Ex Parte Albers et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 16, 201813173897 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/173,897 06/30/2011 69742 7590 03/20/2018 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY Global Patent Operation - Aviation 901 Main Avenue 3rd Floor Norwalk, CT 06851 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Joseph Charles Albers 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 246983 9933 EXAMINER SEABE, JUSTIN D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/20/2018 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): gpo.mail@ge.com lori.E.rooney@ge.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOSEPH CHARLES ALBERS and MARK WILLARD MARUSKO Appeal2017-007270 Application 13/173,897 Technology Center 3700 Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. According to Appellants, their invention relates to "mounting shrouds made of a low-ductility material in the turbine sections of [gas turbine] engines." Spec. filed June 30, 2011, i-f 2. Claim 1 is the only independent 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is the General Electric Company. Br. 2. Appeal2017-007270 Application 13/173,897 claim on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed claims. 1. A shroud apparatus for a gas turbine engme, compnsmg: a shroud segment comprising low-ductility material and having a hollow cross-sectional shape defined by opposed forward and aft walls, and opposed inner and outer walls, the walls extending between opposed first and second end faces, wherein the inner wall defines an arcuate radially-inward facing inner flowpath surface, wherein the shroud segment includes: a radially-inward facing planar forward mounting surface defined by the forward wall; and a radially-inward facing planar aft mounting surface defined by the aft wall; and a stationary structure surrounding the shroud segment, the stationary structure including: an annular case; a radially-outward facing chordal planar forward bearing surface which engages the forward mounting surfaces; and a radially-outward facing planar aft bearing surface which engages the aft mounting surface of the shroud segment; and wherein at least one of the forward and aft bearing surfaces is defined by a flange or a hook of a component that is attached to the case by one or more mechanical fasteners. REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 7, 8, and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wilkinson (GB 2 397 102 A, pub. July 14, 2004), Razzell (US 2008/0206046 Al, pub. Aug. 28, 2008), and Alford (US 6,733,235 B2, iss. May 11, 2004). 2 Appeal2017-007270 Application 13/173,897 The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4--8, and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Liang (US 7,704,039 Bl, iss. Apr. 27, 2010) and Alford. The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 5-9, and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hemsworth (US 4,087,199, iss. May 2, 1978), Razzell, and Alford. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Liotta (US 5,993, 150, iss. Nov. 30, 1999) and Alford. The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Halliwell (US 6,062,813, iss. May 16, 2000), Razzell, and Alford. The Examiner rejects claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Liotta, Alford, and Halliwell. ANALYSIS Initially, we note that Appellants argue against all of the rejections together (see Br. 7-10), and argue with reference only to independent claim 1. Thus, "[d]ependent [c]laims 2-14 ... stand or fall with ... [ c ]laim 1" (id. at 7). As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, among other recitations, "a shroud segment comprising low-ductility material and having a hollow cross-sectional shape defined by opposed forward and aft walls, ... a radially-inward facing planar forward mounting surface defined by the forward wall[,] and a radially-inward facing planar aft mounting surface defined by the aft wall." Br., Claims App. (emphases added). In the 3 Appeal2017-007270 Application 13/173,897 obviousness rejection of claim 1 based on Wilkinson, Razzell, and Alford, the Examiner determines that "[i]t would have been obvious ... to modify the mounting and bearing surfaces of Wilkinson with the planar surfaces as taught by Alford for the purposes of reducing undesirable forces on the mating surfaces." Answer 4. The Examiner's other rejections of claim 1 propose similar modifications to Liang (see, e.g., id. at 6), Hemsworth (see, e.g., id. at 8), Liotta (see, e.g., id. at 10-11 ), and Halliwell (see, e.g., id. at 13), for the same purpose. Appellants argue as follows: [T]he Examiner's use of and reliance upon ... Alford ... overlooks a critical difference between Alford and the other references . . . upon [which the Examiner relies in the claim rejections]. The "projection" 14 of Alford is located centrally, between ... outer edges 26 and 27[,] and between the forward and aft edges of the region overlying ... blade 42, in contrast to the mounting schemes of all of the other references where the mounting surfaces are spread apart on either side of the blade region. In fact, Figure 5 of Alford and the accompanying text in [c]olumn 7, lines 16 to 54, describe Alford's reason and motivation for the central mounting scheme[-]so that a force balance can be done to balance forces resulting from the operation of the rotating blade row beneath the shroud. In fact, Alford states in lines 51 to 54, "In this example as shown in FIG.[]5, the position 'X' on shroud segment body 12 was in the range of about two thirds to three fourths of the distance from axially forward edge 26 to axially aft edge 27 ." [Appellants] respectfully submit that to incorporate any features of the [centrally-balanced] mounting scheme of ... Alford ... into any of the other primary references used in the 5 rejections of [i]ndependent [ c ]laim 1 would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, because to do so would require a substantial redesign of the basic structure of the primary reference[ s]. 4 Appeal2017-007270 Application 13/173,897 Br. 9 (citation omitted). Based on our review of the record, however, Appellants do not persuade us that the Examiner errs. It is not clear to us, and Appellants do not explain sufficiently or provide evidence tending to establish, that modifying any of Wilkinson, Liang, Hemsworth, Liotta, and Halliwell (hereinafter "the primary references") would require a substantial redesign. As quoted above, Appellants contend that a substantial redesign would be required to modify any of the primary references "to incorporate [the planar mounting surfaces] of the mounting scheme of ... Alford" because, in each of the primary references, "the mounting surfaces are spread apart on either side of the blade region" rather than being "located centrally" as in Alford. Id. However, the Examiner takes the position that "the same advantages" are afforded by planar mounting surfaces, regardless of whether the mounting surfaces are centered or off-centered (Answer 15), implicating that the proposed modifications to the primary references would not require a substantial redesign. And, significantly, the Examiner supports this position by citing to prior art of record (i.e., evidence). Specifically, for example, the Examiner finds that Darkins2 discloses a mounting arrangement that is similar to those disclosed in the primary references; and the Examiner finds that Darkins teaches that, with such a mounting arrangement, the mounting surfaces are "preferably planar" (bold omitted). Answer 15 (citation omitted). Appellants do not adequately address (e.g., present arguments in a Reply Brief) why the Examiner's position is incorrect and/or unsupported by the record, much less provide evidence to the contrary. 2 US 6,702,550 B2, iss. Mar. 9, 2004. 5 Appeal2017-007270 Application 13/173,897 Thus, based on the foregoing, Appellants do not persuade us that any of the Examiner's rejections are in error. Therefore, we sustain each of the rejections. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-14. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation