Ex Parte Bergman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 4, 2016

12711327 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121711,327 02/24/2010 Russell J. Bergman
54549 7590 03/08/2016
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
PA-11610-U;67097-1297PUS1 1537
EXAMINER
BEEBE, JOSHUA R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/08/2016 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 RUSSELL J. BERGMAN and SCOTT A. KOVACH
Appeal2014-001210
Application 12/711,327
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, JAMES P. CALVE, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants submit that the real party in interest is United Technologies
Corp. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2014-001210
Application 12/711,327
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 11, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed
subject matter. The italicized portions of the claim language highlight the
claim limitations at issue:
1. A method for creating a segmented engme component
comprising the steps of,
casting a plurality of segments for said segmented
component, wherein each of said segments comprises a body
having internal coolant passages and at least a first joint end
capable of connecting to a first joint end of an adjacent
segment, said first joint end comprises a coolant inlet connected
to said internal coolant passages, and at least a portion of said
body has a foil shaped profile, and
simultaneously milling at least a featherseal slot and a
lightening pocket into at least one circumferential edge of said
joint end of each of said plurality of segments.
11. A gas turbine engine component comprising,
a plurality of segments, wherein each of said segments
comprises a body having coolant passages, and at least a first
joint end having a cooling inlet; and at least one featherseal slot
and lightening pocket in a circumferential edge of said first
joint end, and wherein said featherseal slot and said lightening
pocket comprise a single gap in said component, wherein said
single gap has a uniform depth into said segment, and
each of said segments being connected to at least one
adjacent segment such that a sealed cooling passage connects
each of said segment's cooling inlets.
2
Appeal2014-001210
Application 12/711,327
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-3 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Propheter-Hinckley (EP 1,956, 196 A2, pub.
Aug. 13, 2008) (hereinafter "Propheter"). Final Act. 4.
2. Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Propheter in view of Pratt (US 5,818,005, iss. Oct. 6, 1998).
Final Act. 11.
Anticipation of Claims 1-3 and 9-20 by Propheter
Claim 1
Appellants dispute the Examiner's finding that Propheter discloses the
limitation of "simultaneously milling at least a featherseal slot and a
lightening pocket," as is required in the method of claim 1. Appeal Br. 3. In
support of this rejection, the Examiner, relying on Propheter's Figure 6,
stated that
Propheter teaches, a) machining pockets and rails via electrode
discharge machining, Col. 5, i-f 11, and b) reduction of as many
possible manufacturing steps in the process, Col. 4, i-f8, and c) the
dangers of tolerance overlap between forming the pocket and rail
separately leading to tolerance overlap and jagged material
edges, Col. 6-7, i-fl5.
Final Act. 4-5.
The Examiner explained that "Propheter performs the bulk of the lightening
pocket formation in a casting process beforehand; however, when Propheter
mills the featherseal slot, a portion of it is also the uppermost bounds of the
lightening pocket." Ans. 13.
In order to resolve the dispute over claim 1, we first construe the term
"simultaneously milling." We give claim terms their broadest reasonable
3
Appeal2014-001210
Application 12/711,327
interpretation consistent with the Specification as it would be interpreted by
one of ordinary skill in the art. See, In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d
1255, 1259---60 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Morris, 127 F. 3d 1048-1054-55
(Fed. Cir. 1997). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the
Specification, limitations from the Specification are not read into the claims.
In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In light of the above principles, we consider the proper meaning of
"simultaneously milling" as used in the claims. The Specification discloses
"the pocket 148 and the featherseal slot 146 are milled at the same time
using an electrical discharge." Spec. i-f 23. The process, referred to as
Electric Discharge Machining (EDM), utilizes a preformed EDM tool to
"remove[ s] material from the segment in the shape of its cross-section,
thereby creating the featherseal slot 146 .... Simultaneous with this action,
the post portion 330 removes material from the featherseal rails 186, 182
thereby creating the lightening pocket 146." Id. i-f 26, Fig. 4. Thus, we
construe the term "simultaneously milling" to mean the creation of the
entirety of the featherseal slot and lightening pocket occurs in one milling
step. This construction is not inconsistent with the plain meaning of the
word "simultaneous" as "existing or occurring at the same time: exactly
coincident. "2
Our construction of the "simultaneously milling" claim limitation
requires that the featherseal slot and lightening pocket be created in one
milling step. The Examiner has not cited any portion of Propheter that
discloses such a milling step. Rather, the Examiner found that the lightening
pocket is created through a series of steps including casting prior to a milling
2 Simultaneous Definition, Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/simultaneous (last visited Feb. 27, 2016).
4
Appeal2014-001210
Application 12/711,327
step (Ans. 13), a milling step for the featherseal pocket which forms part of
an edge of the lightening pocket (Id.), and additional machining steps after
the milling step (Id. at 14--15). See Propheter, Fig. 6b, col. 8, 11. 40-45
("this allows overhang portion 102 and other edges along surface 98 to be
more readily machined such as with a chamfering process to form a break
edge.").
The Examiner's finding that Propheter discloses the step of
"simultaneously milling at least a featherseal slot and a lightening pocket ... "
is not supported by the requisite preponderance of the evidence. In re
Caveney, 761 F. 2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Consequently, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) of claim 1 and of
claims 2-3 and 9-10 which depend thereon.
Claim 11
Appellants dispute that Propheter discloses the limitation that the
"single gap has a uniform depth into said segment." Appellants submit that
the gap "has varied depths into the segment." App. Br. 6. The Examiner,
relying on Propheter's Figure 8, explained "regions where the midspan tab
124 are not present, that portion of surface 118 that extends out over rail
109, is removed, creating a region where the depth of the pocket and rail are
the same." Ans. 19.
Our review of Propheter' s Figure 8 reveals that the single gap is not of
uniform depth into the segment. Rather, the portion of the single gap under
the midspan tab 124 is of a different depth into the segment than are the
portions of the single gap not under the midspan tab 124.
The Examiner's finding that the "single gap has a uniform depth" is
not supported by the preponderance of the evidence. We do not sustain the
5
Appeal2014-001210
Application 12/711,327
Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) of claim 11 and claims 12-
20 which depend thereon.
Unpatentability of Claims 4-8 over Propheter in view of Pratt
Claims 4--8 are all dependent on claim 1. The Examiner cited Pratt
for teaching a "method for rapidly producing precise EDM electrode tools."
Final Act. 11. The Examiner does not rely on Pratt as disclosing
"simultaneously milling at least a featherseal slot and a lightening pocket."
For the reasons stated above in connection with claim 1, the
Examiner has not established that the "simultaneously milling" claim
limitation is taught or suggested by Propheter or the combination of
Propheter and Pratt. Consequently, we do not sustain the rejection of claims
4--8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
6