Ex parte Retersdorf

• Docket Number: Appeal 2023-001641,Application 16/130,389,Technology Center 3700
• Decision Date: 26 January 2024
• Parties: Ex parte ALAN RETERSDORF, MATTHEW PESS, and GREGORY L. DEFRANCESCO
• Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

1

Ex parte ALAN RETERSDORF, MATTHEW PESS, and GREGORY L. DEFRANCESCO

Appeal 2023-001641

Application 16/130,389

Technology Center 3700

United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board

January 26, 2024

FILING DATE: 09/13/2018

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LISA M. GUIJT, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

DECISION ON APPEAL

GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant^[1] appeals from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-8 and 11-18. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We AFFIRM.

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER

Appellant's invention relates to "[a]n environmental control system for an aircraft." Spec. ¶ 4. Claims 1 and 12 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter.

1. An environmental control system for an aircraft, comprising:

a first turbine coupled to an engine such that power can be transmitted between the first turbine and the engine by a first shaft

a second turbine coupled to a compressor via a second shaft and

one or more ducts configured to provide bleed air from the engine to the first and second turbines and the compressor such that the first and second turbines and the compressor condition the bleed air, wherein the first turbine is situated in an engine compartment of an aircraft, and the second turbine and the compressor are situated in another compartment separate from the engine compartment

THE REFERENCES

The Examiner relies on the following references to reject the claims:

Name	Reference	Date
Mackin	US 2014/0250898 A1	Sept. 11, 2014
Atkey	US 2015/0251766 A1	Sept. 10, 2015
Bruno '456	US 2016/0347456 A1	Dec. 1, 2016
Bruno '268	US 2016/0355268 A1	Dec. 8, 2016
Staubach	US 2019/0162121 A1	May 30, 2019

3

THE REJECTIONS

The Examiner maintains the following rejections:

Claim(s) Rejected	35 U.S.C. §	Reference(s)/ Basis
I	1-3, 8, 11-13, 16-18	103	Staubach, Mackin, Bruno '456
I	1-3, 5-8, 11-13, 16, 17	103	Bruno '268, Staubach, Mackin, Bruno '456
III	1, 3-6, 8, 12-17	103	Atkey, Staubach, Mackin

OPINION

Rejection I

Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Staubach discloses an aircraft environment control system ("ECS"), including first turbine 78 coupled to engine 21, such that power can be transmitted between turbine 78 and engine 21 by first shaft 85, as required by claim 1. Final Act. 2(Staubach ¶ 46). The Examiner also relies on Staubach for disclosing second turbine 84 coupled to compressor 44, as claimed, however, the Examiner finds that second turbine 84 is coupled to compressor 44 via the same shaft 85 that couples first turbine 78 to engine 21, rather than being coupled via a second shaft as claim 1 requires. Id. at 3 (citing ¶¶ 37, 46). Staubach's Figure 1A is reproduced below.

4

(IMAGE OMITTED)

Staubach's Figure 1A depicts turbines 78, 84 coupled, in series, to engine 21 via shaft 85, gearbox (GBX) 42, and takeoff shaft 40, and also compressor 44 coupled to the engine via clutch 45, GBX 42, and takeoff shaft 40. See, e.g., Staubach ¶¶ 37, 41. Staubach discloses that "[compressor 44 may alternatively be driven by shaft 85." Id. ¶ 37.

The Examiner also relies, alternatively, on Staubach's description of second turbine 84A, as depicted Figure IB. Figure IB of Staubach is reproduced below.

(IMAGE OMITTED)

5

Staubach's Figure IB depicts "a[n] option wherein the turbine 78 and 84 [of Figure 1A] are replaced by turbines 78A and 84A," wherein "[t]urbine 78A drives its own shaft 84B and turbine 78A drives its shaft 78B." Staubach ¶ 48. Staubach discloses that "[t]he shafts are shown as concentric, although they could also be spaced" and that "the shafts are shown connected to drive a generator 92." Id. Staubach also discloses that "[utilizing separate shafts will provide the designer with the ability to design to an aerodynamic design point for the engine." Id.

The Examiner relies on Bruno '456 for disclosing second turbine 112 coupled to compressor 110 via shaft 118, which is a shaft that is different from shaft 130 coupling first turbine 132. Final Act. 3 (citing Bruno '456, Fig. 5). Bruno '456's Figure 5 is reproduced below

(IMAGE OMITTED)

6

Bruno '456's Figure 5 depicts an ECS pack 100 including air cycle machine (ACM) 106 having "compressor 110 and . . . turbine[] 112 .. . located on a common shaft 118" (Bruno '456 ¶ 22) and "second shaft 130 including a turbine 132 .. . [and] fan 120 mounted to the second shaft 130," wherein "[a]s a result, air from the engine . . . may be expanded twice," such that "[b]y including a second shaft 130 in an ECS pack 100, greater optimization of the ACMs, turbines, compressors, and fans may be achieved" (id. ¶ 23).

The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to modify Staubach's air supply system "to include a shaft on which the second turbine and compressor are placed separate from the first shaft on which a first turbine i[s] placed in a[n] aircraft [ECS,] as taught by Bruno ['456],. . . [to] allow for greater optimization of turbines compressors and fans in the system as recognized by Bruno ['456]." Final Act. 3 (citing Bruno '456 ¶ 23).

Appellant argues that "one of skill in the art would not have combined Staubach with Bruno '456," as proposed by the Examiner, because "Staubach discloses two turbines driven by a common shaft ... to recapture energy 'from expansion of air across turbine 78 and turbine 84' in order to improve engine efficiency," wherein "[i]f one of the turbines were decoupled from the shaft as proposed in the rejection, the benefit of recapturing energy taught by Staubach would be lost." Appeal Br. 2 (citing Staubach ¶ 46).

The Examiner responds that "Staubach contemplates an embodiment where only one of the turbines 78 is on the shaft 85," for the purpose of recapturing rotational energy, such that "[modifying Staubach in view of Bruno ['456] to have . . . only one of the turbines connected to the gearbox

7

42 of the engine of Staubach would still accomplish the stated benefits of recapturing energy for the engine via the turbine." Ans. 19 (citing Staubach ¶¶ 7, 8); see also Adv. Act. 2 ("Staubach explicitly discloses that only one of the turbines has to be connected to the gearbox in some embodiments and does not require that both of the turbines be connected on the same shaft.").

Appellant replies: "The point is one of skill...