Mark David. Ring et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 3, 2019

14644596 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/644,596 03/11/2015 Mark David Ring 75378US02 (14-173-2) 8824
52237 7590 12/03/2019
Bachman & LaPointe, P.C.
900 Chapel St., Suite 1201
New Haven, CT 06510
EXAMINER
VERDIER, CHRISTOPHER M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/03/2019 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 MARK DAVID RING, SCOT A. WEBB, MARK J. ROGERS,
GERALD D. CASSELLA, CHARLES H. WARNER, ERIC A. KUEHNE,
JONATHAN J. EARL, MATTHEW M. ZIETALA, NEIL L. TATMAN,
RANDALL J. BUTCHER, MATTHEW R. WILLETT, and
NICHOLAS R. LESLIE
Appeal 2018-001346
Application 14/644/596
Technology Center 3700
Before DANIEL S. SONG, FREDERICK C. LANEY, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
SONG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–24. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United
Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-001346
Application 14/644,596
2
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a stator assembly for a gas turbine engine.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A vane cluster for a gas turbine engine, comprising:
a first end-of-cluster vane;
a second end-of-cluster vane;
a neighbor vane adjacent to said second end-of-cluster vane at
an interface that includes an angled load interface therebetween;
and
a multiple of base vanes between said first end-of-cluster vane
and said neighbor vane, said angled load interface different
than an interface between each of said multiple of base vanes.
Appeal Br. 14, Claims App’x. (emphasis added).
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 16–242 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as
indefinite. Final Act. 5.
The Examiner also rejects various claims under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2)
(as far as claims 8 and 16–20 are found to be definite and understood) as
follows3:

2 Although the heading of the Final Office Action indicates claims 8 and 16–
23, this appears to be a typographical error because the deficiencies of claim
24 is explicitly discussed in the rejection. Final Act. 5. Moreover, claim 24
depends from claim 23. Appeal Br. 21, Claims App’x.

3 The rejection of claims 1–24 as anticipated by Earl (US 2014/0060081 A1,
pub. Mar. 6, 2014) has been withdrawn. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2018-001346
Application 14/644,596
3
2. Claims 1–21 as anticipated by Ring (US 2014/0093363 A1,
pub. Apr. 3, 2014). Final Act. 9.
3. Claims 1–3, 8–14, and 21 as anticipated by Fournier (US
5,743,711, iss. Apr. 28). Final Act. 12.
4. Claims 1, 8–10, 11–14, and 21 as anticipated by Yamashita (US
2006/0177314, pub. Aug. 10, 2006). Final Act. 14.
OPINION
Rejection 1: Indefiniteness
The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 16–24 as indefinite because
numerous recitations lack proper antecedent bases, appear to improperly
reference previously recited elements, and other issues noted in the Final
Action as examples of indefiniteness. Final Act. 5. The record indicates
that the Appellant sought to amend these claims after the Final Action, but
these amendments were not entered. Advisory Act. 1–2 (Dec. 23, 2016).
The Appellant does not address this rejection in its briefs in the present
appeal. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the indefiniteness rejection of
claims 8 and 16–23.

Rejection 2: Ring
The Examiner rejects claims 1–21 as anticipated, finding that Figures
2 and 3 of Ring discloses
a neighbor vane (immediately to the right of the vane near 30A
in figure 3) adjacent to the second end-of-cluster vane at an
interface that includes an angled load interface therebetween;
and a multiple of base vanes 30 between the first end-of-cluster
vane and the neighbor vane, the angled interface different than
an interface between each of the multiple of base vanes.
Final Act. 9–10.
Appeal 2018-001346
Application 14/644,596
4
The Appellant disagrees and argues, inter alia, that “Ring fails to
disclose that the angled load interface is different than the interface between
each of said multiple of base vanes (106) as recited in the claims.” Appeal
Br. 9. In that regard, the Appellant points out that “each of the vanes 30
disclosed by Ring are identical,” and argues that “the Examiner is essentially
reading out Applicant’s specific reference of vane types,” including end-of-
cluster vanes, neighbor vanes, and/or base vanes, which result in different
interfaces therebetween. Appeal Br. 10.
The Examiner explains that “[m]erely designating the vanes in the
appealed claims as a first end-of-cluster vane, a second end-of-cluster vane,
a neighbor vane, and base vanes, does not impart patentability, absent a
claimed feature that defines over the prior art.” Ans. 4. According to the
Examiner, the limitation at issue italicized above is “sufficiently broad so
that it reads on the location of the unnumbered angled load interface
(between the neighbor vane and the second end-of-cluster vane) being at a
different location than the unnumbered interface between each of the
multiple of base vanes.” Final Act. 10; Ans. 4.
We agree with the Appellant. We do not disagree with the Examiner
that merely designating vanes based on their position does not necessarily
impart patentability. However, the claims recite an interface between one
pair of adjacent vanes (neighbor vane and second end-of-cluster vane)
defines “an angled load interface therebetween.” The claims also recite
multiple base vanes and require the interface defined between these same
base vanes to be different than the angled load interface. The Examiner’s
position that the requirement that the angled load interface be different than
the interface between the multiple base vanes is merely met by an interface
“being at a different location” is an unreasonably broad interpretation of the
Appeal 2018-001346
Application 14/644,596
5
claim. Under such interpretation, all of the interfaces, including all of the
interfaces between the multiple base vanes, would be different from each
other by virtue of being at different locations.
The claims recite that the angled load interface itself is different from
the interface of the base vanes, such that the character of the interfaces must
be different, not merely different in location. This interpretation of the
claims is supported by the Specification, which discloses a specific function
of the recited angled load interface as compared to the interfaces of the base
vanes. See Spec. ¶¶ 51, 53, 55–57; Fig. 7. While the PTO is obligated to
give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, “any such construction
[must] be ‘consistent with the specification, . . . and . . . claim language
should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255,
1259-60 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir.
1990). “[I]t would be unreasonable for the PTO to ignore any interpretive
guidance afforded by the applicant’s written description.” In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Therefore, in view of the above, we reverse the rejection of claims 1–
21 as being anticipated by Ring because it is premised on an unreasonably
broad interpretation. The remaining arguments of the Appellant directed to
claims 18–20 are moot. App. Br. 12–13

Rejection 3: Fournier
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 8–14, and 21 as anticipated, finding
that Figures 14–19 of Fournier discloses
a neighbor vane (immediately to the circumferential right of the
second cluster vane) adjacent to the second [circumferentially
Appeal 2018-001346
Application 14/644,596
6
leftmost] end-of-cluster vane at an interface that includes an
angled load interface therebetween; and a multiple of base
vanes l6b between the first end-of-cluster vane and the neighbor
vane, the angled interface different than an interface between
each of the multiple of base vanes.
Final Act. 12–13.
The Examiner again explains that the limitation at issue is
“sufficiently broad” so as to be satisfied by the differing locations of the
interfaces. Final Act. 13; Ans. 6. The Appellant points out that as with
Ring, “Fournier also discloses only identical vane platforms,” and argues
that Fournier “fails to disclose an angled load interface different than the
interface between a multiple of base vanes as recited.” Appeal Br. 11.
Like Rejection 2 based on Ring, this anticipation rejection based on
Fournier is premised on the same unreasonably broad interpretation of the
claims. Thus, we reverse the rejection.

Rejection 4: Yamashita
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 8–10, 11–14, and 21 as anticipated,
finding that Yamashita discloses
a first circumferentially rightmost end-of-cluster vane
analogous to element 3; a second end-of-cluster vane 1b; a
neighbor vane 1a adjacent to the second end-of-cluster vane at
an interface that includes an angled load interface near 7, 8
there between; and a multiple of base vanes 3 between the first
end-of-cluster vane and the neighbor vane, the angled interface
different than an interface between each of the multiple of base
vanes.
Final Act. 14.
In that regard, the Examiner asserts that “element 1, collectively
formed by blade profiles 2, is a ‘vane’ cluster, since blades are also
commonly referred to as ‘vanes’ in the art.” Final Act. 14.
Appeal 2018-001346
Application 14/644,596
7
The Appellant disagrees, and argues, inter alia, that “the Examiner
attempts to equate [] vanes to blades; however, vanes are stationary and are
attached in a manner different than blades –– certainly not to a disc. Blades
are attached to a disc which rotates as best seen in Figure 1 of Yamashita.”
Appeal Br. 11–12. According to the Appellant, “[u]nder no reasonable
interpretation would one of ordinary skill in the art would consider blades to
be equivalent to vanes.” Appeal Br. 12.
The Examiner responds that
The appealed claims do not contain any requirement that the
claimed vanes are stationary. A vane is any device which
serves to direct fluid, and there is no requirement that a vane
must be stationary. It is well-settled that although the claims
are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the
specification are not read into the claims.
Ans. 8.
We again agree with the Appellant. In the Specification, the
Appellant clearly distinguishes between “vanes” and “blades.” Spec. ¶ 4
(“The compressor section includes a case circumscribing an engine axis and
axially alternating arrays of stationary vanes and rotatable blades.”); Spec. ¶
45 (“Each of the rotor assemblies 62 includes a multiple of blades 72
supported by a respective rotor hub 74. The outer platform 68 and airfoils
66 of the vane arrays 60 and a platform 76 that extends from each of the
multiple of blades 72 generally bounds the airflow passage 64.”); Fig. 2
(“stator vane airfoils [66]”, “blades [72]” of “rotor hub [74]”).
Although the Examiner is correct that limitations from the
Specification are not read into the claims, the claims are interpreted from the
perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art (in this case, the turbine engine
art) in view of the Specification. We do not view the Appellant’s argument
Appeal 2018-001346
Application 14/644,596
8
as reading the limitation of “stationary” into the claim, but rather, as arguing
that a person of ordinary skill in the art of turbine engines would interpret
the claims to be directed, and limited to, vanes of a stator, and not to
encompass blades of a rotor. We agree with the Appellant that in
interpreting the claims in view of the Specification, a person of ordinary skill
in the art of turbine engines would understand that the subject invention is
directed to vanes of a stator specifically, and not to the blades of a rotor hub.
There is no dispute that Yamashita is directed to turbine rotor blades
instead of a stator. Yamashita, Abstract (“A set of turbine rotor blades is
arranged on a rotor disk.”). Therefore, we agree with the Appellant that
Yamashita fails to anticipate the claims, and reverse the rejection.

Miscellaneous Claims
The Appellant also submits arguments directed to claims 22–24,
arguing that the limitations therein are not disclosed in the prior art
references, or the reference Earl. Appeal Br. 13–14. However, these claims
are only rejected relative to the indefiniteness rejection, which is not
contested by the Appellant, and the rejection based on Earl has been
withdrawn. See Ans. 10. Accordingly, these arguments are moot.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED-IN-PART. More
specifically, we affirm the indefiniteness rejections of claims 8 and 16–24.
However, we reverse the anticipation rejections based on Ring, Fournier,
and Yamashita.

Appeal 2018-001346
Application 14/644,596
9
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Basis Affirmed Reversed
8, 16–23 112(b) 8, 16–24
1–21 102(a)(2) Ring 1–21
1–3, 8–14,
21
102(a)(2) Fournier 1–3, 8–14,
21
1, 8–10, 11–
14, 21
102(a)(2) Yamashita 1, 8–10, 11–
14, 21
Overall
Outcome
8, 16–24 1–7, 9–15

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART