Ex Parte Bergman et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 4, 201612711327 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation