Ex Parte PETERS

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 19, 2019

14760024 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/760,024 07/09/2015
52237 7590
Bachman & LaPointe, P.C.
900 Chapel St., Suite 1201
New Haven, CT 06510
06/19/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Donald PETERS
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.
64413US01(14-436) 7497
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, ANDREW H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/19/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DONALD PETERS
Appeal2018-007937
Application 14/760,024
Technology Center 3700
Before: JILL D. HILL, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Donald Peters ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 United Technologies Corporation is the Applicant and is identified as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-007937
Application 14/760,024
BACKGROUND
Appellant's invention relates to a serpentine baffle for a gas turbine
engine. Spec. ,r 5. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A serpentine baffle for a liner assembly of a gas turbine
engme compnsmg:
a wall that defines a serpentine shape; and
a multiple of tabs which extend from an edge of said wall
for attachment to a cold sheet, such that the edge of said wall is
adjacent to said cold sheet and said wall is transverse to the cold
sheet and a hot sheet.
REJECTIONS 2
I. Claims 1-12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20-22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Cowan (US 2006/0112676 Al, pub.
June 1, 2006), Farah (US 2009/0139221 Al, pub. June 4, 2009), and Havens
(US 2,644,777, iss. July 7, 1953). Final Act. 3.
II. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Cowan and Havens. Final Act. 6.
III. Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Cowan, Farah, Havens, and Narayanan (US
2008/0060343 Al, pub. Mar. 13, 2008). Final Act. 7.
IV. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Cowan, Farah, Havens, and Johnson (US 3,612,400, iss.
Oct. 12, 1971). Final Act. 7.
2 Rejections of claims 1-7, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, are withdrawn by the Examiner. See Advisory Act. 2 (mailed
Jan. 26, 2018).
2
Appeal2018-007937
Application 14/760,024
V. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Cowan, Farah, Havens, and Mulcaire (US 2010/0242494
Al, pub. Sept. 30, 2010). Final Act. 8.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I; Claims 1-12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20---22
Appellant argues claims 1-12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20-22 as a group.
Appeal Br. 14--18. We select independent claim 1 as representative. Claims
2-12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20-22 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Cowan discloses, inter alia, a "baffle 40"
transverse to cold and hot sheets, but finds that the wall of the baffle is not
secured by tabs or serpentine. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner finds that
Farah secures its wall with tabs, and that Havens discloses a serpentine
baffle. Final Act. 4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to attach Cowan's baffle wall to its cold sheet with tabs as a simple
substitution of known elements, using known methods, to yield predictable
results, and that using a serpentine baffle would have been obvious to
provide additional longitudinal and transverse stability. Id.
Baffle
Appellant argues that, because Havens is directed to a structural panel
necessarily requiring core material 3 to be bonded or otherwise secured to its
face sheets, Havens' element 3 is not a baffle. Appeal Br. 14--15. Appellant
further argues that Haven's core material 3 provides both longitudinal and
transverse stability, whereas the claimed serpentine baffles do not provide
structural rigidity. Appeal Br. 16. According to Appellant, this distinction
3
Appeal2018-007937
Application 14/760,024
is explicitly recited in independent claim 8, which requires that "the baffles
are attached only to the cold sheet," so that there is relative movement,
whereas Havens requires attachment. Id.
The Examiner responds that Havens' element 3 is a baffle because it
regulates flow consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term
baffle. Ans. 2 ( citing Merriam-Webster. com). The Examiner states that
Havens' ribbons 3 also are consistent with the baffles disclosed in
Appellant's Specification, because they enable the passage of heated or
cooled air and, similar to Appellant's baffles, provide structural stiffness. Id.
(citing Havens 1:30-2:55; Spec. ,r 47 ("the serpentine shape provides
structural stiffness to the liner assembly 46 as well as baffles the secondary
airflow.")). The Examiner notes that the claims do not recite attachment
only to the cold sheet. Id.
In reply, Appellant reiterates that Havens' element 3 is not a baffle.
Reply Br. 3. According to Appellant, Havens' element 3 does not even meet
the Examiner's dictionary definition for baffle, because it does not regulate
flow and because none of the exemplary uses in Havens communicates a
fluid. Reply Br. 4--5.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive. Havens discloses that an
object of its invention is to provide a structural material that "possesses
channels or ducts extending therethrough as part of its structure, thus
enabling the passage of heated or cooled air therethrough for temperature
control purposes." Havens, 1:53-2:2; see also Ans. 2. We agree with the
Examiner that because Havens' ribbons 3 direct cooled air for temperature
control, Havens' ribbons regulate the flow and are baffles. We also agree
with the Examiner that Havens' ribbons are consistent with the claimed wall
4
Appeal2018-007937
Application 14/760,024
( claim 1) or baffles ( claim 8), which need only have a serpentine shape that,
according to Appellant's Specification, "provides structural stiffness to the
liner assembly 46 as well as baffles the secondary airflow." Spec. 47; see
also Ans. 2. In addition, contrary to Appellant's assertion (see Appeal Br.
16), 'attached to said cold sheet' does not mean that "baffles" must be
attached only to the cold sheet. For these reasons, a preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner's finding that Havens' element 3 meets the
claimed wall and baffle limitations.
Hindsight
Appellant also argues that the only motivation for the proposed
combination is hindsight, because the Examiner simply found a serpentine
shaped material between two panels as part of an ineffective combination of
references. Appeal Br. 16. According to Appellant, the Examiner combines
numerous references "piecemeal" to recreate Appellant's invention using
hindsight reasoning. Appeal Br. 18.
The Examiner responds that the rejection is based on using the term
"baffle" consistent with the plain meaning of this term, which includes the
composite material of Havens. Ans. 4. The Examiner explains that the
reasoning for the combination comes directly from Havens, which, similar to
Cowan, is used for aircraft structural support. Id.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive. Cowan discloses that a
duct 10 can be "compartmentalized using baffles 40," which enable cooling
within the duct 10 to be customized. Cowan ,r,r 24 and 26. Cowan also
discloses that its baffle 40 can include corrugations "that increase the
lengthwise stiffness of baffle 40." Cowan ,r 24. Given that Havens also
5
Appeal2018-007937
Application 14/760,024
discloses "channels or ducts" enabling the passage of cooled air and which
include ribbon 3 that "provides both longitudinal and transverse stability,"
Appellant does not provide persuasive arguments that Havens' serpentine
ribbon 3, which the Examiner reasonably identifies as a baffle, is not a
known feature that a skilled artisan would understand would provide
stiffness to Cowan's baffle. Moreover, the Examiner's reasoning is
supported by rational underpinnings in that providing "additional
longitudinal and transverse stability," comes directly from Havens and is
based on the serpentine (wave pattern) shape. See Final Act. 4 (citing
Havens, 2:37-3: 10). Because the Examiner provides reasoning with a
rational basis for combining Havens with Cowan, we are not persuaded that
the rejection is based on impermissible hindsight. See In re McLaughlin,
443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) ("[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a
sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long
as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does
not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant's disclosure, such a
reconstruction is proper.").
Benefit
Appellant also argues that there is no benefit to combining the
references because they "already have the necessary structural stability."
Appeal Br. 17. Appellant contends that a proper reason to combine requires
some benefit and, because the secondary references do "not provide any
benefit," no prima facie case of obviousness exists. Id.
6
Appeal2018-007937
Application 14/760,024
The Examiner disagrees, pointing out that the benefit of providing
additional longitudinal and transverse stability is explicitly taught by
Havens, which improves the stiffness of Cowan's baffle. Ans. 4.
Appellant's arguments are unavailing. Cowan already teaches
alternate embodiments to improve stiffness. See Cowan ,r 24. Appellant
does not explain why making the baffle serpentine to add longitudinal and
transverse stability would not improve the stiffness that Cowan desires.
Render Unsatisfactory
Appellant also argues that the Examiner's proposed modification
would render Cowan unsatisfactory for use as separate cold and hot sheets in
a thermal environment because Havens requires a bonded rigid structure.
The Examiner responds that Havens is relied upon only for its
serpentine baffle shape, and not for any bonding configuration. Ans. 4.
We do not agree with Appellant's arguments. As the Examiner
correctly notes, Havens is only relied upon for the serpentine shape, not the
method by which the sheets are bonded.
Conclusion
For the reasons explained above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2-12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20-22 fall with claim 1.
Rejections 11-V--Claims 8, 13, 14, 16, and 19
Appellant makes no separate arguments that claims 8, 13, 14, 16, or
19 are patentable over the asserted references, and relies on the above
7
Appeal2018-007937
Application 14/760,024
arguments discussed in Rejection I, which we find unavailing. Appeal Br.
14--18. We, therefore, sustain Rejections II-V.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-22.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8