Ex Parte Stilin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2017

13217372 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 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.
13/217,372 08/25/2011 Nicholas D. Stilin PA-8989US; 67097-1543 5900
54549 7590 09/20/2017
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
CHRISTENSEN, DANIELLE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2017 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):
ptodocket @ cgolaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NICHOLAS D. STILIN
Appeal 2016-000779
Application 13/217,372
Technology Center 3700
Before LISA M. GUIJT, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1—19 and 24—
28, which are all the claims pending in the application.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 The real party in interest is identified as United Technologies Corp. App.
Br. 1.
2 Claim 29 was also pending and rejected at the time of the Final Action.
Final Act. 1. Appellant filed an amendment after the Final Action seeking to
cancel claim 29. Amendment After Final (filed Sept. 11, 2014). The
subsequent Advisory Action indicates the amendment “will not be entered,”
Appeal 2016-000779
Application 13/217,372
We affirm.
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter.
1. A structural composite fan exit guide vane segment
comprising:
a single monolithic component having an inner diameter
shroud;
an outer diameter shroud; and
a plurality of fan exit guide vanes connecting said inner
diameter shroud and said outer diameter shroud.
Rejections
I. Claims 1—3, 7—11, 18, 19, and 24—26 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US 2003/0185673
Al, published Oct. 2, 2003) (“Matsumoto”) and Norris et al. (US 5,482,433,
issued Jan. 9, 1996) (“Norris”). Final Act. 5—9.
II. Claims 4, 5, 12—14, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Matsumoto, Norris, and Li et al. (US
5,722,813, issued Mar. 3, 1998) (“Li”). Final Act. 9-12.
III. Claims 6, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Matsumoto, Norris, and Matsumoto et al. (US
7,645,120 B2, issued Jan. 12, 2010) (“Matsumoto ’120”). Final Act. 12—14.
but also indicates the rejected claims include only 1—19 and 24—28. Adv.
Act. 1 (mailed Oct. 15, 2014). In this case, we consider claim 29 to be
canceled, and the rejection thereof to be withdrawn.
2
Appeal 2016-000779
Application 13/217,372
IV. Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Matsumoto, Norris, Li, and Matsumoto ’120. Final Act.
14—15.
V. Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Matsumoto, Norris, and Sampson (US 2,942,843, issued
June 28, 1960). Final Act. 15—16.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Claims 1—3, 7—11, 18, and 19
Appellant contends Matsumoto’s fan exit guide vanes are not
“structural,” as recited in the preamble of claim 1, nor “supporting” the
frame, as recited in claim 11. App. Br. 3. Appellant argues the Examiner
improperly considers these limitations to be an “intended use.” Id.
Appellant contends that Matsumoto’s guide vanes are supported within the
engine by distinct support members 80 and 90, or the fan casing of the
turbine engine, and Appellant argues it would be illogical for the engine case
and the guide vanes to support each other. Id. at 3^4. Appellant also argues
that including additional guide vanes between the inner and outer shroud
segments of Matsumoto would not alter the structural arrangement of
Matsumoto’s engine. Id. at 4.
The Examiner responds that claims 1 and 11 “fail to provide any
further details on the structural nature of the guide vane, beyond that they
are monolithic components having an inner diameter shroud, outer diameter
shroud, and a plurality of guide vanes,” and the Examiner finds all of these
limitations are taught by Matsumoto and Norris. Ans. 2—3. The Examiner
3
Appeal 2016-000779
Application 13/217,372
finds Matsumoto’s Figure 14 shows “the airfoils are the only structures that
extend entirely between the hub and fan casing,” and “create a physical
barrier for any engine component moving in the radial direction and
maintain the distance between the hum and the fan casing, thus acting as a
structural support.” Ans. 3. Figure 14 ofMatsumoto, annotated by the
Examiner, is reproduced below.
Ans. 3. Figure 14 is a cross-sectional view showing Matsumoto’s “flow-
rectifying member” mounted to a gas turbine engine. Matsumoto para. 41.
The Examiner’s annotations identify support member 90 as part of the fan
casing, support member 80 within the hub, and the guide vans extending
between the fan casing and hub. Ans. 3.
Appellant argues Matsumoto’s Figure 14 is highly schematic, with a
wavy line indicating part of the illustration is cut off, and a lack of detail for
gearing systems that do not interface with each other. Reply Br. 2—3.
4
Appeal 2016-000779
Application 13/217,372
Appellant contends that “features of the gas turbine engine that are unrelated
to the invention of [Matsumoto] are omitted in order to provide a more clear
illustration of the features to which [Matsumoto] is directed.” Reply Br. 3.
Appellant further contends that Matsumoto’s text contradicts the Examiner’s
findings and teaches “additional structural support elements are facilitated
by the utilization of an outer circular support member and an inner circular
support member and that those supporting methods are distinct from the
stator vane assembly,” citing paragraph 76 of Matsumoto. Reply Br. 3.
Appellant’s arguments do not identify error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 11. We agree with the Examiner that Figure 14
supports the finding that Matsumoto’s fan exit guides are structural and
support the frame within the broadest reasonable interpretations of those
terms. Even if some additional structure not shown in Figure 14 also
provides structural support, it is evident that the guide vanes will aid in
maintaining the outer casing the proper distance from the hub and resist
forces that would tend to disrupt their concentricity. Appellant’s arguments
and evidence do not persuade us that such a role cannot be considered
“structural” or “supporting.” Moreover, contrary to Appellant’s arguments,
App. Br. 4—5, we do not perceive any illogic to the fact that support
members 80 and 90 “support” the vanes by connecting to their ends and
holding them in place, while at the same time the vanes support the engine
casing by extending between the inner and outer casing.
In addition, we disagree with Appellant’s reading of paragraph 76 of
Matsumoto. Paragraph 76 does not indicate that other support members
distinct from the stator vane assembly provide structural support to the
engine. After describing in detail inner circular support member 80 and
5
Appeal 2016-000779
Application 13/217,372
outer circular support member 90 as structures separate from the engine that
receive the stator vane assembly and fix it to the hub and outer casing of the
engine, see Matsumoto paras. 69-75, Matsumoto states that Figure 14
“shows another example of the mounting of the stator vane assembly to a
gas turbine engine,” id. at para. 76. “In this example, the outer platform of
the stator vane assembly is mounted onto an engine member.” Id. That is,
“the engine members are used as an outer, circular support member and an
inner circular support member” for the stator vane assembly, and when used
in this manner, “various supporting methods can be utilized by an engine
structure, into which parts of the stator vane assembly such as a fan casing,
an intermediate casing, etc., can be incorporated.” Id. Thus, support
members 80 and 90 need not be separate elements from the engine structure,
and “by using the engine members for such support members, it is possible
to reduce the number of parts.” Id. Rather than undermine the Examiner’s
findings, Matsumoto’s paragraph 76 supports the Examiner’s findings in
showing the level of integration of the stator vanes into the engine structure.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Matsumoto and Norris. Thus,
we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 11, and, for the same reasons, the
rejection of claims 2, 3, 7—10, 18, and 19, which are not argued separately,
App. Br. 3—5.
Claims 24—26
Appellant argues claims 24—26 “are explicitly directed to a fan exit
guide vane providing radial structural support (claims 24 and 25) and
maintaining concentricness of an engine core, fan blades and a fan case
6
Appeal 2016-000779
Application 13/217,372
(claim 26),” and that Matusmoto does not teach these limitations. App. Br.
4. For the same reasons discussed above for claims 1 and 11, Appellant’s
arguments do not identify error in the rejection of claims 24—26. Thus, we
sustain the rejection of claims 24—26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Matsumoto and Norris.
Rejections II—IV
Appellant argues the additional references set forth in Rejections II
through IV do not rectify the deficiencies argued in support of claims 1 and
11. App. Br. 5. As discussed above, we do not agree that the rejection of
claims 1 and 11 is deficient, and, for the same reasons, we sustain the
rejections of claims 4, 5, 12—14, and 17 set forth in Rejection II, claims 6,
27, and 28 set forth in Rejection III, and claims 15 and 16 set forth in
rejection IV.
Rejection V
Appellant does not address the rejection of claim 28 as set forth in
Rejection V. Thus, we summarily sustain the rejection of claim 28 as set
forth in Rejection V.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—19 and 24—28.
7
Appeal 2016-000779
Application 13/217,372
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8