Ex Parte Pater

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 5, 2018

13184136 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 5, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/184,136 07/15/2011
12208 7590
Kinney & Lange, P.A.
312 South Third Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
06/07/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christopher M. Pater
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.
58334US01-U73-012652 9768
EXAMINER
DU GER, JASON H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/07/2018 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):
USPatDocket@kinney.com
amkoenck@kinney.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte CHRISTOPHERM. PATER
Appeal2017-009095
Application 13/184, 13 6
Technology Center 3700
Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Christopher M. Pater ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from a rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4--20. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellant's Appeal Brief (hereinafter "Br."), filed Nov. 29,
2016, the real party in interest is United Technologies Corporation. Br. 2.
2 Claim 3 is canceled. Id.
Appeal2017-009095
Application 13/184, 136
INVENTION
The invention relates to "coated gas turbine components ... having
airflow apertures and protective coatings." Spec. i-f 1.
Claims 1 and 12 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of forming a gas turbine engine component
subject to extreme temperatures and pressures, the method
compnsmg:
fabricating a wall having a first surface and a second
surface which define opposite sides of the wall;
creating an airflow aperture that extends through the wall
in a direction substantially perpendicular to the first surface, the
airflow aperture defined by an aperture wall surface which
extends from a first opening in the first surface to a second
opening in the second surface, and which is flared at a juncture
with the first surface such that the first opening has a greater
cross-sectional flow area than the second opening; and
depositing a high-pressure, high-temperature resistant
coating on the first surface, adhered to a portion of the aperture
wall surface adjacent the first opening, such that a minimum flow
width w of the airflow aperture is reduced and defined by the
high-pressure, high-temperature resistant coating, where
Wmajor-Wminor z · 8 W, · · d w = - t sin , major 1s a maximum uncoate
2
width of the airflow aperture, W minor is a minimum uncoated
width of the aperture, t is a [thickness]3 of the high-pressure,
high-temperature resistant coating, and 8 is a surface angle
between the aperture wall surface and a line normal to the first
surface.
3 Although the term "thickness" is not recited in claim 1 listed in the Claims
Appendix (see Br. 13 (Claims App.)), this appears to be a typographical
error because this term was in the last amendment entered by the Examiner
(see Amendment filed May 2, 2015), and both the Examiner and Appellant
treat claim 1 as reciting that "t is a thickness of the high-pressure, high-
temperature resistant coating." See Final Act. 2, Br. 7.
2
Appeal2017-009095
Application 13/184, 136
REJECTIONS 4
I. Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite.
II. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-10, 12-17, and 20 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Gupta et al. (US
5,941,686, iss. Aug. 24, 1999, hereinafter "Gupta").
III. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gupta and McCaffrey et al. (US 6,438,958 Bl, iss. Aug.
27, 2002, hereinafter "McCaffrey").
IV. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gupta, McCaffrey, Shekleton (US 5,097,660, iss. Mar. 24,
1992) and Mao et al. (Effects of substrate curvature radius,
deposition temperature and coating thickness on the residual
stress field of cylindrical thermal barrier coatings, Surface &
Coatings Technology, 205 :3093-3102 (2011 ), hereinafter
"Mao").
V. Claims 11and19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gupta and Turaga (US 2009/0324387 Al,
pub. Dec. 31, 2009).
VI. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gupta and Shekleton.
4 The Examiner's objection to claims 1, 4, 12, and 20 is a petitionable matter
and not an appealable matter and, thus, is not within the jurisdiction of the
Board. See Final Act. 2 (dated June 28, 2016); see also In re Mindick, 371
F.2d 892, 894 (CCPA 1967).
3
Appeal2017-009095
Application 13/184, 136
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that "there are no bounds set for W major, W minor, t,
or 8," in the equation to determine w recited in independent claims 1 and 12.
Final Act. 2. Thus, according to the Examiner, there is "an infinite number
of possible values for w" and as such, claims 1 and 12 are indefinite. Id.
Appellant argues that the equation that expresses w "clearly sets forth
a geometric relationship between parameters Wmajor, Wminor, t, and 8." Br. 5.
According to Appellant, the "lack of specified bounds" as to the claimed
parameters does not make the claims indefinite because "the breadth or
narrowness of a claim does not affect its definiteness." Id. at 6.
The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
whether "those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the
claim is read in light of the specification." Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety
Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, we
agree with Appellant that "[t]he variables w, Wmajor, Wminor, t, and 8 are all
structural dimensions that are well-defined in claims 1 and 12, and that are
further supported in the written description and drawings." Br. 5-6. As
such, Appellant is correct in that these variables "either obey the equality set
forth in claims 1 and 12, or they do not," and, thus, "this relationship is
readily evaluated for any proposed structure." Id. at 6.
As such, by not specifying a range of values, the claims are merely
broad, not indefinite. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016 n. 17 (CCPA
1977) (breadth is not indefiniteness). Here, a person of ordinary skill in the
art would be able to measure each of the recited parameters, input the
measurements into the equation in claims 1 and 12, and determine whether
4
Appeal2017-009095
Application 13/184, 136
the value for w is satisfied. Hence, the scope of the claims, although it is
broad, is nonetheless clear.
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, of claims 1 and 12 as
being indefinite.
Re} ection II
Appellant argues that Gupta "deliberately ensures that depositing [a]
coating will not reduce flow width," and defines the apertures so that
h h Wmajor-Wminor . e 9 A 11 w=Wminor, rat er t an w = - 2t sin . Br. . ppe ant
2
asserts that the claims are only satisfied by a structure that obeys the claimed
relation, and Gupta does not disclose such a structure. Id.
The Examiner responds that Gupta's disclosure is anticipatory
because Gupta discloses an example that meets the recited minimum flow
width w of the airflow aperture. Ans. 6 (citing Gupta, col. 5, 11. 58---61)
(dated Mar. 17, 2017). According to the Examiner, Appellant has not shown
that using the values disclosed in Gupta to determine w does not meet the
claim, "or that the claim cannot be met where w= W minor·" Id. at 7. The
Examiner further notes that Appellant also has not shown that the "alternate
reading of Gupta, presented in the 'Response to Arguments' section of the
Final Action" on page 15, lines 7-19, does not meet the claims. Id.
Appellant's arguments are persuasive because the Examiner has not
adequately established that Gupta discloses an example that satisfies the
claimed relationship for the claimed parameter w. Although, Gupta
discloses that "a TBC coating of about 0.015" reduce[s] fluid flow through
the passage" (Gupta, 5: 5 8---61 ), using this value in the recited equation does
5
Appeal2017-009095
Application 13/184, 136
not satisfy the equation. Specifically, inserting Gupta's values of
Wmajor=0.03", Wminor=0.02", t=0.015", and 8=45° into the recited
equationw = Wmajor-Wminor - 2t sin 8, results in a minimum flow width W
2
of the airflow aperture of -0.0162", which is a negative number, and thus
does not satisfy the equation. Thus, although Gupta discloses a reduced
flow width of the aperture, Gupta does not reduce the width of the aperture
in a manner that satisfies the recited equation.
Furthermore, the Examiner's assertion that w=Wminor satisfies the
claimed relationship also is unsupported. The Examiner has not pointed to
any portion of Gupta that provides an example that results in w= W minor
satisfying the claimed relationship. Thus, the Examiner does not provide
any values for W major, t, and 8 that would result in w= W minor· In other words,
applying a coating to reduce the flow width of the aperture so that it is equal
to the minimum uncoated width of the aperture is not sufficient to meet the
claim.
Finally, the Examiner's alternate reading of Gupta as discussed in the
Response to Arguments section of the Final Action also does not satisfy
claims 1 and 12. Specifically, claims 1 and 12 recite, inter alia, that Wmajor is
a maximum uncoated width of the airflow aperture. See Br. 13, 15 (Claims
App.). As Appellant correctly notes, width W major of 1.18" indicated by the
Examiner (see Final Act. 16) does not constitute a maximum uncoated width
of the aperture. Br. 9-10; Compare the Examiner's annotated Figure 2B of
Gupta (see Final Act. 16) with Appellant's Figure 3. Thus, although the
numbers used by the Examiner satisfy the claimed equation 5, because the
5 Wmajor=l.18", Wminor=0.35", t=0.18", and 8=10°. See Final Act. 16.
6
Appeal2017-009095
Application 13/184, 136
values are not based on parameters specified in the claims, the Examiner's
position is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 1, 2, 4, 7-10, 12-17, and 20 as
anticipated by Gupta.
Rejections III-VI
The Examiner's use of the McCaffrey, Shekleton, Mao, and Turaga
disclosures does not remedy the deficiency of the rejection based upon
Gupta discussed supra. See Final Act. 9-11. Accordingly, for the same
reasons discussed above, we also do not sustain Rejections III-VI.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 4--20 is reversed.
REVERSED
7