UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 3, 2020

14432437 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 3, 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.
14/432,437 03/30/2015 Kevin J. Low PA-0024285-US-AA 5435
11943 7590 01/03/2020
O''''Shea Getz P.C.
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205
Farmington, CT 06032
EXAMINER
WALTHOUR, SCOTT J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2020 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):
shenry@osheagetz.com
uspto@osheagetz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte KEVIN J. LOW
__________

Appeal 2019-004332
Application 14/432,437
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, 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 and 4–9. Claims 2 and 3 have been
canceled and claims 10–18 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Appeal Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 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 Corp.” Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) 3, filed Dec. 17, 2018.
Appeal 2019-004332
Application 14/432,437

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “relates to a gas turbine engine and, more
particularly, to a combustor section therefor.” Spec. ¶ 1, ll. 5–6.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative of the
claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A liner for use in a combustor of a gas turbine engine
comprising:
a hot side;
a cold side with one or more raised rails that project from
said cold side to at least partially define at least a forward cavity
and an aft cavity;
a first plurality of holes to communicate coolant from said
forward cavity to said hot side; and
a second plurality of holes to communicate coolant from
said aft cavity to said hot side,
wherein each of said first plurality of holes and said
second plurality of holes traverse through a thickness of the liner
from the cold side to the hot side.

THE REJECTION2
Claims 1 and 4–9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Coughlan (US 2005/0086940 A1, published Apr. 28, 2005).

2 In the Final Office Action, the drawings and the disclosure are objected to
for informalities. See Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) 2–3, dated May 17,
2018. These matters are not appealable, but, rather, are petitionable, and,
thus, are not within the jurisdiction of the Board. See In re Berger, 279 F.3d
975, 984 (Fed. Cir. 2002); and In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894 (CCPA
1967); see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.181. Thus, we do not address these matters in
this Appeal.
Appeal 2019-004332
Application 14/432,437

3
ANALYSIS
Appellant does not offer arguments in favor of claims 4–9 separate
from those presented for independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 6–8. We select
claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 4–9 stand or fall with claim
1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Coughlan discloses a liner having all the
limitations of claim 1, including a forward cavity (impingement cooling
space 144 shown in Figures 1, 1A) and an aft cavity (the cavity defined
between lateral edges 186 and portion 2903 of body 180 shown in Figures 1,
1B). Final Act. 3 (citing Coughlan Figs. 1–3).
Appellant contends that “[the] Office Action at paragraph 19
analogizes the chamber 204 of Coughlan (see FIG. lB []) to the aft cavity
recited in claim 1” but claim 1 requires “a second plurality of holes to
communicate coolant from said aft cavity to said hot side” and “the body
180 [of Coughlan] lacks such holes in relation to the chamber 204.” Appeal
Br. 7–8.
The Examiner correctly responds that “Appellant’s arguments are not
directed to the most recent rejection of the claims (final Office action mailed
5/17/2018)”; rather “Appellant’s arguments are directed to the interpretation
of Coughlan set forth in the non-final Office action mailed 10/06/2017.”

3 The Examiner refers to reference number 190 (see Final Act. 3) and also
reference numbers 190/290 (see id. at 4). It does not appear that reference
number 290 of body 180 as shown in Figure 1B is discussed in the written
description of Coughlan. See Coughlan, passim. It appears that reference
number 290 shown in Figure 1B is a typographical error and should be
reference number 190, which is described in Coughlan’s written description
as a lateral edge or a rail portion. See id. at ¶ 20.
Appeal 2019-004332
Application 14/432,437

4
Ans. 3.4 The Examiner explains that “[d]ue to the amendment filed
1/5/2018, the [E]xaminer’s interpretation of Coughlan in the final Office
action was modified from that presented in the non-final Office action such
that the cavity 204 was no longer relied upon in the final Office action,” that
“[i]n the final Office action, rails 114 and 190/290 were relied upon as at
least partially defining a forward cavity (Fig. 1 A, cavity 144) and an aft
cavity (Figs. 1 B and 3, aft cavity defined between rails 190/290 and 186)”
and that “[b]oth of these forward and aft cavities have respective pluralities
of holes (holes 140 in Fig. 1 A for forward cavity 144, and the unlabeled
holes positioned forward of rail 190/290 in Fig. 1 B for the aft cavity defined
between rails 186 and 190/290) as claimed.” Id.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends that “claim 1 is directed to a
liner,” but that “the impinging cool space 144 disclosed in Coughlan is
located in the forward outboard panel 78 (FIG. 1A of Coughlan) while the
alleged aft cavity defined between rails 190/290 and leading edge 186 is
located in the aft outboard panel 80 (FIG. 1B of Coughlan).” Reply Br. 2.5
As such, Appellant contends that “Coughlan fails to disclose a liner that
includes the forward and aft cavities as recited in claim 1.” Id. at 3.
As an initial matter, we note that these arguments were not raised in
the Appeal Brief, and are not responsive to any arguments raised in the
Examiner’s Answer different from those presented in the Final Office
Action. As noted above, Appellant’s presentation of these arguments for the
first time in the Reply Brief is due to Appellant’s error in responding to the

4 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), dated Mar. 14, 2019.
5 Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed May 14, 2019.
Appeal 2019-004332
Application 14/432,437

5
Examiner’s Non-Final Office Action rather than the Examiner’s Final Office
Action in the Appeal Brief. See Ans. 3.
As stated in 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2):
Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in
the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the
examiner’s answer, including any designated new ground of
rejection, will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the
present appeal, unless good cause is shown.
(Emphasis added). Accordingly, these arguments are considered untimely in
the present appeal. However, even had these arguments been timely
presented, Appellant’s contentions would be unpersuasive for the following
reasons.
First, “[a]s a general rule, the words ‘a’ or ‘an’ in a patent claim carry
the meaning of ‘one or more.’” TiVo, Inc. v. EchoStar Commc’ns Corp.,
516 F.3d 1290, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “The exceptions to this rule are
extremely limited: a patentee must evince a clear intent to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to
‘one.’” Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342
(Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted [but referring
to KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Ind., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir.
2000]). Here, claim 1 does not recite “A single liner consisting of a unitary
body” or similar language to evince a clear intent to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to
‘one.’” See Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.).
Second, the Specification appears to disclose that cavities 106A and
106B can be formed via multiple liners as shown in Figure 4. See Spec.
¶ 43, l. 10 (disclosing “cavities 106A, 106B (Figure 4)”). The Specification
further discloses that “[t]he cavities 106A, 106B are defined by partitions
114.” Id. at ¶ 44, l. 16. In viewing Figure 4 of the subject invention, it can
be seen that the cavities are formed from partitions 114 and rails 116
Appeal 2019-004332
Application 14/432,437

6
belonging to more than one liner, i.e., liner 72A and liner 72B. Thus, even if
crediting Appellant’s argument that Coughlan’s corresponding forward
cavity and aft cavity are located in more than one panel or liner, so are
Appellant’s forward cavity and aft cavity.
Third, Coughlan’s fore panel 78 is shown to be connected to aft panel
80. See Coughlan, Fig. 1. In that sense, Coughlan can be viewed as
disclosing a single liner comprising fore panel 78 and aft panel 80. Claim 1
does not recite language precluding a liner from comprising multiple panels.
“[L]imitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.” In
re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also In re Self,
671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[A]ppellant’s arguments fail from the
outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the
claims.”).
In summary, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 as anticipated by
Coughlan. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We
further sustain the rejection of claims 4–9, which fall with claim 1.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ 
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1 and 4–9 102(b)  Coughlan 1 and 4–9

Appeal 2019-004332
Application 14/432,437

7
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