UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 21, 2020

14912132 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 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.
14/912,132 02/15/2016 Hoyt Y. Chang 67097-2581
PUS1; 73014US0
3205
54549 7590 08/21/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
BURKE, THOMAS P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/21/2020 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte HOYT Y. CHANG and MICHAEL G. McCAFFREY
____________________

Appeal 2020-000411
Application 14/912,132
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, 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, 2, 6–12, and 16–20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellant, the “disclosure relates to a gas turbine engine
including a plate, a frame attached to the plate, and a panel . . . supported by
the frame.” Spec. ¶ 4. Claims 1, 12, and 17 are the independent claims on
appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed claims.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies United Technologies Corporation as
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-000411
Application 14/912,132

2
1. A gas turbine engine, comprising:
a plate;
a frame attached to the plate; and
a panel supported by the frame, wherein the panel is
spaced-apart from the plate by the frame such that the panel and
the plate are not directly connected;
wherein the panel includes first radially inner flange and
a second radially inner flange, and a first radially outer flange
and a second radially outer flange spaced-apart from the first
radially inner flange and the second radially inner flange by a
first slot and a second slot;
wherein the frame includes a first grip engaging the first
radially outer flange of the panel, and a second grip engaging
the second radially outer flange of the panel; and
wherein the first grip and second grip engage both a
radially outer surface and a radially inner surface of a respective
one of the first radially outer flange and the second radially
outer flange.
Appeal Br., Claims App.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 6 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite;
II. Claims 1, 7, 11, and 17–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Krusch (US 2011/0318531 A1, published
Dec. 29, 2011);
III. Claims 2, 12, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Krusch and Charleux et al. (US 2012/0301691 A1,
published Nov. 29, 2012) (“Charleux”);
IV. Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Krusch
and Jeppel et al. (DE 41 14 768 A1, published Nov. 21, 1991)
(“Jeppel”); and
Appeal 2020-000411
Application 14/912,132

3
V. Claims 8–10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Krusch and Jacobs et al. (US 5,333,995, issued Aug. 2,
1994) (“Jacobs”).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I—Indefiniteness rejection of claims 6 and 10
Claim 6
As stated above, the Examiner rejects dependent claim 6 as indefinite.
Specifically, the Examiner determines that “[c]laim 6 recites the limitation
‘the first and second projections’ in lines 4 [to] 5. It is unclear if the claim
requires a single first projection and a single second projection or a group of
first projections and a group of second projections.” Final Action 2.
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part,
“wherein the frame includes a first grip engaging the first radially outer
flange of the panel, and a second grip engaging the second radially outer
flange of the panel.” Appeal Br., Claims App. Claim 6 depends from
claim 1, and recites
wherein the first grip and the second grip are semicircular and
include a first projection engaging radially outer surface and a
second projection engaging a radially inner surface of a
respective one of the first radially outer flange and the second
radially outer flange, the first and second projections connected
by a respective semicircular portion extending around a
respective one of the first radially outer flange and the second
radially outer flange.
Id. Based on our review of the record, consistent with Appellant’s argument,
the Examiner does not support adequately that the claim is indefinite.
Appeal Br. 4–5. Specifically, as claim 6 recites, “the first and second
projections [are] connected by a respective semicircular portion extending
Appeal 2020-000411
Application 14/912,132

4
around a respective one of the first radially outer flange and the second
radially outer flange.” Id. at Claims App. That is, the claim recites that the
first grip’s first and second projections are connected by a semicircular
portion extending around the first radially outer flange, while the second
grip’s first and second projections are connected by a semicircular portion
extending around the second radially outer flange.
Claim 10
Also, as stated above, the Examiner rejects dependent claim 10 as
indefinite. In particular, the Examiner determines that
[c]laim 10 recites the limitation “each of the grooves
receiving projections of an associated one of the first grip and
the second grip” in lines 2 [to] 3. It is unclear if the claim
requires each of the grooves to receive multiple projections
from a single grip[,] or if each of the grooves receives a single
projection from one of the first grip or the second grip.
Final Action 2–3.
Claim 10 depends from claim 8, and claim 8 depends from claim 1.
Claim 8 recites, in relevant part, “a plurality of shims provided between the
first radially outer flange and the second radially outer flange and the first
grip and the second grip such that the first and second grips do not directly
contact the first and second radially outer flanges.” Appeal Br., Claims App.
Claim 10 recites, inter alia, “the plurality of shims each include grooves
extending circumferentially along the respective shim, each of the grooves
receiving projections of an associated one of the first grip and the second
grip.” Id. Based on our review of the record, consistent with Appellant’s
argument, the Examiner does not support adequately that the claim is
indefinite. Id. at 5. The claim includes an arrangement in which each of the
Appeal 2020-000411
Application 14/912,132

5
shims in the plurality of shims includes a groove, and each groove receives a
projection.
Rejection II—Anticipation rejection of claims 1, 7, 11, and 17–19
Claims 1, 7, and 11
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “a
plate; a frame attached to the plate; and a panel supported by the frame,
wherein the panel is spaced-apart from the plate by the frame such that the
panel and the plate are not directly connected.” Appeal Br., Claims App.
(emphasis added). Consistent with Appellant’s argument, the Examiner does
not support adequately that Krusch discloses this claim recitation, based on
our review of the record. Appeal Br. 6.
Specifically, with reference to Krusch’s Figure 6, the Examiner finds
that Krusch’s “panel” 10 is spaced apart from “plate” 5 by “frame” 7.
Answer 5. It is not clear, however, that Krusch’s “panel” 10 and “plate” 5
are spaced apart, as opposed to in contact with one another. At most,
Krusch’s Figure 6 arguably shows a gap between elements 5 and 10,
although it is not clear that such a gap is present. Despite Appellant’s
arguments that Krusch does not disclose the claimed spaced-apart
arrangement (Appeal Br. 6), the Examiner does not provide a citation, in
either the Answer or Final Office Action, to any portion of Krusch
describing that elements 5 and 10 are spaced apart. Conversely, although
illustrating another embodiment, Krusch’s Figures 1 and 2, for example,
appear to show elements 5 and 10 directly contact one another. Only a
single paragraph in Krusch—paragraph 65—appears to describe the
embodiment shown in Figure 6. We do not discern anything in this
paragraph explaining that the illustrated embodiment differs from the
Appeal 2020-000411
Application 14/912,132

6
embodiments of Figures 1 and 2 by spacing apart elements 5 and 10. See
Krusch ¶ 65.
Notwithstanding the above discussion, the following provides another
reason for not sustaining the Examiner’s rejection. Independent claim 1
recites, in relevant part, “the [frame’s] first grip and second grip engage both
a radially outer surface and a radially inner surface of a respective one of the
first radially outer flange and the second radially outer flange [of the panel].”
Appeal Br., Claims App. The Examiner does not support adequately that
Krusch discloses a frame’s first grip engaging both outer and inner surfaces
of a panel’s first flange (or the frame’s second grip engaging both outer and
inner surfaces of the panel’s second flange). Appeal Br. 6.
In response to Appellant’s argument in the Appeal Brief, the Examiner
finds that Krusch’s element 7 discloses the first grip that engages both outer
and inner surfaces of element 10. Answer 6. Specifically, with reference to
Krusch’s Figure 5, the Examiner finds that element 7’s portions 18 and 21
disclose the claimed inner-surface and outer-surface engaging portions, as
claimed. See id. (“Krusch’s first grip is interpreted as both elements 21 (the
radially outer element) and 18 (the radially inner element) of Figure 5.”)
(emphasis omitted). It is not apparent to us, however, that Krusch’s
surface 18 of element 7 ever engages element 10. See, e.g., Krusch Fig. 1.
Consequently, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection
of claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7
and 11 that depend from, and the Examiner rejects with, claim 1.
Claims 17–19
Independent claim 17 includes recitations similar to both of those
discussed above with respect to claim 1. Thus, we do not sustain the
Appeal 2020-000411
Application 14/912,132

7
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 17, or of dependent
claims 18 and 19 depending from claim 17, for the same reasons that we do
not sustain claim 1’s anticipation rejection.
Rejections III–V—Obviousness rejections of claims 2, 6, 8–10, 12, 16,
and 20
Claims 2, 6, 8–10, and 20
Claims 2, 6, 8–10, and 20 depend from independent claims 1 and 17.
The Examiner does not rely on any reference to disclose anything that would
remedy the above deficiency in the rejection of claim 1 or claim 17. Thus,
we do not sustain any of the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 2,
6, 8–10, and 20.
Claims 12 and 16
Independent claim 12 recites:
12. A panel for a gas turbine engine, comprising:
a radially outer flange; and
a radially inner flange protruding axially beyond the
radially outer flange;
a slot formed between the radially inner flange and the
radially outer flange;
wherein the panel is formed of a ceramic matric
composite (CMC) material; and
wherein the CMC material includes a plurality of axial
fibers, a length of the axial fibers arranged to follow a contour
of the slot.
Appeal Br., Claims App. Paragraphs 62–64 of Appellant’s Specification
describe, with reference to Appellant’s Figures 6A–C, the claim recitation
that the CMC material includes a plurality of axial fibers, where a length of
the axial fibers is arranged to follow a contour of the panel’s slot. For
example, paragraph 63 of Appellant’s Specification states, and Figure 6B
shows, that “the axial length of the fibers . . . follows the semi-circular
Appeal 2020-000411
Application 14/912,132

8
contour . . . of the slots.” That is, arrangement of an axial fiber near a
curved portion of a slot results in a curve in the axial fiber. This is in
contrast to what paragraph 62 of Appellant’s Specification states, and
Figure 6A shows—an arrangement in which axial fibers near a slot do not
curve. Thus, when given its broadest, reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification, the above claim recitation includes an arrangement in
which an axial fiber near a slot curves.
Consistent with Appellant’s argument, the Examiner does not support
adequately that Charleux discloses an arrangement in which a length of the
axial fibers is arranged to follow a contour of the panel’s slot, as claimed.
Appeal Br. 7; Answer 8–10. According to the Examiner, Charleux discloses
the claim recitation because at least adjacent a slot’s straight portion,
Charleux’s fibers are straight—i.e., at this location, the fibers follow the
(straight) contour of the slot. Answer 8–10. As discussed above, however,
the discussed claim recitation requires an axial fiber near a curved portion of
a slot to curve. The Examiner does not support adequately that Charleux
discloses such an arrangement. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 12, or of claim 16
that depends from, and that the Examiner rejects with, claim 12.

Appeal 2020-000411
Application 14/912,132

9
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s indefiniteness, anticipation, and
obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 6–12, and 16–20.
In summary:

REVERSED

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
6, 10 112(b) Indefiniteness 6, 10
1, 7, 11, 17–19 102(a)(1) Krusch 1, 7, 11, 17–19
2, 12, 16 103 Krusch, Charleux 2, 12, 16
6 103 Krusch, Jeppel 6
8–10, 20 103 Krusch, Jacobs 8–10, 20
Overall
Outcome:
1, 2, 6–12, 16–
20