawings:
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Davies et al. discloses an engine fuel supply control apparatus in which fuel flows from tank 16 through filter 14 by means of line 13 through engine driven variable delivery pump 10, through line 17 to flow restricting valve 34, through control valve 42 to burner 21. Movement of diaphragms 29 and 37...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tafas v. Doll
...897, 900 (1970) ("[A]n applicant should be allowed to determine the necessary number and scope of his claims...."); In re Chandler, 50 C.C.P.A. 1422, 319 F.2d 211, 225 (1963) ("[A]pplicants should be allowed reasonable latitude in stating their claims in regard to number and phraseology emp......
-
Tafas v. Dudas
...897, 900 (1970) ("[A]n applicant should be allowed to determine the necessary number and scope of his claims."); In re Chandler, 50 C.C.P.A. 1422, 319 F.2d 211, 225 (1963) ("[A]pplicants should be allowed reasonable latitude in stating their claims in regard to number and phraseology employ......
-
Ex parte Hyatt
...of reason should be practiced and applied on the basis of the relevant facts and circumstances in each individual case." In re Chandler, 319 F.2d 211, 225 (CCPA 1963) (Chandler IF). The courts have considered various factors when addressing undue multiplicity rejections, including the pione......
-
APPLICATION OF FLINT
...prior art. The principles applicable to the present situation are well established and were stated by this court in In re Chandler, 319 F.2d 211, 50 CCPA 1422: * * * applicants should be allowed reasonable latitude in stating their claims in regard to number and phraseology employed. The ri......