UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 12, 2020

15106566 - (D) (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.
15/106,566 06/20/2016 Igor S. Garcia 73562US02 (U420826US2) 6019
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 IGOR S. GARCIA, SHU LIU, ROBERT RUSSELL MAYER,
ERIC BAKER, STEPHANIE ERNST, FERNANDO K. GRANT,
ANDREW S. MILLER, PETER BALAWAJDER,
and PAUL W. PALMER

Appeal 2020-001296
Application 15/106,566
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 2.2 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2 Claims 3–20 have been withdrawn pursuant to a restriction requirement.
See Appeal Br. 8–15. 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
Appeal 2020-001296
Application 15/106,566

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;
a core assembly coupled to the fan assembly, the core
assembly including:
a compressor section including at least one
compressor having a plurality of compressor blades;
a turbine section including at least one turbine
having a plurality of turbine blades;
a combustor section disposed between the
compressor section and the turbine section;
a core case surrounding the compressor section,
the turbine section, and the combustor section, and
defining a core case first surface;
a blade containment ring directly coupled to the
core case and surrounding at least one of the compressor
section and the turbine section and defining a
containment ring first surface spaced from and oriented

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 2020-001296
Application 15/106,566

3
towards the core case first surface to define a
containment gap therebetween; and
a containment layer disposed in the containment
gap and configured to dissipate energy from radially
projecting impacts.
Appeal Br. 16–17.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by McMillan.3
DISCUSSION
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that McMillan discloses a
gas turbine engine as claimed. Final Act. 2–3. More specifically, in relevant
part, the Examiner finds that McMillan discloses a containment casing,
which is the claimed core case, with an outer layer 4 including a hook 10
that is directly coupled to an inner layer 8, which is a portion of the claimed
blade containment ring. See id.; see also Ans. 3–4. We agree with and
adopt the Examiner’s findings with respect to claim 1. See Final Act. 2–3;
see also Ans. 3–4.
Appellant argues that McMillan does not disclose a direct coupling
between the core case and the blade containment ring, as required by the
claim. Appeal Br. 6. More specifically, Appellant asserts that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claim requires that there is “no intermediate
layer or component” separating the containment ring and the core case, and
thus, Appellant asserts that McMillan does not anticipate the claim because

3 McMillan, US 9,097,139 B2, iss. Aug. 4, 2015.
Appeal 2020-001296
Application 15/106,566

4
the hook 10 is an intermediate component between the identified core case
and containment ring. Reply Br. 2–3.
We are not persuaded. Even if we were to agree with Appellant
regarding the appropriate interpretation of the claim, Appellant does not
explain adequately why hook 10 would be considered an intermediate layer
or component between McMillan’s elements 4 and 8. McMillan discloses
that hook 10 “may be integrally formed with the outer layer 4 and extends
radially inwardly” and is conventionally made from “the same metallic alloy
as the outer layer.” McMillan col. 4, ll. 16–21. Based on this disclosure, we
find that it is reasonable to consider the hook portion to be an extension of
the outer layer 4 and not a separate or intermediate component. Thus, even
if we were to adopt Appellant’s proposed interpretation of the claim, we
agree with the Examiner that McMillan discloses a direct coupling between
elements 4 and 8, as required by claim 1.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also
sustain the rejection of claim 2, for which Appellant does not provide
separate arguments. See Appeal Br. 8.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1 and 2.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1, 2 102(a)(1) McMillan 1, 2

Appeal 2020-001296
Application 15/106,566

5
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