Appeal No. 2003-1557 Page 5
Application No. 09/817,884
variation of the selected engine parameter will also have an impact on other engine
parameters which can be assessed by trial and error or predicted using empirical
models and conventional optimization programs and the examiner has not contested
that one skilled in the art at the time of appellants’ invention would have been able to
develop such an empirical model or that such optimization programs were known in the
art at the time of appellants’ invention and would be effective in predicting engine
performance. Further, using such a mathematical model, appellants have illustrated on
pages 7 and 8 of their specification that adjustment of the core exhaust nozzle area
could produce a decrease in high pressure turbine exhaust gas temperature of 37 C for
a fully deteriorated engine while still producing a net thrust of approximately 13,000
pounds.
While the examiner appears to be correct that the nozzle area adjustment
modeled by appellants does not produce an improvement in thrust, it does produce a
lower high pressure turbine exhaust gas temperature resulting in an increase of 37 C in
the limiting gas temperature margin, which is the stated utility of appellants’ method. As
the examiner has offered no reasoning or evidence to dispute appellants’ results, the
examiner’s rejection of appellants’ claims as being directed to an invention which is
inoperative and thus lacks utility cannot be sustained.
The enablement rejection
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007