Ex Parte Albers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 16, 2018

13173897 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2018)

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