Ex Parte Snyder et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2018

13362552 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/362,552 0113112012 Daniel A. Snyder
54549 7590 03/21/2018
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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.
61138US01;
67097-1708PUS1
CONFIRMATION NO.
8924
EXAMINER
ADJAGBE, MAXIME M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/2112018 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL A. SNYDER, KYLE CHARLES LANA,
JONATHAN PERRY SANDOVAL, SCOTT DANIEL VIRKLER,
JAIMIE TARASKEVICH, and EDWIN OTERO
Appeal2017-005517
Application 13/362,552
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.
KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Daniel A. Snyder et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-12, 14--16, and
23-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE and enter NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
pursuant to our authority under 3 7 C.F .R. § 41. 50(b ).
Appeal2017-005517
Application 13/362,552
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' invention relates to a damper seal that can be positioned
under platforms of adjacent turbine blades. Spec. para. 1.
Claims 1 and 9 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and is
reproduced below:
1. A damper seal received in a cavity of a turbine blade
located between a platform and a retention shelf, the damper seal
compnsmg:
a central body portion having a first end region, an
opposing second end region, and a width;
a first portion extending from the first end region of the
central body portion, wherein a first end region of the first
portion includes first outwardly extending tabs that define a first
enlarged portion that has a first width greater than the width of
the central body portion, wherein the first portion includes a first
another tab that extends substantially perpendicularly to the first
outwardly extending tabs, and the first another tab extends away
from the central body portion such that the first outwardly
extending tabs are located between the central body portion and
the first another tab; and
a second portion extending from the opposing second end
region of the central body portion.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected:
(i) Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, and 14 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Beattie (US 7, 121,800 B2, issued Oct. 17, 2006);
1 The Examiner inadvertently listed claim 13 in the heading. Final Act. 4.
However, claim 13 has been canceled. See Amendment filed January 4,
2016.
2
Appeal2017-005517
Application 13/362,552
(ii) Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, 23, and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Ramlogan (US 2009/0004013 Al,
published Jan. 1, 2009);
(iii) Claims 3, 11, 24, 25, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Beattie in view of Houston (US 5,785,499, issued
July 28, 1998);
(iv) Claims 8 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Beattie in view of Surace (US 6,932,575 B2, issued Aug. 23, 2005);
(v) Claims 24, 25, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ramlogan in view of Houston; and
(vi) Claims 8 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Ramlogan in view of Surace.
ANALYSIS
New Ground of Rejection-35 US.C. § 112, second paragraph
Claims 2, 4, 6, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite.
A claim is properly rejected as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph if, after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in
light of the specification, the metes and bounds of a claim are not clear
because the claim "contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear." In
re Packard, 751F.3d1307, 1310 (Fed Cir. 2014).
Claim 2 recites "wherein a second end region of the second portion
includes second outwardly extending tabs." Appeal Br. 9 (Claim App.).
However, claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, recites "a second portion
extending from the opposing second end region of the central body portion."
3
Appeal2017-005517
Application 13/362,552
Id. It is unclear whether "a second end region" in claim 2 refers to "the
opposing second end region" in claim 1. In claim 1, a "second portion"
extends from a "second end region," whereas, in claim 2, a "second portion"
has its own "second end region" having outwardly extending tabs. It is
possible that Appellants intended that claim 2 recite instead "wherein the
second portion of a second end region includes second outwardly extending
tabs," which would be consistent with the recitation in claim 1.
Nonetheless, the scope and meaning of claim 2 is indefinite. Claim 6
depends from claim 2 and therefore is indefinite as well.
Claim 10 recites, similarly to claim 2, "wherein a second end region
of the second portion includes second outwardly extending tabs." Id. at 10.
Claim 9, from which claim 10 depends, recites, similarly to claim 1, "a
second portion extending generally downward from the opposing second end
region of the central body portion." Id. Thus, the scope and meaning of
claim 10 is unclear for the same reason as claim 2. Claim 14 depends from
claim 10 and therefore is also indefinite.
Claim 4 recites "wherein the first enlarged portion rests on a retention
shelf of a turbine blade." Id. at 9. However, claim 1, from which claim 4
depends, is directed only to a damper seal, and not a damper seal and a
turbine blade having a retention shelf. Therefore, claim 4 purports to
involve structure and an interaction with structure, that is not positively
recited in the claim. Accordingly, the scope and meaning of claim 4 is
unclear and indefinite.
4
Appeal2017-005517
Application 13/362,552
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, and 14--Anticipation--Beattie
The Examiner finds that Beattie discloses all limitations set forth in
claims 1 and 9, including a damper seal comprising a first portion (forward
portion 60) that includes a first another tab that extends substantially
perpendicularly to first outwardly extending tabs (fingers 44). Final Act. 4
(citing Beattie, Figs. 1--4). The Examiner annotates Figure 3 of Beattie by
drawing a substantially vertical line on finger 44 and a second, purportedly
horizontal, line extending forward of finger 44 and its vertical line. Id. at 3,
Ans. 3. The Examiner explains that "the [portion] ( 60) as indicated and
shown in the [] figure comprises a component which is well substantially
perpendicular to the outward extending tabs (44)." Ans. 3.
Appellants contend that forward portion 60 includes a curved portion
and a portion that is substantially parallel to fingers 44. Appeal Br. 3. As
such, Appellants argue that neither the curved portion nor forward portion
60 is substantially perpendicular to fingers 44. Id.
Appellants have the better position. The Examiner does not establish
by a preponderance of the evidence that the purportedly horizontal line
provided by way of annotation conforms to the orientation of the "first
another tab" extending forwardly from tab 44 that is annotated with a
vertical line. Indeed, the "first another tab" as shown in the side view of
Figure 2 of Beattie appears to begin to curve downwardly starting
immediately forward of fingers 44, with no portion being substantially
perpendicular to the vertical. Accordingly, the Examiner has not established
that Beattie discloses "the first portion includes a first another tab that
extends substantially perpendicularly to the first outwardly extending tabs,"
as claimed.
5
Appeal2017-005517
Application 13/362,552
Thus, the Examiner has not established that claims 1 and 9 are
anticipated by Beattie. The rejection of claims 1 and 9 as being anticipated
by Beattie is not sustained. The rejection of claims 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, and 14,
which depend from either claim 1 or claim 9, is not sustained for the same
reason.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, 23, and 26--Anticipation--Ramlogan
The Examiner finds that Ramlogan discloses all limitations set forth in
claims 1 and 9, including a damper seal comprising a first portion that
includes a first another tab (forward seal area 60) that extends substantially
perpendicularly to first outwardly extending tabs (mid-section tangs 66).
Final Act. 6-7 (citing Ramlogan, Figs. 1-8B). The Examiner annotates
Figure 8B of Beattie by labeling tangs 66 as "first outwardly tabs" and
labeling forward seal area 60 (see Fig. 8A) extending to the left of tangs 66
as a "first another [tab]." Final Act. 7, Ans. 6. The Examiner takes the
position that, as shown in the annotated figure, the labeled first another tab is
substantially perpendicular to the labeled first outwardly tabs. Ans. 6.
Appellants point out that the forward seal area 60 is curved upward.
Appeal Br. 5. As such, Appellants argue that the forward seal area 60 is not
substantially perpendicular to the mid-section tangs 66. Id.
As shown in Figure 8B of Ramlogan, the left side of the damper seal
(forward seal area 60) is deliberately curved upwardly from the region from
which tangs 66 depend. Assuming that the Examiner intended to use the
same orientation for tangs 66 of Ramlogan, extending in a downward
direction, as was represented by the vertical line in the annotation of Figure
3 of Beattie, we fail to see how forward seal area 60 could reasonably be
6
Appeal2017-005517
Application 13/362,552
regarded as being substantially perpendicular to tangs 66. Accordingly, the
Examiner's finding that Ramlogan discloses the claim limitation requiring
"the first portion [to] include a first another tab that extends substantially
perpendicularly to the first outwardly extending tabs," is not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Thus, the Examiner has not established that claims 1 and 9 are
anticipated by Ramlogan. The rejection of claims 1 and 9, and claims 3, 4,
7, 11, 15, 23, and 26 which depend therefrom, as being anticipated by
Ramlogan, is not sustained.
Claims 3, 11, 24, 25, 27, and 28--0bviousness--Beattie/Houston
Claims 8 and 17--0bviousness--Beattie/Surace
The Examiner does not rely on Houston or Surace in any manner that
would remedy the above-noted deficiency in the rejection of claims 1 and 9,
from which claim 3, 8, 11, 17, 24, 25, 27, and 28 depend. Final Act. 10-15.
For the same reasons discussed supra, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 3, 8, 11, 17, 24, 25, 27, and 28.
Claims 24, 25, 27, and 28--0bviousness--Ramlogan/Houston
Claims 8 and 17--0bviousness--Ramlogan/Surace
The Examiner does not rely on Houston or Surace in any manner that
would remedy the above-noted deficiency in the rejection of claims 1 and 9,
from which claims 8, 17, 24, 25, 27, and 28 depend. Final Act. 15-18. For
the same reasons discussed supra, we do not sustain the rejection of claims
8, 17, 24, 25, 27, and 28.
7
Appeal2017-005517
Application 13/362,552
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1--4, 6-12, 14--16, and 23-28 are reversed.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 10, and 14 are rejected, in a new ground of rejection,
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
FINALITY OF DECISION
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides that "[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review." Section 41.50(b) also provides:
When the Board enters such a non-final decision, the
appellant, within two months from the date of the decision, must
exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new
grounds of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the
rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to
the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered
by the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be
remanded to the examiner. The new ground of rejection is
binding upon the examiner unless an amendment or new
Evidence not previously of Record is made which, in the opinion
of the examiner, overcomes the new ground of rejection
designated in the decision. Should the examiner reject the
claims, appellant may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this
subpart.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The
request for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection
and state with particularity the points believed to have been
misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of
rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing
is sought.
8
Appeal2017-005517
Application 13/362,552
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in MPEP § 1214.01.
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).
REVERSED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
REVERSED
9