Appeal No. 2003-1557 Page 4
Application No. 09/817,884
conclusion that the “program” [sic, perhaps mathematical model] is inoperative (final
rejection, page 3).
While an inoperative invention does not satisfy the requirement of 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 that an invention be “useful” (See In re Harwood, 390 F.2d 985, 989, 156 USPQ
673, 676 (CCPA 1968)), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has stated that
“[t]o violate § 101 the claimed device must be totally incapable of achieving a useful
result.” Brooktree Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 977 F.2d 1555, 1571, 24
USPQ2d 1401, 1412 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In this instance, appellants’ method comprises adjusting at least one engine
parameter selected from the group of engine parameters including a nozzle area and a
rotor speed in order to extend the useful serviceable life of a gas turbine engine by
increasing a limiting gas temperature margin, i.e., reducing a limiting gas temperature,
such as the high pressure turbine exhaust gas temperature. Appellants’ specification
(page 5) identifies examples (use of turbine blades having pivotable trailing edge
portions, trailing edge portions of ablatable material which erodes at a predetermined
rate during engine operation and removable inserts) of ways to adjust selected areas of
the turbine and gives examples of variable exhaust nozzle configurations on pages 5
and 6. Appellants’ specification also indicates that rotor speed may also be adjusted
during operation to effect like temperature margin increases.
Appellants have also indicated on pages 6-8 of their specification that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007