Ex Parte Lutjen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2018

14790076 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/790,076 07/02/2015 Paul M. Lutjen
54549 7590 12/20/2018
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.
67097-3246PUS1;81308US01 5480
EXAMINER
ZAMORA ALVAREZ, ERIC J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2018 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
Exparte PAUL M. LUTJEN,
CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM MOORE, and
DAVID RICHARD GRIFFIN
Appeal2018-005398
Application 14/790,076
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-10 and 12-21. Final Act. 1 (Office
Action Summary). Claim 11 has been canceled. Final Act. 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). For the reasons explained below, we
find error in the Examiner's rejections of these claims. Accordingly, we
REVERSE the Examiner's rejections.
1 In accordance with 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.46, and in view of the Application Data
Sheet dated July 2, 2015, we understand "United Technologies Corporation"
as the Appellant. See also App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-005398
Application 14/790,07 6
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter relates to "a gas turbine engine assembly
[that] includes a shield that has a first portion and a second portion." Spec.
,r 3. Claims 1, 8, and 18 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claims on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A gas turbine engine assembly comprising:
a shield having a first portion and a second portion, the
first portion extending radially from an axial end portion of the
shield and includes a blade outer air seal contact surface and the
second portion extends axially from a radially outer end of the
first portion and includes a vane contact surface, wherein the
blade outer air seal contact surface faces in an axial direction and
the vane contact surfaces faces in a radial direction.
Prario
Lenahan et al.
Shapiro et al.
REFERENCES
us 4,687,413
us 5,224,822
US 2010/0281879 Al
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Aug. 18, 1987
July 6, 1993
Nov. 11, 2010
Claims 1, 4--10, 12, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102( a)( 1) as being anticipated by Shapiro under a first interpretation.
Claims 1, 4, 6-10, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l)
as being anticipated by Shapiro under a second interpretation.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Shapiro and Lenahan.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Shapiro.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Shapiro and Prario.
2
Appeal2018-005398
Application 14/790,07 6
ANALYSIS
The Rejection of Claims 1, 4-10, 12, and 17-21
as being anticipated by Shapiro under a first interpretation
Independent claim 1 recites "a shield having a first portion and a
second portion, the first portion extending radially from an axial end portion
of the shield and includes a blade outer air seal contact surface and the
second portion extends axially from a radially outer end of the first portion."
App. Br. 9 (Claims App'x.). Independent claims 8 and 18 differ from claim
1 in certain respects, but also contain limitations similar, if not identical, to
those discussed below, where we focus on the limitations of claim 1. App.
Br. 10-11 (Claims App'x.).
Under the Examiner's first interpretation, the Examiner provides an
annotated, partial, and exploded view of Figure 3 of Shapiro (Fig. 3' below):
Fig. 3'
Final Act. 4.
3
Appeal2018-005398
Application 14/790,07 6
The Examiner explains that as shown in Fig. 3 ', Shapiro discloses
a shield ( A, structure shown in broken lines in Fig. 3 '[]) having
a first portion (B) and a second portion (C), the first portion
extending radially (first portion B extends vertically as shown in
Fig. 3 ') from an axial end portion (D) of the shield (A) and
includes a blade outer air seal contact surface (E) and the second
portion extends axially ( C extends from left to right as shown in
Fig. 3 ') from a radially outer end of the first portion (B) and
includes a vane contact surface (F), wherein the blade outer air
seal contact surface faces in an axial direction (horizontal
direction at E) and the vane contact surfaces faces in a radial
direction (vertical direction at F).
Final Act. 3--4.
Appellant contends, "[b Jecause element C, the second portion, is
located radially inward from element B, the first portion, Shapiro fails to
disclose 'the second portion [CJ extends axially from a radially outer end of
the first portion' [BJ as required by claim 1." App. Br. 4; emphasis added.
Addressing this argument, the Examiner provides a second annotated,
partial, and further exploded view of Figure 3 of Shapiro, but now including
line "z." See Fig. 3" below.
4
Appeal2018-005398
Application 14/790,07 6
Fig. 3"
( L.
Ans. 4. The Examiner explains that as shown in Fig. 3' ', Shapiro discloses
a shield (A) having a first portion (B) and a second portion (C,
hashed line for illustration purposes separates first and second
portions), the first portion extending radially (first portion B
extends vertically as shown in Fig. 3' ') from an axial end portion
(D) of the shield (A) and includes a blade outer air seal contact
surface (E) and the second portion extends axially (C extends
from left to right as shown in Fig. 3' ', more clearly, C extends to
the left from point z) from a radially outer end (reference z was
added to show that C extends axially from a radially outer end)
of the first portion (B) and includes a vane contact surface (F,
which is a component of vane 36), wherein the blade outer air
seal contact surface (E) faces in an axial direction (horizontal
direction at E) and the vane contact surfaces faces in a radial
direction (vertical direction at F). Therein, from [Figure 3 ''],
second portion (C) extends axially from a radially outer end (at
z) of the first portion (B).
Ans. 3 (emphasis added).
5
Appeal2018-005398
Application 14/790,07 6
From the above, we understand that the Examiner has drawn line z in
the annotated Figure 3'' of Shapiro in order to be able to better identify
portions of Shapiro that are considered to correspond to the claimed
limitations. As is well known, however, the Examiner has the initial duty of
supplying the requisite factual basis for a rejection and may not, because of
doubts that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded
assumptions, or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factual
basis. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). Here, the
Examiner provides no basis for drawing line z in the specific manner shown,
nor does the Examiner offer any explanation as to why line z must include
the upper left comer as depicted above, or even be diagonal for that matter.
Lacking any such reasoning, it is concluded that line z was more likely
arbitrarily drawn by the Examiner for the purpose of satisfying the claim
limitations. Moreover, it is unclear, even when the portions are separated by
line z as depicted above, how it can be said that the second portion (C)
extends axially from a radially outer end of the first portion (B) as recited.
Accordingly, the Examiner's reliance on the demarcation imposed by line z
as disclosing the limitations of claim 1 is lacking articulated reasoning with
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007).
Appellant additionally contends that "the portion labeled 'E' cannot
be the claimed 'blade outer air seal contact surface' under the broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the specification for that term." App. Br.
4. In reply (and to be clear), the Examiner asserts that "portion E [] can be
considered as a blade outer air seal contact surface because portion Eis part
of a system (hangar 70, shroud 48, w-seal, and shield [A]) which together
6
Appeal2018-005398
Application 14/790,07 6
functions as a structure used to establish a radial flow path boundary of the
core flow path." Ans. 4; see also Ans. 5. Even should portion E pertain to
such identified components, the Examiner does not associate any of these
components with Shapiro's blade 44 so as to even possibly be considered a
"blade" seal contact surface. As readily seen in Figure 3 of Shapiro, blade
44 is spaced some distance away from shroud 48, and even further from
hanger 70 and the un-numbered w-seal and shield A. To be clear, Shapiro's
hanger 70 is an internal component that provides support for shroud 48
(which surrounds blade 44), neither of which is described as operating or
forming a blade air seal. See Shapiro generally. Thus, the Examiner's
finding that E, as referenced in the annotated Figs. 3' and 3' ', corresponds to
the recited "blade outer air seal contact surface" is in error.
Appellant further contends, "the specification identifies a 'shield' 118
and a 'vane' 90 as separate element[s]." However, under the Examiner's
interpretation, the vane 36 in Shapiro is both the claimed shield and the
vane." App. Br. 5. This argument has merit because in the Examiner's
annotated Figs. 3' and 3 '', the Examiner identifies reference A as a shield,
which has first and second portions B and C. Final Act. 3. Upon closer
inspection, it appears that this reference A is simply an extension of vane 36,
albeit on an opposite side of outer band 38. See Shapiro Figs. 2 and 3. As
such, the preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner's
position that the area identified by the Examiner as A corresponds to a
component that is other than an outboard extension of vane 36. Thus,
Appellant's contention that the Examiner incorrectly identifies A in Figs. 3'
and 3'' as a separate shield instead of as part of the vane, is also persuasive.
See App. Br. 5.
7
Appeal2018-005398
Application 14/790,07 6
In summation, we cannot sustain the stated rejection of claims 1, 4--
10, 12, and 17-21 because the Examiner has not established by a
preponderance of the evidence that Shapiro anticipates any of independent
claims 1, 8, and 18.
The Rejection of Claims 1, 4, 6-10, and 17-21
as being anticipated by Shapiro under a second interpretation
Under this slightly different, second interpretation, the Examiner
provides another annotated, partial, and exploded view of Figure 3 of
Shapiro (see Fig. 3' below):
Fig 3'
Final Act. 8.
Here, the Examiner finds that Shapiro discloses a shield in a similar
manner as under the first interpretation, except that references B, E, and H
point to different locations than before, but are still identified by the
Examiner as corresponding to the recited "first portion (B)," "blade outer air
8
Appeal2018-005398
Application 14/790,07 6
seal contact surface (E)," and "outer air seal (H)" as in the Examiner's first
interpretation above. Final Act. 7-8. In this second interpretation, the
Examiner also employs E to identify the recited "axial end portion," which,
in the first interpretation, was identified by reference D. See Final Act. 7.
Here, Appellant addresses items A, B, and F more specifically stating
that "vane 3 6 from Shapiro cannot be the claimed shield [A] and the vane
contact surface [F] and that the hanger 70 from Shapiro cannot be the
claimed first portion [BJ of the shield." App. Br. 7. There is merit to
Appellant's contentions. First, because the structure identified as A has not
varied from the Examiner's "first interpretation," those arguments regarding
A above apply equally well to the Examiner's present "second
interpretation" rejection. Further, vane contact surface Fas identified by the
Examiner (see Fig. 3' above) points to outer band 3 8, which, similar to our
discussion of A, is also part of vane 36. See Shapiro ,r 16 ("airfoil-shaped
hollow second stage vanes 36 that are supported between an arcuate,
segmented second stage outer band 38 and an arcuate, segmented second
stage inner band 40"). Thus, it is not clear how the corresponding shield A
and the corresponding vane contact surface Fare able to seal with vane 36
when they are both part of vane 36.
The Examiner's finding that B corresponds to the recited "first
portion" is even more problematic because in above Figure 3 ', reference B is
now identifying either hanger 70 or shroud 48. Consequently, because
reference B is now identifying a wholly separate component from either
shield A and ("second portion") C, the Examiner does not explain how this
second portion C is able to "extend[] axially from a radially outer end of the
9
Appeal2018-005398
Application 14/790,07 6
first portion" Bas recited. Thus, there is merit to Appellant's contention that
"hanger 70 from Shapiro cannot be the claimed first portion of the shield."
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the stated rejection of claims 1, 4, 6-
10, and 17-21 because the Examiner has not established by a preponderance
of the evidence that Shapiro anticipates any of independent claims 1, 8, and
18.
The Rejection of Claim 2
as being obvious over Shapiro and Lenahan
The Rejection of Claim 3
as being obvious over Shapiro
The Rejection of Claims 13-16
as being obvious over Shapiro and Prario
Claims 2 and 3 depend from claim 1 while claims 13-16 depend from
claim 8. App. Br. 9-11 (Claims App'x.). The Examiner's rejections of
claim 2 as unpatentable over Shapiro and Lenahan, of claim 3 as
unpatentable over Shapiro, and of claims 13-16 as unpatentable over
Shapiro and Prario, are based on the same unsupported findings in Shapiro
as those discussed above. See Final Act. 11-13. The Examiner does not
rely on Lenahan and Prario to remedy the deficiencies of Shapiro.
Accordingly, for reasons similar to those discussed above, we do not sustain
the rejections of claims 2, 3, and 13-16 over the variously indicated
combinations of cited art.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-10 and 12-21 are reversed.
REVERSED
10