UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 20, 2020

14781480 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 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.
14/781,480 09/30/2015 Randy J. Danburg 1213-11949WOUS 5716
11943 7590 07/20/2020
Getz Balich LLC
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205
Farmington, CT 06032
EXAMINER
BURKE, THOMAS P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/20/2020 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):
shenry@getzbalich.com
uspto@getzbalich.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RANDY J. DANBURG, CLAUDE I. BARNETT, and
CARLOS G. FIGUEROA
____________________

Appeal 2020-000909
Application 14/781,480
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–6, 9–11, 13, 14, and 16–21. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellant, the “disclosure relates generally to an
industrial gas turbine engine and, more particularly, to a joint for sealing a

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies United Technologies Corp. as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000909
Application 14/781,480

2
gap between casing segments of a combustor.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1, 10,
and 18 are the independent claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1
as illustrative of the appealed claims.
1. A casing for a combustor, comprising:
an upstream segment;
a downstream segment constructed and arranged to move
telescopically with respect to the upstream segment and along a
centerline; and
a joint having a first flange and bonding material
attaching the first flange to a component, the component
comprising the upstream segment;
the component comprising a tubular component body and
an annular mounting flange that projects radially outward from
the tubular component body;
the first flange comprising an annular first endwall, an
annular second endwall and a tubular sidewall that extends
longitudinally between the annular first endwall and the annular
second endwall; and
the annular first endwall and the annular second endwall
each projecting radially inward from the tubular sidewall;
wherein the annular first endwall is attached to the
annular mounting flange by the bonding material; and
wherein a melting point of the bonding material is less
than a melting point of the first flange, a melting point of the
upstream segment and a melting point of the downstream
segment.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 1–6, 9, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
based on Berry et al. (US 2011/0252805 A1, published Oct. 20,
2011) (“Berry”), Ohri et al. (US 2007/0130958 A1, published
June 14, 2007) (“Ohri”), Cihlar et al. (US 2012/0210729 A1,
Appeal 2020-000909
Application 14/781,480

3
published Aug. 23, 2012) (“Cihlar”),2 Desai et al.
(US 2013/0213047 A1, published Aug. 22, 2013) (“Desai”),
and Grady et al. (US 2005/0028527 A1, published Feb. 10,
2005) (“Grady”);
II. Claims 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable based on Berry, Ohri, Cihlar, Desai, Chen et al.
(US 2013/0086920 A1, published Apr. 11, 2013) (“Chen”), and
Grady; and
III. Claims 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable based on
Berry, Ohri, Cihlar, Desai, Grady, and Moyer (US 5,439,637,
issued Aug. 8, 1995).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I—Obviousness rejection of claims 1–6, 9, and 21
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, a
casing for a combustor, comprising:
the first flange comprising an annular first endwall, an
annular second endwall and a tubular sidewall that extends
longitudinally between the annular first endwall and the annular
second endwall; . . .
the annular first endwall and the annular second endwall
each projecting radially inward from the tubular sidewall;
wherein the annular first endwall is attached to the
[upstream segment’s] annular mounting flange by the bonding
material; [and]
wherein a melting point of the bonding material is less
than a melting point of the first flange, a melting point of the
upstream segment and a melting point of the downstream
segment.

2 Throughout prosecution, the Examiner refers to this reference as “Chilar.”
See, e.g., Answer 3.
Appeal 2020-000909
Application 14/781,480

4
Appeal Br., Claims App. Restated, the first flange (that includes annular
first and second endwalls projecting radially inward from a tubular sidewall)
is a separate component from the upstream segment (that includes an annular
mounting flange). The first flange attaches to the upstream segment by a
bonding material—more specifically, the bonding material attaches the
upstream segment’s annular mounting flange to the first flange’s annular
first endwall. Appellant’s Figure 5, reproduced below, illustrates this
arrangement.

Appellant’s Figure 5
Appellant’s Figure 5 shows bonding material 80 attaching first
flange 66’s annular first endwall 72 to upstream segment 60’s annular
mounting flange 78.
According to the Examiner, “Berry teaches . . . all elements of the
claimed invention except for the specific location of damage occurring in the
flow sleeve and the repair of the flow sleeve by brazing”—i.e., everything
except a bonding material between the upstream segment and the first
flange, as specifically claimed. Answer 4. In particular, the Examiner
Appeal 2020-000909
Application 14/781,480

5
compares Berry’s Figure 4, reproduced below, with Appellant’s Figure 5.
See id.

Berry’s Figure 4
Berry’s Figure 4 shows, using the claim’s nomenclature, that there is
no separate “upstream segment” and “first flange”—instead, Berry’s axial
flow sleeve 62 and annular flange 70 appear to be parts of the same
component.
With reference to Berry’s Figure 4, and again using the claim’s
nomenclature, for us to sustain the rejection, the Examiner must support
adequately that based on the disclosures of Berry, Ohri, Cihlar, Desai, and/or
Grady, it would have been obvious to separate a leftmost endwall of
flange 70 into two parts, and use a bonding material between those two
parts. However, consistent with Appellant’s argument (see Appeal Br. 9–11)
nowhere in the record (see, e.g., Answer 4–6; see, e.g., Final Action 3–5)
does the Examiner establish that based on Berry, Ohri, Cihlar, Desai, and/or
Grady, it would have been obvious to separate Berry’s annular flange 70 into
two parts, and attach one portion of annular flange 70 to another portion of
annular flange 70 by a bonding material. We note, for example, that no
Appeal 2020-000909
Application 14/781,480

6
reference on which the Examiner relies shows an “upstream segment”
bonded to a “first flange,” let alone an upstream segment’s annular mounting
flange bonded to a first flange’s annular endwall. By way of further
example, even if we agree with the Examiner that, based on Ohri’s, Cihlar’s,
and Desai’s disclosures, “one having ordinary skill . . . would have
recognized that Berry’s flow sleeves are subjected to thermal stresses and
combustion dynamics which may require the elements to be repaired or
replaced,” the Examiner still does not support that it would have been
obvious to use a bonding material between an upstream segment’s annular
mounting flange and a first flange’s annular first endwall, as specifically
claimed. Answer 4.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 2–6, 9, and 21 that depend from, and the Examiner
rejects with, independent claim 1.
Rejections II and III—Obviousness rejections of claims 10, 11, 13, 14,
and 16–20
Independent claims 10 and 18 include recitations similar to those
discussed above with respect to claim 1. The Examiner does not rely on
Chen or Moyer to disclose anything that would remedy the above deficiency
in claim 1’s rejection. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of claims 10 and 18. Further, claims 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20
depend from independent claims 1, 10, and 18, and we do not sustain the
dependent claims’ rejections for the same reasons that we do not sustain the
independent claims’ rejections.
Appeal 2020-000909
Application 14/781,480

7
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of each of the
claims.
In summary:
REVERSED

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 9, 21 103 Berry, Ohri, Cihlar,
Desai, Grady
1–6, 9, 21
10, 11,
13, 14,
16, 17
103 Berry, Ohri, Cihlar,
Desai, Chen, Grady
10, 11, 13,
14, 16, 17
18–20 103 Berry, Ohri, Cihlar,
Desai, Grady, Moyer
18–20
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 9–11,
13, 14, 16–21