UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 12, 2020

2020001276 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2020)

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.
15/106,615 06/20/2016 Shu Liu 72759US02 (U420810US2) 3064
135291 7590 08/12/2020
Cantor Colburn LLP - Pratt & Whitney
20 Church Street
22 Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
HASAN, SABBIR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/12/2020 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SHU LIU, ROBERT RUSSELL MAYER, PAUL W. PALMER,
PETER BALAWAJDER, IGOR S. GARCIA, DAVID C. PIMENTA,
STEPHANIE ERNST, FERNANDO K. GRANT,
ERIC BAKER, and ANDREW S. MILLER

Appeal 2020-001276
Application 15/106,615
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 3–6.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United
Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 2 and 16–18 have been cancelled. See Amendment filed Feb. 28,
2019. Claims 7–15, 19, and 20 have been withdrawn pursuant to a
Appeal 2020-001276
Application 15/106,615

2
BACKGROUND
The disclosure in the Specification “generally relates to gas turbine
engines, and more particularly to core cases for gas turbine engines.”
Spec. ¶ 1.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and recites:
1. A gas turbine engine disposed along a longitudinal engine
axis, the gas turbine engine comprising:
a fan assembly; and
a core assembly coupled to the fan assembly, the core
assembly including:
a compressor section;
a turbine section; and
a core case surrounding the compressor section and
the turbine section, the core case defining a containment
section surrounding at least one of the compressor section
and the turbine section, the containment section including
a first containment layer and a second containment layer,
wherein the first containment layer is spaced from the
second containment layer to define a containment gap
having a gap thickness in a radial direction with respect to
the longitudinal engine axis (A) to produce a non-linear

restriction requirement. See Appeal Br. 8–14. Insofar as Appellant raises
arguments challenging the propriety of the Examiner’s restriction
requirement, such arguments relate to petitionable subject matter under
37 C.F.R. § 1.181. Accordingly, the restriction requirement is not before us
on appeal, as we lack jurisdiction over such petitionable matters. See, e.g.,
MPEP § 706.01 (“[T]he Board will not hear or decide issues pertaining to
objections and formal matters which are not properly before the Board.”);
see also MPEP § 1201 (“The Board will not ordinarily hear a question that
should be decided by the Director on petition....”).
Appeal 2020-001276
Application 15/106,615

3
rate of energy dissipation across the first and second
containment layers.
Appeal Br. 16.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.
2. The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 3–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by McMillan.3
DISCUSSION
Indefiniteness
With respect to claim 5, the Examiner finds that the limitation “‘the
first containment layer is supported independent of the second containment
layer’ is unclear as to the structural arrangement of the first and second
containment layers.” Final Act. 2. Appellant attempted to amend this claim,
but the amendment was not entered. See Ans. 3. Appellant does not
respond to the merits of the rejection and only asserts that the amendment
should have been entered. See Reply Br. 2. However, whether an
amendment should have been entered is a petitionable matter that is not
before us on appeal. See note 2 supra. Further, we agree with the Examiner
that that it is not precisely clear from the claim language what the structural
arrangement is between the first and second containment layers, and thus,
we sustain this rejection.
Anticipation
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that McMillan discloses a
gas turbine engine as claimed, including a core case with a first containment

3 McMillan, US 9,097,139 B2, iss. Aug. 4, 2015.
Appeal 2020-001276
Application 15/106,615

4
layer (4 or 14) and a second containment layer (8) that are spaced apartment
such that a gap between the layers is present. Final Act. 3–4 (citing
McMillan Fig. 1; col. 1, ll. 5–11; col. 3, l. 40–col. 4, l. 40; col. 7, ll. 39–42).
Further, the Examiner finds that these layers in McMillan have different
material properties and structural configurations such that there would be a
non-linear rate of energy dissipation across these layers. Id. at 4. We agree
with and adopt the Examiner’s findings with respect to this claim. See Final
Act. 3–4; Ans. 4–5.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues only that “[t]here is no
suggestion in McMillan of ‘a containment gap having a gap thickness in a
radial direction with respect to the longitudinal engine axis (A) to produce a
non-linear rate of energy dissipation across the first and second containment
layers.’” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant does not provide further support for this
argument. See id. However, in the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that there
is “[n]o gap provided between [McMillan’s] item 8 and item 20 (posts).”
Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Although Appellant
points to a structure in McMillan that spans the gap between layers 4 and 8,
Appellant does not explain adequately how this shows that McMillan does
not anticipate the claim. For example, the plain language of the claim does
not require that the gap between the layers is continuous, i.e., the claim
language does not preclude the layers from being connected at certain points
as disclosed in McMillan. We note that there is some indication on the
record that Appellant appears to agree with this interpretation of the claim
because Appellant has attempted to amend claim 5 to specifically require
that the layers do not contact each other. See Appeal Br. 16 (reciting claim 5
Appeal 2020-001276
Application 15/106,615

5
according to the un-entered amendment thereof). Such an amendment
indicates that claim 1 is broader than claim 5, and thus, allows for the layers
to be connected in some manner. Further, Appellant indicates that, because
layers 4 and 8 of McMillan are connected via posts 20, McMillan does not
disclose a non-linear rate of energy dissipation as required by the claim.
Yet, the Examiner explains that the energy dissipation would be non-linear
based on the gap and the structural properties of the layers. Appellant does
not explain adequately why the Examiner’s finding in this regard is
erroneous.
Further, the recitation in claim 1 of, “to produce a non-linear rate of
energy dissipation across the first and second containment layers,” is
functional language. As functional language, we are required only to give
the involved functional language weight to the extent that the prior art is or
is not capable of meeting the limitation. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473,
1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appellant offers no evidence that the existence
of the posts 20 in McMillan makes the gap between layers 4 and 8 incapable
of performing the recited function.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 3 and 4
The Examiner finds that McMillan discloses the limitations recited in
claims 3 and 4. Final Act. 4. Appellant argues only that McMillan does not
disclose such limitations. Reply Br. 4–5. We agree with the Examiner’s
findings, and without further explanation, we are not persuaded of error by
Appellant’s general argument that McMillan does not disclose these
limitations. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 4.
Appeal 2020-001276
Application 15/106,615

6
Claim 5
The Examiner finds that McMillan discloses a first containment layer
that is supported independent of the second containment layer, as required
by claim 5. Final Act. 5. We agree with the Examiner’s finding, and we
note that Appellant only raises arguments with respect to the limitation
recited in the proposed amendment of claim 5, which has not been entered.
Thus, we also sustain the rejection of claim 5.
Claim 6
With respect to claim 6, the Examiner finds that McMillan includes
bumpers 20 that are disposed between the first and second layers to maintain
the thickness of the containment gap. Final Act. 5. Appellant argues only
that posts 20 are not bumpers. Appeal Br. 7–8; see also Reply Br. 5.
Without further explanation as to why element 20 cannot be considered a
bumper as claimed, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s finding with
respect to this claim. Thus, we also sustain the rejection of claim 6.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1 and 3–6.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
5 112(b) Indefniteness 5
1, 3–6 102(a)(1) McMillan 1, 3–6
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–6

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).
Appeal 2020-001276
Application 15/106,615

7
AFFIRMED