Ex Parte Hyatt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2018

13630843 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/630,843
11943 7590
O""Shea Getz P.C.
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
09/28/2012 Thomas B. Hyatt
08/02/2018
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.
P A-0024242-US 1341
EXAMINER
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205 BEEBE, JOSHUA R
Farmington, CT 06032
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2018 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):
uspto@osheagetz.com
shenry@osheagetz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte THOMAS B. HYATT,
CARL B. KLINETOB, and MICHAEL G. DUCHARME
Appeal2017-009560
Application 13/630,843
Technology Center 3700
Before: JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Thomas B. Hyatt, et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 8, 9, and 11-20. Claims
4--7 and 10 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2017-009560
Application 13/630,843
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter "relates to a gas turbine engine, and more
particularly, although not exclusively, to a fastener arrangement for a vane
structure." Spec. ,r 1; Figs. 1, 2, 4, 8. Claims 1, 14, and 18 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A flow path comprising:
a surface that defines at least a portion of a boundary of
the flow path with an aperture having an extended indentation at
least partially therearound,
wherein said extended indentation is tear-drop shaped or
parabola shaped, and
wherein a leading edge of said extended indentation is
coplanar with the boundary and an upper face of a fastener.
THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Wilde (US 2,718,349, issued Sept. 20, 1955) and
McGreehan (US 5,209,633, issued May 11, 1993).
II. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Wilde, McGreehan, and Munsell (US 6,663,346 B2, issued
Dec. 16, 2003).
III. Claims 8, 9, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Wilde, McGreehan, and Jordan (US
2012/0189432 Al, published July 26, 2012).
IV. Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Wilde, McGreehan, and Jordan.
2
Appeal2017-009560
Application 13/630,843
V. Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Wilde, McGreehan, and Carriere (US 3,846,038,
issued Nov. 5, 1974).
VI. Claims 14--16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Wilde, McGreehan, Munsell, Jordan, Kraft (US
2007/0130912 Al, published June 14, 2007), and Guemmer (US
2006/0153673 Al, published July 13, 2006).
VII. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Wilde, McGreehan, Munsell, Jordan, Kraft, Guemmer, and
Carriere.
VIII. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Wilde, McGreehan, Jordan, and Guillot (US 2002/0134891
Al, published Sept. 26, 2002).
ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Wilde and McGreehan
Rejection I
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Wilde discloses a flow
path comprising a surface that defines at least a portion of a boundary of the
flow path with an aperture (for receiving peg 26) having an extended
indentation (surface defined by port 19 and rotary valve member 24) at least
partially therearound, wherein a leading edge of the extended indentation is
coplanar with the boundary and an upper face of a fastener (peg 26). Final
Act. 3 ( citing Wilde Figs. 3--4 ). 1 The Examiner equates the bottom surface
1 Final Office Action, ("hereinafter "Final Act.") (dated Oct. 5, 2016).
3
Appeal2017-009560
Application 13/630,843
of peg 26, viewing from the direction of the lower half of the stator casing in
the engine, as the claimed upper face of the fastener. Final Act. 3. The
Examiner acknowledges that Wilde does not disclose the extended
indentation being tear-drop shaped or parabola shaped. Id. The Examiner
finds that McGreehan discloses that "[i]t is advantageous to design a high
pressure compressor flowpath bleed extraction element with reduced
pressure loss and as high a pressure as possible," that the design uses "an
extraction slot structure as shown in Figures 3B and 3C," and that the
extraction slot structure has a shape and indentation of "a teardrop, or
parabolic shape that is semiconical." Id. (citing McGreehan Figs. 3B, 3C).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to "modify the
bleed hole of Wilde to be shaped as that of McGreehan, for the purposes of
improving the pressure and reducing losses from the extraction process" and
that "[t]his would yield the limitation of claim 1." Id. at 3--4.
Appellants provide annotated versions of Figures 3 and 4 of Wilde in
which a substantially horizontal line is drawn below ring members 17 in
order to show a surface encompassing a flow path. See Br. 8-9. 2 Appellants
contend that "[a]s is made clear in the annotated [Figures] 3--4 of Wilde, an
upper face of a fastener in Wilde is NOT coplanar with any alleged extended
indentation of the flowpath boundary," and that "[i]n fact, the fasteners in
Wilde are far removed from the flowpath." Id. at 9. As such, Appellants
argue that "Wilde fails to teach or suggest 'wherein a leading edge of said
extended indentation is coplanar with the boundary and an upper face of a
fastener,' as recited in claim 1." Id.
2 Appeal Brief (hereinafter "Br.") (filed Dec. 13, 2016).
4
Appeal2017-009560
Application 13/630,843
Claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. In re American Academy Of Science Tech. Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We note that the Specification does not
define "flow path," but instead provides examples, i.e., embodiments, of
surfaces with respect to a flow path. For example, the Specification
discloses: (1) "[a] flow path according to one disclosed non-limiting
embodiment of the present disclosure includes a surface with an aperture
having an extended indentation at least partially therearound" (Spec. ,r 4);
(2) "[i]n a further embodiment of the foregoing embodiment, the surface is
an inner platform of a structural guide vane" (id. ,r 5); and (3) "[i]n a further
embodiment of any of the foregoing embodiments, the surface is an outer
platform of a structural guide vane" (id. ,r 6). Likewise, the Specification
does not define "boundary" in relation to a "flow path," but instead provides
examples, i.e., embodiments, thereof. For example, the Specification
discloses: (1) "[i]n a further embodiment of the foregoing embodiment, the
inner surface and said outer surface defines a portion of an aerodynamic
radial boundary of a fan bypass flow path" (id. ,r 13); and (2) "[t]he outer
platform 7 4 and the inner platform 7 6 define a portion of an annular
aerodynamic radial boundary of the fan bypass flowpath downstream of the
fan 42" (id. ,r 36). See also Ans. 33 (The Examiner explaining that "nothing
within [the] instant [S]pecification changes the definition of a flowpath as
anything other than a path through which a flow travels.").
Based on the foregoing, we construe "boundary" as used in the
expression "a portion of a boundary of the flow path" as any surface that
3 Examiner's Answer (hereinafter "Ans.") ( dated Apr. 6, 2017).
5
Appeal2017-009560
Application 13/630,843
confines fluid flow at said portion. Here, the Examiner explains that
"Appellant[ s] arbitrarily draw[] a line in Figure 4, [but] this line artificially
closes/obscures the hole[] (19) in the engine shroud, through which flow
CLEA[RL ]Y enters cavity[] (20) before traveling through holes[ ](23)," and
that "[t]his flow is drawn from the core flow as a bleed flow on the bleed
flow path, and then reintroduced at the entrance of the compressor, into the
core flow, therefore it is a part of the flow path of flow through this engine."
Ans. 2 (citing Wilde, col. 2, 11. 30-41, Fig. 4); see also Wilde, col. 3, 1. 62-
col. 4, 1. 32. Appellants do not contest the Examiner's finding that the bleed
flow path of Wilde encompasses the bottom surface of peg 26. 4 Thus,
Appellants do not apprise us of error.
Appellants contend that "McGreehan is directed to a deceleration of
bleed air" and that "[ o ]ne skilled in the art would appreciate that this
deceleration in McGreehan runs counter to minimizing/reducing pressure
loss as provided by the features of claim 1." Br. 9 ( citing McGreehan col. 4,
1. 6-34, claim 1 ). According to Appellants, "[i]n this regard, a full and fair
reading of McGreehan reveals that McGreehan not only fails to disclose but
actually teaches away from the features of claim 1." Id. at 9-10.
As an initial matter, claim 1 does not require "minimizing/reducing
pressure loss." Br. 16, Claims App.; see also In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344
(CCPA 1982) (Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon
for patentability.); Ans. 3 (The Examiner explaining that "nothing in claim
1 [] expresses any limitation with regards to pressure loss, bleed flow, [and]
minimizing [pressure loss]."). It is also unclear what "features of claim 1"
4 We note that a Reply Brief was not filed.
6
Appeal2017-009560
Application 13/630,843
Appellants contend that McGreehan teaches away from. Moreover,
Appellants do not direct us to any passage in McGreehan that discredits,
criticizes, or disparages any limitations involved in the proposed
modification of Wilde in view of McGreehan. Id. Like our Appellate
Reviewing Court, "[ w ]e will not read into a reference a teaching away from
a process where no such language exists." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH &
Co. Deutsch/and KG v. CH Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2006).
Further, Appellants do not provide any evidentiary basis to support
the contention that "deceleration in McGreehan runs counter to
minimizing/reducing pressure loss." App. Br. 9. See In re Pearson, 494
F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) ("Attorney's argument in a brief cannot take
the place of evidence."). Additionally, in response to Appellants'
contention, the Examiner reasons that "[i]f the shape noted, can produce
deceleration and minimization" and Appellants' claims merely recite "the
shape in question, then the claim is too broad, and fails to encompass
whatever additional structure or feature" that distinguishes Appellants' tear-
drop shaped or parabola shaped extended indentation from "that of
McGreehan." See Ans. 3--4. Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner
error.
In summary, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 as unpatentable over
Wilde and McGreehan. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1 as unpatentable over Wilde and McGreehan.
Appellants contend that "[ c ]laim[] 3, which depends from claim 1, is
distinguishable from the applied art for at least the same reasons as claim 1."
7
Appeal2017-009560
Application 13/630,843
Br. 10. As we find no deficiencies in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 for
the reasons discussed above, we likewise sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 3 as unpatentable over Wilde and McGreehan.
Obviousness over Wilde, McGreehan and either Munsell or Carriere
Re} ections II and V
Appellants contend that: (1) "[ c ]laim 2, which depends from claim 1,
is distinguishable from the applied art for at least the same reasons as claim
1 as Munsell fails to remedy the deficiencies of Wilde and McGreehan
described above with respect to claim 1" (Br. 1 O); and that (2) "[ c ]laims 11
and 12, which depend from claim 1, are distinguishable from the applied art
for at least the same reasons as claim 1 as Carriere fails to remedy the
deficiencies of Wilde and McGreehan described above with respect to claim
1" (id. at 11 ).
As we find no deficiencies in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 for
the reasons discussed above, we likewise sustain the Examiner's rejections
of claim 2 as unpatentable over Wilde, McGreehan, and Munsell and of
claims 11 and 12 as unpatentable over Wilde, McGreehan, and Carriere.
Obviousness over Wilde, McGreehan, and Jordan
Rejection III
Appellants contend that "[c]laims 8, 9, and 13, which depend from
claim 1, are distinguishable from the applied art for at least the same reasons
as claim 1 as Jordan fails to remedy the deficiencies of Wilde and
McGreehan described above with respect to claim 1." Br. 10.
8
Appeal2017-009560
Application 13/630,843
As we find no deficiencies in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 for
the reasons discussed above, we likewise sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 8, 9, and 13 as unpatentable over Wilde, McGreehan, and Jordan.
Re} ection IV
Appellants point out that independent claim 18 recites
mounting a fastener into a counterbore of a surface, the
counterbore having an extended indentation at least partially
therearound such that an edge of the counterbore is coplanar with
an upper face of the fastener ... wherein said edge defines a
portion of a boundary of the flow path, said edge coplanar with
the boundary of the flow path.
Br. 10; see also id. at 15-16, Claims App. Appellants contend that "[t]he
above-noted features recited in claim 18 are distinguishable from Wilde and
McGreehan for at least reasons substantially similar to those discussed
above with respect to claim 1," that "Jordan fails to remedy the deficiencies
of Wilde and McGreehan with respect to claim 18," and that "[c]laim 19,
which depends from claim 18, is distinguishable from the applied art for at
least the same reasons as claim 18." Id. at 10. We note that "[a] statement
which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an
argument for separate patentability of the claim." See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d
1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the Board had reasonably
interpreted 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(vii) as requiring "more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art").
9
Appeal2017-009560
Application 13/630,843
As we find no deficiencies in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 for
the reasons discussed above, we likewise sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 18 and 19 as unpatentable over Wilde, McGreehan, and Jordan.
Obviousness over Wilde, McGreehan, Munsell, Jordan, Kraft, and Guemmer
Re} ection VI
Appellants point out that independent claim 14 recites
a first fastener which retains said inner surface to said core case,
said first fastener mounted within a first counterbore in said inner
surface, said first counterbore having a first extended indentation
at least partially therearound; and a second fastener which retains
said outer surface to said fan case, said second fastener mounted
within a second counterbore in said outer surface, said second
counterbore having a second extended indentation at least
partially therearound ... wherein a leading edge of one of said
first and second extended indentations is coplanar with an upper
face of one of said first and second fasteners, respectively, and a
boundary of a flow path, and wherein said inner surface and said
outer surface define a portion of the boundary of the flow path.
Br. 11; see also id. at 14--15, Claims App.
Appellants contend that "[t]he above-noted features recited in claim
14 are distinguishable from Wilde and McGreehan for at least reasons
substantially similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 1," that
"Jordan fails to remedy the deficiencies of Wilde and McGreehan with
respect to claim 14," that "Munsell fails to remedy the deficiencies of Wilde,
McGreehan, and Jordan with respect to claim 14," that "Kraft and Guemmer
fail to remedy the deficiencies of Wilde, McGreehan, Jordan, and Munsell
described above with respect to claim 14," and that "[ c ]laims 15-16, which
depend from claim 14, are distinguishable from the applied art for at least
the same reasons as claim 14." Id. at 11-12. Similar to Appellants'
10
Appeal2017-009560
Application 13/630,843
arguments regarding claim 18, "[a] statement which merely points out what
a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability
of the claim." See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357.
As we find no deficiencies in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 for
the reasons discussed above, we likewise sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 14--16 as unpatentable over Wilde, McGreehan, Jordan, Munsell,
Kraft, and Guemmer.
Obviousness over Wilde, McGreehan, Munsell, Jordan, Kraft,
Guemmer, and Carriere
Re} ection VII
Appellants contend that "[ c ]laim 17, which depends from claim 14, is
distinguishable from the applied art for at least the same reasons as claim 14
as Carriere fails to remedy the deficiencies of Wilde, Jordan, Munsell,
Guemmer, McGreehan, and Kraft with respect to claim 14." Id. at 12.
As we find no deficiencies in the Examiner's rejection of claim 14 for
the reasons discussed above, we likewise sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 17 as unpatentable over Wilde, McGreehan, Jordan, Munsell, Kraft,
Guemmer, and Carriere.
Obviousness over Wilde, McGreehan, Jordan, and Guillot
Rejection VIII
Appellants contend that "[ c ]laim 20, which depends from claim 18, is
distinguishable from the applied art for at least the same reasons as claim 18
as Guillot fails to remedy the deficiencies of Wilde, Jordan, and McGreehan
described above with respect to claim 18." Id. at 12.
11
Appeal2017-009560
Application 13/630,843
As we find no deficiencies in the Examiner's rejection of claim 18 for
the reasons discussed above, we likewise sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 20 as unpatentable over Wilde, McGreehan, Jordan, and Guillot.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to
reject claims 1-3, 8, 9, and 11-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended according to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
12