Ex Parte Sahores et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 20, 2018

13978007 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2018)

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.
13/978,007 07/02/2013 Jean-Luc Pierre Sahores 418413US41X PCT 4412
22850 7590 02/22/2018
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
VERDIER, CHRISTOPHER M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/22/2018 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):
patentdocket @ oblon. com
oblonpat @ oblon. com
tfarrell@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEAN-LUC PIERRE SAHORES and
MICHEL FRANCOIS LEON BEAUCOUESTE
Appeal 2017-0066011
Application 13/978,0072
Technology Center 3700
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
8—14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Sept. 26,
2016) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Mar. 13, 2017), and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 12, 2017) and Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed Feb. 25, 2016).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is “SAFRAN
HELICOPTER ENGINES.” Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-006601
Application 13/978,007
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, “[t]he invention relates to a damping method
for blades mounted on gas turbine wheels, as well as a vibration damper
being adapted to implement such method.” Spec. 1,11. 5—7.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 8 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
8. A damping method for blades mounted on a low speed
wheel disk of a gas turbine, the disk including a housing under a
platform of a blade, configured to receive a vibration damper, the
method comprising:
providing the vibration damper including a flexible
portion including a plate clamped against the platform, and a
mass portion including a counterweight for directing friction
forces against the platform via clamping, the flexible portion and
the mass portion being coupled together in a reversible way by
surrounding at least partially the mass portion through at least
one clamping area of the flexible portion against the platform,
the flexible portion being sufficiently flexible to be configured to
a required contact level; and
inserting the vibration damper within the housing,
wherein the plate includes an upper wall covering
substantially an entirety of an upper face of the counterweight.
Appeal Br. 8.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 8—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite.
2. The Examiner rejects claims 8—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Beattie.3
3 Beattie, US 2006/0056974 Al, pub. Mar. 16, 2006.
2
Appeal 2017-006601
Application 13/978,007
3. The Examiner rejects claims 8—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Ramlogan.4
4. The Examiner rejects claim 9—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Beattie.
5. The Examiner rejects claim 9—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ramlogan.
6. The Examiner rejects claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ramlogan in view of Surace.5
DISCUSSION
Indefiniteness
Claim 8
With respect to claim 8, the Examiner finds that the limitation
“wherein the plate includes an upper wall covering substantially an entirety
of an upper face of the counterweight” is indefinite because “substantially an
entirety of an upper face” is a relative term that is not defined by the claim
and for which “the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining
the requisite degree.” Final Act. 4 (emphasis omitted). Thus, the Examiner
concludes that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably
apprised of the scope of the invention.” Id.
Appellants respond that “[a]s shown in the non-limiting embodiment
of Figure 2a, upper wall 101 of the plate 10 covers most of the upper face
121 of the counterweight 12.” Appeal Br. 3. Appellants thus contend that
“in view of the specification and figures ... a person of ordinary skill in the
4 Ramlogan et al., US 2009/0004013 Al, pub. Jan. 1, 2009.
5 Surace et al., US 2005/0079062 Al, pub. Apr. 14, 2005.
3
Appeal 2017-006601
Application 13/978,007
art would understand the scope” of the limitation at issue. We agree. We
find that one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the
scope of the claim limitation in light of the Specification and drawings. In
particular, we note that the Specification states that “[t]he plate 10 forms a
thin wall partially covering the counterweight 12, and in particular almost
the whole said upper face 121 thereof.” Spec. 5. Figure 2a shows plate 10
covering almost the whole of face 121 except perhaps a small portion at the
outer edges. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
claim limitation “substantially an entirety of an upper face” to require that
the plate covers almost all of the upper face of the counterweight, while
providing for the possibility that small portions of the upper face may not be
covered and yet still be within the scope of the claim.
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 8
here.
Claims 9—14
With respect to claim 9, the Examiner finds that the claim includes
numerous terms such as “[a] vibration damper,” “a low speed disk,” and “a
gas turbine” that are double recitations of elements found in claim 8. Final
Act. 4. We will not sustain this rejection. Claim 9 is directed to a device,
i.e., “[a] vibration damper” used in the method of claim 8. Appeal Br. 8.
We interpret the preamble, including the reference to the method of claim 8,
to recite an intended use of the claimed device of claim 9, which is proper.
“A claim to a device, apparatus, manufacture, or composition of matter may
contain a reference to the process in which it is intended to be used without
being objectionable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112,
4
Appeal 2017-006601
Application 13/978,007
second paragraph, so long as it is clear that the claim is directed to the
product and not the process.” MPEP § 2173.05(p) (2017).
We will also not sustain the rejection of claim 9 to the extent the
Examiner finds that the claim language “wherein the plate includes an upper
wall covering substantially an entirety of an upper face of the
counterweight” is indefinite. As discussed above, we find that one of
ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the scope of the
claims with respect to this limitation in light of the Specification and
drawings.
However, we will sustain the rejection as it pertains to the limitation
in claim 11 reciting “the bearing surface of the platform.” See Final Act. 5.
We see no antecedent basis for this limitation in either of claims 9 or 10,
from which claim 11 depends. And Appellants do not respond to the
Examiner’s rejection in this regard.
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the indefmiteness rejection
of claims 9, 10, and 12—14, but we do sustain the indefmiteness rejection of
claim 11 based on the limitation “the bearing surface of the platform.”
Anticipation
Appellants raise arguments only with respect to claim 8. We discuss
claim 8 below, and the remaining claims fall therewith.
With respect to claim 8, the Examiner finds (in separate rejections)
that each of Beattie and Ramlogan discloses a damping method as claimed,
including, inter alia, a vibration damper with a flexible portion having a
plate with an upper wall that covers substantially an entirety of an upper face
of the counterweight. Final Act. 5—8.
5
Appeal 2017-006601
Application 13/978,007
For the reasons discussed below, Appellants’ arguments do not
apprise us of reversible error in the Examiner’s findings.
First, Appellants argue that neither Beattie nor Ramlogan “disclose[s]
a damping method or vibration damper wherein the plate includes an upper
wall covering substantially an entirety of an upper face of the
counterweight.” Appeal Br. 5. We disagree. As discussed above, the
limitation at issue requires that the upper wall covers almost all of an
entirety an upper face of the counterweight. We agree with the Examiner
that the claim language requires only covering “an upper face” and does not
require “the uppermost face” or recite other language that would preclude
the counterweight from contacting the platform of the blade.6 See Ans. 10—
11. We also agree with the Examiner that both Beattie and Ramlogan depict
the flexible portion as covering almost the whole of an upper planar surface
of the counterweight. See Beattie Fig. 3 (depicting counterweight with
upper surface 38); Fig. 4 (depicting flexible portion engaged with and
covering all of surface 38); see also Ramlogan Fig. 5B (depicting the
counterweight with upper surface extending between numerals 44 and 50);
Fig. 6 (depicting the flexible portion engaged with and covering almost all of
the upper surface seen in Fig. 5).
Next, Appellants argue that neither Beattie nor Ramlogan “disclose[s]
a low speed wheel disk of a gas turbine,” and that the claims solve problems
“specific to low speed wheel disks of a gas turbine.” Appeal Br. 5. We are
6 Although Appellants contend that the claimed invention prevents the mass
portion/counterweight from contacting the platform of the blade, the claims
include no specific requirement that the counterweight cannot contact the
platform. See Appeal Br. 4.
6
Appeal 2017-006601
Application 13/978,007
not persuaded. Without further explanation from Appellants, we agree with
the Examiner that both Beattie and Ramlogan disclose a method as claimed
because “[a]t startup and at low operating speeds of the gas turbine engine of
Beattie [or Ramlogan], the unnumbered wheel disk [or disk 15 in Ramlogan]
to which the blades 12 are attached, functions as a low speed wheel disk.”
See Ans. 8, 12. Appellants do not address the Examiner’s finding in this
regard. Rather, Appellants argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize that Beattie and Ramlogan are directed to high speed
turbine disks (see Reply Br. 3), but Appellants do not explain how the
claimed method includes a patentable distinction between the structure
provided in the method and the structure provided in each of Beattie and
Ramlogan.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of reversible error with
respect to anticipation rejections of claim 8. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejections. We also sustain the anticipation rejections of claims 9—13, which
fall with claim 8 as noted above.
Obviousness over Ramlogan in view of Surace
With respect to this rejection, Appellants indicate only that Surace
fails to cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 8. See Appeal Br. 6.
However, having found no deficiency in the rejection of claim 8 as
anticipated by Ramlogan, we will sustain the rejection of claim 14 here.
Remaining Rejections
Because we sustain the rejections discussed above, which are
dispositive of all claims on appeal, we do not reach the remaining
obviousness rejections.
7
Appeal 2017-006601
Application 13/978,007
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 8—10 and 12—14 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We AFFIRM the rejection of
claims 8—13 as anticipated by Beattie. We AFFIRM the rejection of claims
8—13 as anticipated by Ramlogan. We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We do not reach the rejections of claims 9-13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8