UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 25, 2020

14948768 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 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.
14/948,768 11/23/2015 Christine F. McGinnis 78587US02(14-365-2) 9358
52237 7590 09/25/2020
Bachman & LaPointe, P.C.
900 Chapel St., Suite 1201
New Haven, CT 06510
EXAMINER
SOSNOWSKI, DAVID E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHRISTINE F. MCGINNIS and
STEVEN J. BAUER

Appeal 2019-006693
Application 14/948,768
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 7, 9–12, 14, 15, and 17–29, which
constitute all the claims pending in this application. See Appeal Br. 4.
“Claims 5–6, 8, 13, 16, and 30 have been cancelled.” Appeal Br. 4. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

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.
Appeal 2019-006693
Application 14/948,768

2
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates to a gas turbine engine and, more
particularly, to a case therefore.” Spec. ¶ 2. Apparatus claims 1 and 15 are
independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is
reproduced below.
1. A mid-turbine frame case for a gas turbine engine,
comprising:
a cast case section comprising a multiple of cast
features, said cast case section welded between a forged
forward case section and a forged aft case section, said forged
forward case section configured for containment of a high
pressure turbine rotor stage, said forged aft case section
configured for containment of a low pressure turbine rotor
stage.
EVIDENCE
Name Reference Date
Burdgick et al. (“Burdgick”) US 5,605,438 Feb. 25, 1997
Eleftheriou et al.
(“Eleftheriou”)
US 2005/0022501 A1 Feb. 3, 2005
Hellgren et al. (“Hellgren”) WO 2013/095202 A1 June 27, 2013
Appeal 2019-006693
Application 14/948,768

3
REJECTIONS2
Claims 1–4, 7, 9–12, 15, 17–19, 25, 26, 28, and 29 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Hellgren.3
Claims 14, 20, 21, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hellgren and Eleftheriou.
Claims 22–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hellgren and Burdgick.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1–4, 7, 9–12, 15, 17–19, 25, 26, 28, and 29
as anticipated by Hellgren
Appellant argues all these claims together. See Appeal Br. 8–13. We
select independent claim 1 for review, with the remaining claims standing or
falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claim 1 recites a “cast case section . . . welded between a forged
forward case section and a forged aft case section.” The Examiner
references Figure 4 of Hellgren, and specifically “cast case section” 43
located “between a forged forward case section (44) and a[] forged aft case
section (45).” Final Act. 5. The Examiner also identifies where Hellgren
teaches that “[t]raditionally, supporting structures have been manufactured
as one large casted component,” but that in order “[t]o reduce costs,” it has

2 The rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for being indefinite,
and the double patenting objection of claim 30 for being a substantial
duplicate of claim 27 (see Final Act. 3–4), are both moot in view of the
cancellation of claim 30. See Appeal Br. 4, Response After Final dated
December 31, 2018.
3 The Examiner also listed claim 16, but this claim had been earlier canceled.
See Appeal Br. 4, Amendment dated July 3, 2018.
Appeal 2019-006693
Application 14/948,768

4
become “common to manufacture supporting structures by assembling of
pre-fabricated parts, such as smaller casted, forged and sheet metal parts.”
Final Act. 5 (referencing Hellgren 1:25–29). Hellgren further states that
“[t]ypically, the parts are welded together.” Hellgren 1:29; see also Final
Act. 5. Regarding the specific components of Hellgren relied upon by the
Examiner, i.e., items 43, 44, and 45, the Examiner identifies where Hellgren
states, “front case 43, front flange 44 and rear case 45 are produced by
known means. All these main parts are welded together as to form the
component 37.” Final Act. 5 (referencing Hellgren 7:27–29).
Appellant does not dispute these teachings of Hellgren. Instead,
Appellant contends that “Hellgren does not even disclose a mid-turbine
frame” because Hellgren’s item 37 is “located between the low pressure
compressor 4 and the high pressure compressor 5 (shown as 37 in Fig. 1).”
Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis added). Appellant contends that Hellgren’s
“structure 37 is forward of the combustor 6 and thus is simply not applicable
to the high temperature turbine region aft of the combustor 6.” Appeal Br. 8.
The Examiner disagrees explaining that “Hellgren explicitly states
that the structure taught by Hellgren is suitable for use in a mid-turbine
frame.” Ans. 4 (referencing Hellgren 5:18–6:27, 10:24–28).
Hellgren does indeed describe that supporting structure 37 is located
between compressor sections as Appellant contends above. See, e.g.,
Hellgren Fig. 1. However, Hellgren also teaches that “[t]he invention is not
limited by the embodiments described above but can be modified in various
ways within the scope of the claims.” Hellgren 10:4–5. More specifically,
Hellgren states, “the invention is not limited to the ICC 37 exemplified
above” but that “[i]t is also applicable to other supporting structures in a gas
Appeal 2019-006693
Application 14/948,768

5
turbine engine such as . . . a turbine rear frame (TRF).” Hellgren 10:24–27.
Of importance is Hellgren’s correlation of the above cited “turbine rear
frame (TRF)” to “rear supporting structure 27.” Hellgren 6:15–16. Of even
greater importance is Hellgren’s disclosure that this rear supporting structure
27 is located between turbine sections (unlike exemplary structure 37). See
Hellgren Fig. 1; see also Ans. 5 (referencing “adjacent structures 37, 27”).
In view of the above, Appellant’s contention that Hellgren’s
supporting structures, and their manner of constructions, is limited solely for
use between compressor sections is not a correct reading of the scope of
Hellgren’s teachings. In other words, Appellant’s contention that “Hellgren
does not even disclose a mid-turbine frame” does not take into account the
portions of Hellgren discussed above and noted by the Examiner. Appeal
Br. 8.
Claim 1 further recites, “said forged forward case section configured
for containment of a high pressure turbine rotor stage, said forged aft case
section configured for containment of a low pressure turbine rotor stage.”
Appeal Br. 17 (Claims Appendix). Appellant contends, “the Hellgren
component is [] not directed to a containment structure of any sort.” Appeal
Br. 8. In other words, “Hellgren’s component is not arranged in any way
outboard of the rotors, and thus does not provide containment” as
understood by a person skilled in the art.4 Appeal Br. 8; see also id. at 12;
Reply Br. 2.

4 “Appellant’s point is that ‘containment’ has a particular definition in the
aerospace world.” Appeal Br. 9.
Appeal 2019-006693
Application 14/948,768

6
The Examiner disagrees, noting the use of different terms by
Appellant and Hellgren to identify similar structure.5 Ans. 7. The Examiner
states that “the forward and aft case sections disclosed in Hellgren are
configured for containment of high and low pressure turbine rotor states as
claimed.” Ans. 5–6 (referencing Hellgren Fig. 1 and “rotors 7, 8 adjacent
structure 27”). “As such, the examiner maintains that the structure disclosed
by Hellgren teaches a containment structure as claimed.” Ans. 6.
There is merit to the Examiner’s contentions, and especially as
Appellant’ Specification acknowledges that a mid-turbine frame (i.e., “an
inter-turbine frame”) of an engine “typically includes a plurality of hollow
vanes,” i.e., that it is “a load bearing structure that provides rotor
containment.” Spec. ¶¶ 3, 4. Appellant does not explain how Hellgren’s
corresponding “rear supporting structure 27,” which is located intermediate
high and low pressure turbines 7 and 8 (see Hellgren Fig. 1 illustrating the
vanes thereof), and which is also expressed as being load bearing (see
Hellgren 6:11–17), fails to provide the requisite containment, when
Appellant’s similarly located structure does.
We further understand from Appellant that the Federal Aviation
Administration, as well as the “DOT,” provide “regulations associated with
blade containment structures” thereby giving credence to Appellant’s
contention that “‘containment’ has a particular definition in the aerospace
world.” Appeal Br. 9. However, Appellant does not explain how Hellgren’s

5 The Examiner contrasts Appellant’s “mid-turbine frame” with Hellgren’s
“turbine mid-structure,” stating that this is merely “lexicographical” and that
“Hellgren uses ‘turbine mid-structure’ within the context of supporting
structures.” Ans. 7 (referencing Hellgren 10:24–28).
Appeal 2019-006693
Application 14/948,768

7
similarly situated structure runs afoul of these regulations or this
understanding. Instead, Appellant contends that the Examiner’s findings
“stretch the teachings of Hellgren” and, as such, “simply cannot be
supported.” Reply Br. 3.
In view of the teachings above and the requisite regulatory
requirements, Appellant’s contentions above are not indicative that the
Examiner erred when relying on Hellgren for disclosing a support structure
that is constructed as recited, or which is configured to provide containment
as recited.
Appellant also contends that “Hellgren provides a telescopic
structure” and references tapered plate member 48 that fits into a cutout as
support for this contention. Appeal Br. 10; see also id. at 11, Reply Br. 3.
However, Appellant does not identify where Hellgren actually teaches that
components 43, 44, and 45 move after being assembled together, nor does
Appellant address Figures 2 and 3 of Hellgren which would dispel any
concept that components 43, 44, and 45 are telescopic. Further, Appellant’s
contention that components 43, 44, and 45 move with respect to each other
is contradicted by Hellgren’s clear disclosure that they are, instead joined by
welding. See Hellgren 7:27–29 (discussing items 43, 44, and 45 stating
“[a]ll these main parts are welded together”).
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not informed
of Examiner error when claims 1–4, 7, 9–12, 15, 17–19, 25, 26, 28, and 29
were rejected as being anticipated by Hellgren. We sustain their rejection.
Appeal 2019-006693
Application 14/948,768

8
The rejection of claims 14, 20, 21, and 27
as unpatentable over Hellgren and Eleftheriou
Appellant argues these claims together (see Appeal Br. 14) and
provides further arguments regarding claim 27. We select claim 14 and
claim 27 for review, with claims 20 and 21 standing or falling with their
respectively grouped claim.6
Claim 14
Claim 14 depends directly from claim 1 and further recites “wherein
said cast case section contains Inconel 718.” The Examiner acknowledges
Hellgren’s failure to explicitly teach this specific material, and thus relies on
Eleftheriou for such teaching. See Final Act. 11. The Examiner reasons that
since “both Hellgren and Eleftheriou teach gas turbine engine casings and
their methods of construction,” it therefore would have been obvious to
provide a “case cast section [that] contains Inconel 718” because it is “a
suitable material for the case assembly’s construction.” Final Act. 11. The
Examiner states that it is within a skilled persons’ ability “to select a known
material on the basis of its suitability . . . as a matter of obvious design
choice.” Final Act. 11.
Appellant does not challenge Eleftheriou’s teaching of employing
Inconel 718 in the manner recited, but instead, “respectfully submits that
there is simply no motivation to manufacture the Hellgren component out of
Inconel other than that disclosed by Appellant.” Appeal Br. 14. Appellant
succinctly contends, “[t]his is hindsight.” Appeal Br. 14.

6 Regarding claim 20, Appellant refers to “the distinctions discussed above”
regarding a discussion of all the claims. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant does not
comment on claim 21.
Appeal 2019-006693
Application 14/948,768

9
We disagree with Appellant’s assertion. The Examiner explains that
the incorporation of Eleftheriou’s material “into the structure of Hellgren
was based upon prior art teachings,” not Appellant’s disclosure. Final Act.
10. Indeed, Eleftheriou teaches the use of strong material, like steel, in
certain areas of the turbine “for containing blade-off events.” Eleftheriou
¶ 3. Eleftheriou further teaches that while steel can be used, “a combination
of materials may [also] be used (e.g. steel and Inconel, etc.)” as well.
Eleftheriou ¶ 35; see also id. at 50, Final Act. 10. Thus, Appellant’s
contention of “hindsight” is not indicative that the Examiner erred when
expressly relying on the teachings of Eleftheriou for the inclusion of Inconel
into the case of Hellgren. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14
and 20 as being obvious over Hellgren and Eleftheriou.
Claim 27
Claim 27 depends indirectly from claim 1 and further recites the
limitation “wherein the forward containment zone is operable to contain a
blade-out incident.” The Examiner relies on Eleftheriou for teaching the use
of higher strength material “for protection from blade-out incidents.” Final
Act. 13 (referencing Eleftheriou ¶ 3). Appellant contends that “Hellgren
simply has no such concern.” Appeal Br. 14. Appellant’s focus on Hellgren
for concern of blade-out incidents does not accurately address the
Examiner’s rejection, which instead relies on Eleftheriou for discussing
“blade-off events.” Eleftheriou ¶ 3; see also Final Act. 13. Accordingly,
there is no indication the Examiner erred with relying on the combination of
Hellgren and Eleftheriou for such teachings.
Appeal 2019-006693
Application 14/948,768

10
Consequently, and based on the record presented, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 14, 20, 21, and 27 as being obvious over
Hellgren and Eleftheriou.
The rejection of claims 22–24
as unpatentable over Hellgren and Burdgick
Appellant presents arguments for claim 22, and then, with respect to
claims 23 and 24, relies on “the reasons discussed above with regard to
claim 22.” Appeal Br. 15. We select claim 22 for review, with claims 23
and 24 standing or falling with claim 22.
Regarding claim 22, Appellant contends that the recited “‘dummy’
feature” is “simply not an issue with regard to Hellgren” because Hellgren
“is located in the relatively cool compressor section.” Appeal Br. 15.
However, as indicated above, Hellgren is not silent regarding usage in
higher-temperature locations, such as those associated with turbines.
Regardless, Hellgren cautions that in some places, the temperature “may be
too high for using easily machinable materials.” Hellgren 10:27–29. As
such, this contention by Appellant is not indicative of Examiner error.
Further, and specifically regarding the claimed usage of a “‘dummy’
feature,” the Examiner relied on Burdgick for such teachings, not Hellgren.
Hence, Appellant is not responding to the Examiner’s rejection. As such,
there is no indication the Examiner erred when relying on the combination
of Hellgren and Burdgick for such teachings.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 22–24 as being obvious over Hellgren and
Burdgick.
Appeal 2019-006693
Application 14/948,768

11
CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 7, 9–
12, 15, 17–
19, 25, 26,
28, 29
102(a)(1) Hellgren 1–4, 7, 9–12,
15, 17–19,
25, 26, 28,
29

14, 20, 21,
27
103 Hellgren, Eleftheriou 14, 20, 21,
27

22–24 103 Hellgren, Burdgick 22–24
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 7, 9–12,
14, 15, 17–
29

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED