UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 1, 2020

2019004563 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2020)

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.
14/624,697 02/18/2015 Edward R. BAREISS 67097-2893PUS1;
75898US02
2524
54549 7590 10/01/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
WONG, ELTON K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2020 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 EDWARD R. BAREISS
Appeal 2019-004563
Application 14/624,697
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.

KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2019-004563
Application 14/624,697

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s Final decision to reject claims 1–6, 8–19, 21, 23, and 24. Final
Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a gas turbine engine component. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1 A component, comprising:
an airfoil that extends to a tip shroud, said airfoil including
an internal cooling passage that extends inside a body;
wherein said tip shroud is comprised of a first material,
said tip shroud defining at least one opening to said internal
cooling passage;
a cover attached to said tip shroud and covering said at
least one opening, said cover comprised of a second material,
said cover positioned and configured to adapt relative to an
uneven surf ace of said tip shroud, and said uneven surface being
an outer diameter surface of said tip shroud; and
a braze alloy employable to braze said cover to said tip
shroud and comprised of a third material, wherein said first
material, said second material and said third material are
different materials.

1 In this Decision, we refer to (1) the Examiner’s Final Office Action dated
September 5, 2018 (“Final Act.”), Advisory Action dated November 23,
2018 (“Adv. Act.”), and Answer dated March 22, 2019 (“Ans.”), and (2)
Appellant’s Appeal Brief dated February 5, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) and Reply
Brief dated May 22, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United Technologies
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-004563
Application 14/624,697

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Deptowicz US 5,599,166 Feb. 4, 1997
Nenov US 2005/0091848 A1 May 5, 2005
Rucker US 2007/0141385 A1 June 21, 2007
Sadler US 2007/0183897 A1 Aug. 9, 2007
Poon US 8,292,587 B2 Oct. 23, 2012
Bischof US 8,413,877 B2 Apr. 9, 2013

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 5 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre–AIA the applicant
regards as the invention.3 Ans. 7; see also Final Act. 3–4; Adv. Act. 2.
2. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Poon. Final Act. 5–6.
3. Claims 2 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Poon and Rucker. Final Act. 6–7.
4. Claims 4, 5, 9, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Poon and Bischof. Final Act. 7–10.
5. Claims 16, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Poon, Sadler, and Nenov. Final Act. 10–11.
6. Claims 18 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Poon, Sadler, Nenov, and Rucker. Final Act. 11–12.

3 The rejection of claims 1–4, 6, 8–12, 14, 15, 21, and 24 is withdrawn.
Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 7.
Appeal 2019-004563
Application 14/624,697

4
7. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Poon and Sadler. Final Act. 12–13.
8. Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Poon, Sadler, Nenov, Rucker, and Deptowicz. Final Act.
13.
Appellant seeks our review of these rejections.
OPINION
Rejection 1: Claims 5 and 13 as being Indefinite
The Examiner finds that the term “AMS 4777” recited in claims 5 and
13 is indefinite. Final Act. 4. The Examiner acknowledges that AMS 4777
is a part of the “Aerospace Material Specifications” standard for identifying
alloys but requests further confirmation of the specific standard referenced
in the Specification because there is a possibility that the standard may
change and render the claim indefinite. Id.; see also Adv. Act. 2 and Ans. 7.
Appellant argues that “one could readily determine the meaning of the
term at the time of filing” and “a proper construction is the ‘meaning given
to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.’”
Appeal Br. 8 (citing MPEP § 2173.02). Even if the ASM standard referred
to in the claims should change over time, the ASM standard referred to in
the claims was in existence when the application was filed and would remain
available for reference despite later changes to the standard. One of ordinary
skill in the art could readily determine the bounds of claims 5 and 13 based
upon the standard that was in effect at the time Appellant’s application was
filed, and we do not sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 13 as indefinite.

Appeal 2019-004563
Application 14/624,697

5
Rejection 2: Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 15 as Anticipated by Poon
Appellant argues claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 15 as a group. Appeal
Br. 3–4. We select independent claim 1 as the representative claim, and
claims 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 15 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Poon discloses all of the limitations in
claim 1 including a “cover positioned and configured to adapt relative to an
uneven surface of said tip shroud, and said uneven surface being separate
and distinct from said at least one opening.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner
explains that “[s]urfaces of casted components, such as [the] blade in Poon,
inherently have uneven surfaces due to manufacturing processes. Such a
fact is known to those of ordinary skill in the art and are normally accounted
for in design tolerances.” Final Act. 2–3 (citing Glasspoole, 4:58–63
(Glasspoole, et al., US 6,183,193 B1, issued Feb. 6, 2001, “Glasspoole”)).
The Examiner construes “uneven surface” to broadly refer to “a surface with
any feature affecting the continuous, planar nature of the surface such as, but
not limited to, roughness, protrusions, ridges, depressions, gaps, and the
like.” Ans. 4. The Examiner explains that this meaning of “uneven surface”
is consistent with its usage in claim 1 and the Specification. Ans. 4 (citing
Spec. ¶¶ 11 (“[T]he cover is positioned and configured to adapt relative to an
uneven surface of the tip shroud”), 23 (“[T]he method includes positioning
the cover at an uneven surface of a tip shroud of the blade and adapting the
cover to conform to the uneven surface.”), and 52 (“The relatively thin
thickness T [of cover 82] enables the cover 82 to conform to irregular
surfaces during assembly.”)).
Appeal 2019-004563
Application 14/624,697

6
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is erroneous. Appeal
Br. 3–4; see also Reply Br. 1–2. Appellant argues that “the grooves 1002 in
Figure 10 of Poon are not ‘an outer diameter surface of said tip shroud’ as
required by” claim 1. Reply Br. 2. According to Appellant, “Figure 10 of
Poon, taken along line 10-10 of Figure 9, appears to show the grooves being
inward of an outer diameter surface of the tip shroud 980.” Id. at 3.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because Poon’s Figure 9
discloses that grooves 1002 are on the outer diameter surface of tip shroud
980. The Examiner correctly finds that Figure 9 shows cross-section line
10-10 with arrows pointed upwards so that the view in Figure 9 is looking
up towards the top of the tip shroud and the dotted-lines in Figure 10 suggest
that grooves 1002 are not in the same plane as the cross section. Poon also
states “a cover plate (not shown) is disposed over the second side 986 of the
tip shroud 980 and over the groove[s] 1002” (Poon, 7:59–64), and, thus,
teaches that grooves 1002 are on the tip shroud. Appellant does not define
the term “uneven surface,” persuasively explain why the Examiner’s
construction of “uneven surface” is inconsistent with the usage in the claims
or the Specification, or explain why grooves 1002 do not constitute an
“uneven surface” as construed by the Examiner.
For the reasons above, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. Claims 3,
6, 8, 10–11, and 15 fall with claim 1.

Rejections 3–4: Claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 12–14
Appellant argues that the rejections of claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 12–14 are
erroneous for the same reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1.
Appeal Br. 7. As discussed above in connection with claim 1, Appellant’s
Appeal 2019-004563
Application 14/624,697

7
arguments are not persuasive. Thus, the rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 12–14
are sustained.

Rejection 5: Claims 16, 17, and 19
as Unpatentable over Poon, Sadler, and Nenov
The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Poon, Sadler, and
Nenov disclose all of the limitations of claims 16, 17, and 19. Final Act. 10–
11; see also Ans. 5–7.
Claim 16
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 is
erroneous for several reasons. First, Appellant argues that the Examiner
admits that (1) Poon does not disclose knife edge seals or positioning the
alleged cover between knife edge seals, (2) Poon does not teach a repair
method for the turbine blade 900, and (3) Sadler lacks a cover plate. Appeal
Br. 5 (citing Final Act. 10).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because Appellant is
attacking the teachings of Poon and Sadler individually. Nonobviousness,
however, cannot be established by attacking the references individually
when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures.
In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 is based on the combination of Poon,
Sadler, and Nenov. The Examiner relies on Sadler, not Poon, for its
disclosure of knife edge seals and positioning the alleged cover between
knife edge seals. Final Act. 10. The Examiner relies on Nenov, not Poon,
for its disclosure of a repair method for the turbine blade. Id. Finally, the
Examiner relies on Poon, not Sadler, for its disclosure of a cover plate. Id.
Appeal 2019-004563
Application 14/624,697

8
Appellant does not address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner, and,
thus, does not identify error by the Examiner.
Second, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reasoning for
combining Poon and Sadler is erroneous because “Sadler does not disclose a
cover between the alleged pair of rails,” and, thus, “due to the lack of
teaching in the cited art and the fact that this feature is only present in
Appellant's disclosure, it logically follows that the only reason to modify the
references with this location is gleaned from Appellant's disclosure in an
exercise of impermissible hindsight reconstruction.” Appeal Br. 5.
Similarly, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reasoning for combining
Poon and Nenov is erroneous because the “Examiner does not point to any
objective evidence that one would modify Poon in the manner proposed by
the Examiner when considering the teachings of Nenov as a whole.” Id.
at 6.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because an express teaching
or motivation in Poon, Sadler, or Nenov is not required; instead, the
Examiner need only articulate a reason to combine the references with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Here, Appellant does
not address adequately the Examiner’s rationales for combining: (1) Poon
and Sadler––to modify Poon’s blade to have a pair of rails as taught by
Sadler because “the introduction of knife seals would help minimize the
leakage in the flow path between the blade and the outer seal of the turbine;”
and (2) Poon and Nenov––to modify the Poon-Sadler’s method such that it
is a repair method because “Nenov acknowledges the utility of brazing for
repairing a gas turbine engine part.” Final Act. 10–11. Appellant does not
Appeal 2019-004563
Application 14/624,697

9
address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner, and, thus, does not
identify error.
For the reasons above, the rejection of claim 16 is sustained.

Claim 17
Appellant does not address the rejection of claim 17, and because the
arguments for the claim from which claim 17 depends were unpersuasive,
the rejection is likewise sustained.

Claim 19
Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 19 is erroneous for the
same reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1. Appeal Br. 6. As
discussed above in connection with claim 1, Appellant’s arguments are not
persuasive. Thus, the rejection of claim 19 is sustained.

Rejection 6: Claims 18 and 24
as Unpatentable over Poon, Sadler, Nenov, and Rucker
Appellant argues that the rejection of claims 18 and 24 is erroneous
for the same reasons discussed above in connection with claim 16, and
Rucker does not remedies the deficiencies of Poon, Sadler, and Nenov.
Appeal Br. 7. As discussed above in connection with claim 16, Appellant’s
arguments are not persuasive. Thus, the rejection of claims 18 and 24 is
sustained.

Appeal 2019-004563
Application 14/624,697

10
Rejection 7: Claim 21 as Unpatentable over Poon and Sadler
Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 21 is erroneous for the
same reasons discussed above in connection with claim 16. Appeal Br. 6–7.
As discussed above in connection with claim 16, Appellant’s arguments are
not persuasive. Thus, the rejection of claim 21 is sustained.

Rejection 8: Claim 23
as Unpatentable over Poon, Sadler, Nenov, Rucker, and Deptowicz
Appellant does not address the rejection of claim 23, and because the
arguments for the claims from which claim 23 depends were unpersuasive,
the rejection is likewise sustained.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–6, 8–19, 21, 23, and 24 are
AFFIRMED.

Appeal 2019-004563
Application 14/624,697

11
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
5, 13 112(b) Indefiniteness 5, 13
1, 3, 6, 8,
10–11, 15
102(a)(1) Poon 1, 3, 6, 8,
10–11, 15

2, 14 103 Poon, Rucker 2, 14
4, 5, 9, 12,
13
103 Poon, Bischof 4, 5, 9, 12,
13

16, 17, 19 103 Poon, Sadler,
Nenov
16, 17, 19
18, 24 103 Poon, Sadler,
Nenov, Rucker
18, 24
21 103 Poon, Sadler 21
23 103 Poon, Sadler,
Nenov, Rucker,
Deptowicz
23
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 8–19,
21, 23, 24

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