Ex Parte Kramer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 24, 2018

13250358 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/250,358
11943 7590
O""Shea Getz P.C.
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
09/30/2011 George J. Kramer
07/26/2018
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.
PA-0013693-US 3457
EXAMINER
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205 IBRONI, STEFAN
Farmington, CT 06032
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/26/2018 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
Ex parte GEORGE J. KRAMER
Appeal2017-009942
Application 13/250,358
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-009942
Application 13/250,358
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a gas path liner for a gas turbine engine.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An exhaust nozzle for a gas turbine engine
having a centerline, the exhaust nozzle comprising:
an exhaust nozzle flap comprising a radially
interior surface relative to the centerline; and
a gas path liner comprising a liner backbone
extending along an axis, the liner backbone mounted
to the interior surface and circumferentially aligned
with the exhaust nozzle flap; and
a plurality of liner panels sequentially
connected to the liner backbone along the axis, each
liner panel comprising a panel length that extends
axially from a first panel end to a second panel end,
wherein the panel length thermally expands
independent of the liner backbone.
REFERENCE
Lippmeier us 5,039,014 Aug. 13, 1991
REJECTION
Claims 1-22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Lippmeier.
2
Appeal2017-009942
Application 13/250,358
ANALYSIS
Based on Appellant's arguments, we will decide the appeal of claims
1-10 based on claim 1 alone, and the appeal of claims 11-22 based on claim
11 alone. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 1
Claim 1 requires the liner backbone to be "mounted to the interior
surface" of the exhaust nozzle flap. The Examiner finds that Lippmeier's
backbone 50 is "mounted at least indirectly via panels 56" to the exhaust
nozzle flap. Final Act. 4 ( citing Lippmeier Figs. I, 2).
Appellant disagrees. App. Br. 9. According to Appellant, "the figures
of Lippmeier merely illustrate the seal segments 56 as being proximate to or
slidably contacting the flaps 28." Id.
In response, the Examiner asserts that the Specification does not
provide a special definition for "mounted," so the Examiner applies the
"ordinary and customary meaning of the term," which the Examiner
contends is to "set in position for use" as in to "mount guns." Ans.3--4
( citing freedictionary.com). According to the Examiner:
The examiner defines the setting of the position of the backbone
to the panels 56 as mounted, at least indirectly. The backbone
provides support to the panels 56 and for the rail system of 88
which fit into and ride in tracks attached to adjacent divergent
flaps. Thus this assembly, at least indirectly, engages the panels
56 to the interior surface because of the backbone 50, and by the
means of backbone 50.
Id. at 5.
We are not persuaded that Lippmeier's backbone is "mounted to the
interior surface" of the flap. As an initial matter, we agree with the
Examiner that when, as here, a specification does not expressly define a
3
Appeal2017-009942
Application 13/250,358
term, it is appropriate to consult a general purpose dictionary to ascertain its
meaning. See Comaper Corp. v. Antee, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (holding that if "the specification does not assign or suggest a
particular definition [ of a claim term], in determining the ordinary and
customary meaning of the claim term as viewed by a person of ordinary skill
in the art, it is appropriate to consult a general dictionary definition of the
word for guidance"). The problem with the Examiner's construction,
however, is that the term needing construction is not "mounted," per se;
rather, it is "mounted to." This is because claim 1 does not simply require
"mounting" the backbone, it requires that the backbone be mounted to the
interior of the flap. Of the various definitions the Examiner provides in the
Answer, only one reasonably defines "mounted to;" that is, to "fix securely
to a support." Ans. 4 (citing freedictionary.com) (emphasis added). This
construction is consistent with the use of the term "mount" in the
Specification. See, e.g., Spec. ,r 25 (stating that "backbone mounting flange
86 is axially secured ( e.g., welded, [brazed], glued, etc.) to the first
backbone end 62") ( emphasis added). According to Lippmeier, the
backbone is fixed securely to "a convergent seal stationary member of the
nozzle," Lippmeier 2:38--43, and to the seal segments, id. at 2:53-55, but
there is no comparable disclosure that the backbone is fixed securely to the
interior of the flaps.
Acknowledging that the proper construction may be "to attach to a
support," Ans. 5, the Examiner asserts that the backbone and flap are both
attached to the main gas turbine body, and therefore they are "mounted, at
least indirectly, to each other." Id. at 6. But this assertion is based on an
implicit construction of "mounted" that would effectively read the term out
4
Appeal2017-009942
Application 13/250,358
of the claim, because every component of the main gas turbine body would
thus be mounted to each other, regardless of their actual relationship to each
other. Therefore, we decline to read the term so broadly. See Bicon, Inc. v.
Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("Claims are interpreted
with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim.").
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1-10 as anticipated by Lippmeier.
Claim 11
Appellant argues that "reading the feature of 'wherein the liner panels
engage the interior surface through the liner backbone' as recited in claim 11
onto the assembly of Lippmeier is inconsistent with the interpretation that
those skill in the art would reach." App. Br. 11. The Examiner finds that
Lippmeier's liner panels (seal segments 56) engage the interior of the gas
path wall (i.e., the interior surface of flaps 28) "through the liner backbone"
because they are "at least indirectly connected through mechanical
attachment to the exhaust nozzle." Final Act. 5. The Examiner explains that
the Specification does not expressly define "through," and that an ordinary
and customary meaning of the term is "[b]y the means or agency of." Ans. 6
(citing freedictionary.com). According to the Examiner, "[t]he backbone
provides positional and structural support to the panels 56, thus the panels, at
least indirectly, engage[] the interior surface of [flaps] 28 because of the
backbone 50, and by the means of backbone 50." Id. at 7. Appellant
responds that "Lippmeier discloses only its seal segments 56 engage the
radial interior surfaces of the flaps 28," and "backbones 50 are mounted to
the radial exterior sides of the flaps 28 through the elements 80," and
concludes that "a person of skill in the art would interpret the backbone 50
5
Appeal2017-009942
Application 13/250,358
as engaging a radial interior surface of the flap 28 through the seal segments
56, not vice versa." Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. The term "through" is
broad and has a number of different meanings, including "by means of." See
e.g., https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/through (last visited Jul.
19, 2018). Appellant contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have given the term this meaning, but does not support this contention with
evidence or persuasive argument, or proffer an alternative construction.
Further, there is no dispute that Lippmeier' s seal segments 56 "engage" the
interior surfaces of flaps 28, and that seal segments 56 are mounted to and
are held in place by backbone 50. Thus, seal segments 56 engage the
interior surface of flaps 28 "by means of' backbone 50. Because we are not
apprised of Examiner error, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims
11-22 as anticipated by Lippmeier.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-10 as anticipated by Lippmeier, and affirm the Examiner's rejection of
claims 11-22 as anticipated by Lippmeier.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6