Ex Parte Tschuor et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 10, 2015

12852788 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/852,788 08/09/2010
117185 7590 12/14/2015
ALSTOM TECHNOLOGY, LTD,
C/O Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
1737 King Street, Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Remigi TSCHUOR
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.
1033275-000745 4604
EXAMINER
GOYAL,ARUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/14/2015 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):
ADIPDOC 1@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte REMIGI TSCHUOR, RUSSELL BOND JONES,
NILZE ISABEL SEDA-MAURELL, and MARION ONEIL DUGGANS
Appeal2013-005912
Application 12/852,788
Technology Center 3700
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants, Remigi Tschuor et al., appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the rejection of claims 1, 4---6, 12, and 14. App. Br. 4. An oral hearing
was conducted on December 1, 2015. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal2013-005912
Application 12/852,788
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
below:
1. A thermal machine comprising an annular combustion
chamber (15, 25) which is bounded on the outside by an outer
shell (23) and an inner shell (33), the outer shell (23) and the
inner shell (33) are each split on a separating plane (29) into an
upper half (23a) and a lower half (23b ), which are mechanically
interlocked by welding one to the other on the separating plane
(29), wherein an additional mechanical interlock (30, 40) is
provided on the separating planes (29) in order to absorb tensile
and shear forces acting on the separating planes (29) the
additional mechanical interlock is provided as a connecting
element (30, 40) which extends over the separating plane (29)
in the form of a bridge, the outer shell (23) and the inner shell
(33) have a flange (28) at the inlet and/or outlet of the
combustion chamber (15, 25), and the connecting elements
(30,40) are arranged on the outside of one of the outer shell or
inner shell flange (28).
PRIORi\.RT
The Examiner relies on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
that are the subject of this appeal:
Voorheis
Hirota
us 4,629,416
US 6,966, 188 B2
GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Dec. 16, 1986
Nov. 22, 2005
I. Claims 1and4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Hirota. Final Act. 2--4. 1
1 Citations to the Final Action refer to the Office Action dated March 16,
2012.
2
Appeal2013-005912
Application 12/852,788
II. Claims 1 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hirota. Id. at 4--5.
III. Claims 5, 6, 12, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Hirota in view of Voorheis. Id. at 5---6.
OPINION
Rejection I
Appellants present several arguments against the Examiner's
anticipation rejection of claim 1. First, Appellants argue that Hirota does not
disclose a "separating plane" as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 9. The
Examiner finds that Hirota's Figure 1 shows a separating plane at reference
number 5. See Final Act. 3. Appellants argue that Hirota's reference
number 5 designates a welding connection, not a separating plane. App. Br.
9; Reply Br. 4. Appellants' argument is unpersuasive because the presence
of welding metal 5 does not prevent the location of the joint from being a
separating plane. As the Examiner correctly notes, claim 1 expressly recites
that the shell halves are "mechanically interlocked by welding one to the
other on the separating plane." Ans. 3.
Next, Appellants argue that Hirota "describes connecting plate like
bodies to form the tail pipe (exhaust) of a combustor, not the combustion
chamber as claimed." App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4--5. The Examiner finds that
Hirota's tail pipe 22 is the combustion section of combustor 20. Final Act.
2-3 (citing Hirota, 1:25-26, 1:35-36, Fig. 2); see also Ans. 3. The evidence
supports the Examiner's finding.
Appellants also contest the Examiner's finding that Hirota's closure 8
is an "additional mechanical interlock" as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 1 O;
3
Appeal2013-005912
Application 12/852,788
Reply Br. 5-7. Specifically, Appellants argue that Hirota's closure 8 is not a
mechanical interlock in addition to the interlock provided by welding upper
and lower halves, since Hirota's closure 8 is itself welded. App. Br. 11;
Reply Br. 5-7. Appellants further argue that Hirota's closure 8 does not
absorb tensile and shear forces acting on the separating planes because
"tensile and shear forces in Hirota are absorbed exclusively and directly
from the welding structure 10." App. Br. 11-12 (citing Hirota, Fig. le); see
also Reply Br. 8-9. These arguments do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner's finding that Hirota's closure 8 satisfies the limitations of an
"additional mechanical interlock" as recited in claim 1. Appellants do not
point to, and we do not find, any language in claim 1 specifying that a
welded structure cannot be an "additional mechanical interlock." Indeed, as
the Examiner correctly notes, Appellants' Specification discusses welding as
a means of mechanical interlocking. See Ans. 4 (citing Spec. i-f 13).
Appellants' argument that tensile and shear forces in Hirota are
absorbed exclusively by welded portions 10 rather than closure 8 lacks
evidentiary support. Further, even assuming that Appellants are correct that
welds 10 absorb the forces, the Examiner finds that "after welding, said
element 10 becomes an integral part of closure 8." Ans. 4. Appellants'
rebuttal to this finding is that "fillet welds ... are unfit to absorb the tensile
and shear forces" (Reply Br. 9), but this rebuttal is unpersuasive because it
contradicts Appellants' previous arguments. See App. Br. 12 ("tensile and
shear forces in Hirota are absorbed exclusively and directly from the
welding structure 10.").
Appellants also argue that Hirota does not disclose a flange as recited
in claim 1. In an annotated version of Hirota's Figure 2, the Examiner
4
Appeal2013-005912
Application 12/852,788
points to the right-most portion of tail pipe 22, where a right angle is shown
in plate-like bodies 25. See Final Act. 3. Appellants argue that
the ordinary meaning of the term flange is a protruding rim,
edge, rib, or collar, as on a wheel or a pipe shaft, used to
strengthen an object, hold it in place, or attach it to another
object. Further, the ordinary meaning of plate is a thin flat
sheet of a substance.
App. Br. 12. Appellants do not cite any source for these proposed
ordinary meanings; and more importantly, Appellants do not explain how
these purported ordinary meanings distinguish the structure that the
Examiner points to in the Final Action's annotated version of Hirota's
Figure 2.
Appellants also argue that "the portion of Fig. 2 as annotated by the
Examiner is not described anywhere in the specification of Hirota." App.
Br. 13. But this argument does not rebut the Examiner's finding that
Hirota's Figure 2 itself discloses a flange. See In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331,
1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("The use of patents as references is not limited
to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems
with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art,
relevant for all they contain."). Thus, Appellants do not apprise us of
error in the Examiner's finding that Hirota's Figure 2 discloses a flange.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation
rejection of claim 1. Appellants' only argument regarding claim 4 is
based on its dependency from claim 1. See App. Br. 13. Thus, we also
sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 4.
5
Appeal2013-005912
Application 12/852,788
Re} ection II
The Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 4 depends on
the same findings discussed above in the anticipation rejection, as well as the
Examiner's determination that it would have been obvious "to use Hirota's
attachment method to the flange ... since a flange is also a plate in order to
prevent detachment, breakage or the like as taught by Hirota, col. 3 11. 50-
52." Final Act. 5. Appellants argue that "while Hirota does describe
overcoming detachment, breakage or the like, there is nothing to suggest a
flange as claimed." App. Br. 14. This argument is not persuasive because it
does not address the portion of Hirota's Figure 2 that the Examiner finds
discloses a flange. Appellants' other arguments against the obviousness
rejection of claim 1 emphasize the same limitations discussed above in the
anticipation rejection. See App. Br. 14--15. These arguments are not
persuasive for the same reasons discussed above. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 4.
Rejection III
Appellants' only argument against the Examiner's rejection of claims
5 and 6 is based on their dependency from claim 1. See App. Br. 18. Thus,
we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 5 and 6.
Independent claim 12 recites a method for assembling a thermal
machine. Regarding claim 12 and its dependent claim 14, the Examiner's
rejection states, in its entirety, that "Hirota i.v. Voorheis's prior art apparatus
being identical to the claimed apparatus, both apparatus [sic] will obviously
require the same steps for assembling." Final Act. 6. Appellants argue that
this rejection fails to set forth where the limitations of the claim are
6
Appeal2013-005912
Application 12/852,788
disclosed in the cited references. App. Br. 17-18. The Examiner provides
no response regarding this rejection in the Answer. We agree that with
Appellants that the Examiner has not carried the burden to demonstrate why
the subject matter of claims 12 and 14 is rendered obvious by the cited
references. The Examiner's determination that identical structures are
assembled using the same steps is not accurate in all instances, and the
Examiner provides no evidence or explanation that it is accurate in this case.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 12
and 14.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 and 4 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hirota.
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 and 4 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hirota.
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 5 and 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hirota and Voorheis.
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 12 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hirota and Voorheis.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
em
7