Ex Parte Leithead et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2017

13061962 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2017)

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.
13/061,962 03/03/2011 Graeme Leithead 2008P18196WOUS 1739
22116 7590 09/29/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
MCCAFFREY, KAYLA M
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2017 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):
IPDadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GRAEME LEITHEAD, MICHAEL SMITH, and
PHILIP TWELL
Appeal 2016-000957
Application 13/061,9621
Technology Center 3700
Before: GEORGE R. HOSKINS, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, and 29. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real part in interest is Siemens
Aktiengesellschaft. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-000957
Application 13/061,962
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an adjusting device for variable guide vanes
and a method of operation of such vanes. Spec. 12. Claim 11, reproduced
below with clause numbering and emphasis added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
11. An adjusting device for guide vanes of an axial-flow
machine, comprising:
[/] a plurality of rotatably mounted rings of variable guide
vanes each variable guide vane is mounted on a spindle to a guide
vane carrier;
[//] a plurality of levers which are arranged on a plurality
of outer sides of the guide vane carrier for rotating the variable
guide vanes, the plurality of levers move in a circumferential
direction in relation to the guide vane carrier;
[///] a plurality of adjusting rings, each of the adjustment
rings is arranged coaxially to the guide vane carrier and to which
a first end of one of the levers is connected wherein a portion of
the plurality of variable guide vanes belong to a stage in which
the portion are connected to the same adjusting ring; and
[iv] an adjusting drive with which the plurality of adjusting
rings may be moved in a circumferential direction,
[v] wherein at least one of the plurality of levers is set up
to perform at least partly a disproportionate longitudinal
movement of the first end of the lever, and
[vi] wherein the disproportionate longitudinal movement
of the first end of the lever results in a disproportionate rotation
of the respective adjusting ring,
[vii] wherein a single driving ram is attached to a second
end of each of the plurality of levers,
[viii] wherein the at least one of the plurality of levers
comprises a spring,
[ix] wherein the disproportionate longitudinal movement
of the first end of the lever is set up as that from an initial position
of the driving ram to an intermediate position where a first stage
adjusting ring hits a positive stop wherein the first end of the
lever stays immobile in its position, and
2
Appeal 2016-000957
Application 13/061,962
[x] wherein when the disproportionate longitudinal
movement of the first end of the lever is set up as that from the
intermediate position of the driving ram a further movement of
the driving ram causes the first end of the lever to move as the
other first ends of the other levers.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Manning US 4,295,784 Oct. 20, 1981
Sheath US 2005/0254938 A1 Nov. 17,2005
Boning WO 2007/134787 A1 Nov. 29,2007
REJECTION
Claims 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, and 29 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Manning, Sheath, and Boning.
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Manning discloses most of the elements
recited in independent claim 11, but relies on Sheath and Boning to teach the
elements set forth in clauses viii and ix, respectively. Non-Final Act. 5—8.
Specifically, the Examiner finds Boning discloses that “[a]n adjusting ring
for a variable guide vanes hits a positive stop wherein the guide vanes at this
point will not be allowed to rotate any further.” Id. at 7—8. The Examiner
reasons that it would have been obvious to modify Manning such that its
adjusting ring would hit a positive stop “in order to set a minimum through-
flow through the guide vanes.” Id. at 8.
3
Appeal 2016-000957
Application 13/061,962
Appellants assert that clause ix of claim 11 requires the first end of the
lever to stay immobile while the driving ram travels from an initial position
to an intermediate position. Appeal Br. 11. Appellants contend that the
Examiner’s finding that the guide vanes in Boning move and then hit a
positive stop fails to meet this requirement in clause ix of claim 11. Id.
In response, the Examiner states:
the independent claims do not require the guide vanes to be
immobile during the whole movement of the driving ram from
0mm to 10mm. Rather, the claims require movement of the lever
“to an intermediate position where a first stage adjusting ring hits
a positive stop” which Examiner has interpreted as requiring the
lever to move until it hits the positive stop at the intermediate
position.
Ans. 4.
Appellants reply that the Examiner has misinterpreted claim 11, and
“[t]he claim language does not require the lever to move until it hits the
positive stop. In fact[,] the opposite is true, the claim language requires that
the lever stays immobile during a first mode.” Reply Br. 2.
We agree with Appellants’ argument. Claim 11 explicitly recites that
“the first end of the lever stays immobile in its position” during movement
of the driving ram from an initial position to an intermediate position.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). This limitation is congruent with the
description in paragraphs 22, 61, 72—74, 77, and 90-94 of the Specification.
See also Figs. 15 A— 15C. We appreciate that Boning discloses stop 25 “for
setting the minimum throughflow through the nozzle cross sections which
are formed by the guide blades (7).” Boning, Abstract. However, this
disclosure falls short of teaching that an end of a first lever stays immobile
during any particular stage of movement of a driving ram, much less during
4
Appeal 2016-000957
Application 13/061,962
movement from an initial position to an intermediate position. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11, or claims 16, 17, and
19 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Manning, Sheath, and Boning.
Independent claims 20 and 29 recite similar requirements to those
discussed above regarding claim 11. Appeal Br. 15, 17 (Claims App.). For
the same reasons discussed above regarding claim 11, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 20 and 29, and claims 25, 26, and 28, which
depend from claim 20.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 25, 26,
28, and 29 is reversed.
REVERSED
5