Ex Parte Brilliant et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 2017

13409305 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2017)

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. 13/409,305 03/01/2012 Lisa I. Brilliant PA21180U;67097-1745PUS1 1054 54549 7590 03/30/2017 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER KIM, TAE JUN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2017 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 LISA I. BRILLIANT, BECKY E. ROSE, YUAN DONG, and STANLEY J. BALAMUCKI Appeal 2014-007826 Application 13/409,305 Technology Center 3700 Before JOHN C. KERINS, KEN B. BARRETT, and SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Lisa I. Brilliant et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1—8, 12—18, and 22—26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a turbine engine having a particular configuration for a low pressure bleed. Claim 1, reproduced below with certain language emphasized, is illustrative: Appeal 2014-007826 Application 13/409,305 1. A turbine engine comprising: a compressor section having at least a low pressure compressor, and a core flowpath passing through said low pressure compressor, said core flowpath having an inner diameter and an outer diameter, wherein said outer diameter has a slope angle of between approximately 0 degrees and approximately 15 degrees relative to an engine central longitudinal axis; a combustor in fluid communication with the compressor section; a turbine section in fluid communication with the combustor; and said low pressure compressor further comprising an exit guide vane located in a low pressure compressor outlet section of said core flowpath and a low pressure bleed located between a low pressure compressor rotor and said exit guide vane, wherein said low pressure bleed further comprises a bleed trailing edge extending into said core flowpath beyond said outer diameter of said core flowpath. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects: (i) claims 1—8, 12—18, and 22—26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Suciu (US 2009/0056306 Al, published Mar. 5, 2009), optionally or alternatively as evidenced by Merry (US 2010/0247306 Al, published Sept. 30, 2010); (ii) claims 1—8, 12—18, and 22—26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Merry; 2 Appeal 2014-007826 Application 13/409,305 (iii) claims 1, 2, 4—7, 12, 14—17, 22, and 24—26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Moniz (US 2007/0137175 Al, published June 21, 2007); (iv) claims 1—8, 12—18, and 22—26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suciu in view of either Lewis or Walsh, and optionally in view of Merry or Moniz; (v) claims 1—8, 12—18, and 22—26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Merry in view of either Lewis or Walsh, and optionally in view of Moniz; and (vi) claims 1, 2, 4—8, 12—18, and 22—26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Orlando (US 2008/0098715 Al, published May 1, 2008) in view of any of Suciu, Merry, and/or Moniz, and further in view of either Lewis or Walsh. The Final Action includes an objection to the claims as failing to clearly define where the claimed outer diameter is to be determined. Final Act. 2. To the extent that the below analysis does not address this objection, it is to be noted that objections are not within the jurisdiction of the Board, and no separate determination as to the merits of the objection is made herein. A rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—8, 12—18, and 22—26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Starr (US 2010/0223903 Al, published Sept. 9, 2010) in view of either Lewis (US 2005/0265825, published Dec. 1, 2005) or Walsh, “Gas Turbine Performance” (hereafter “Walsh”), and optionally in view of Merry or Moniz, is withdrawn on appeal. Ans. 4. 3 Appeal 2014-007826 Application 13/409,305 ANALYSIS Claims 1—8, 12—18, and 22—26—Suciu (Merry) At issue in this anticipation rejection is whether the low pressure bleed disclosed by Suciu has a bleed trailing edge extending into a core flowpath beyond an outer diameter of said core flowpath. Ans. 26—27. More specifically, the issue is where the outer diameter of the core flowpath is to be measured.1 Id. at 27. The Examiner takes the position that this dimension is to be measured “at a point radially outward and/or to the left of the bleed trailing edge in order to meet the claim limitations.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Appellants, on the other hand, argue, via annotations to a pertinent portion of Figure 2 of Suciu, that the outer diameter of the core flowpath is to be taken essentially at the same position as the location of the bleed trailing edge. Appeal Br. 5. That annotated version of a portion of Figure 2 of Suciu appears below: 1 The outer diameter of the core flowpath is described in the Specification as being measured relative to an engine longitudinal axis A. Spec., para. 38, Fig. 2. The outer diameter is further described as sloping inwardly toward axis A as the core flowpath proceeds through the low pressure compressor section 44. Id., para. 39, Fig. 2. 4 Appeal 2014-007826 Application 13/409,305 Annotated partial portion of Figure 2 of Suciu illustrates a cross-section of the rear portion of a low pressure compressor section of a turbine engine. Appellants employ reference letter “A” as indicating the bleed trailing edge of the low pressure bleed, and reference letter “B” as indicating generally the position at which the outer diameter of the core flowpath is to be measured. Appeal Br. 5. As noted above, the Examiner takes the position that the outer diameter of the core flowpath is to be determined at a position to the left of “B,” where the outer diameter is larger. Independent claims 1 and 15 recite that the outer diameter of the core flowpath through the low pressure compressor has a slope angle relative to the engine central longitudinal axis. For the purposes of assessing whether 5 Appeal 2014-007826 Application 13/409,305 the claim limitation directed to the bleed trailing edge extending into the core flowpath beyond the outer diameter of the core flowpath is disclosed by Suciu, a reasonable interpretation of the claim requires that the outer diameter be determined at the position where the bleed trailing edge is located, as argued by Appellants. Using this construction, Suciu Figure 2 evidences that the bleed trailing edge does not extend beyond the outer diameter of the core flowpath such that it extends into the flowpath as claimed; it extends only to the outer diameter. As such, the bleed trailing edge additionally does not extend into the core flowpath. The Examiner’s position that the outer diameter is to be determined upstream of, i.e., to the left of (as depicted), the bleed trailing edge appears to be as a result of the Examiner attempting to read the pertinent claim limitations on the turbine engine as illustrated in Figures 2 and 3 of Appellants’ disclosure. Ans. 29. Those drawing figures show the bleed trailing edge to be in essentially the same position as that shown in Suciu, namely, that it extends only to, and not beyond, the outer diameter of the core flowpath determined at that same position. Spec., Figs. 2, 3. Appellants, for their part, maintain that it is incorrect to construe the claims as being “limited to the embodiment in Figures 2 and 3.” Reply Br. 2. Appellants, in other words, acknowledge that the embodiment(s) illustrated in their Figures 2 and 3 do not fall within the scope of independent claims 1 and 15. Appellants, in citing to the textual description of the claimed embodiment, inferentially acknowledge that an embodiment illustrating a bleed trailing edge extending inwardly beyond the outer diameter of the core flowpath, as claimed, is not included in the drawings. Reply Br. 2—3, citing Spec., para. 43. 6 Appeal 2014-007826 Application 13/409,305 Given the claim construction we deem to be correct, and notwithstanding what appears to be an adequate written description of the claimed subject matter in paragraph 43 of Appellants’ Specification, Appellants’ drawings might be found to not comply with the requirement that the drawing or drawings must show every nonconventional feature of the invention specified in the claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a). However, this issue is not within our jurisdiction on appeal. We mention this mainly as a possible explanation as to why the Examiner attempted to reconcile the claim limitations at issue with Appellants’ drawing, whereas an objection to the drawings under that regulatory section might have brought resolution to the issue. The rejection of claims 1—8, 12—18, and 22—26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Suciu is not sustained. Claims 1—8, 12—18, and 22—26—Merry This rejection is based upon the same erroneous claim construction as is used in the anticipation rejection over Suciu. The rejection is not sustained. Claims 1, 2, 4—7, 12, 14—17, 22, and 24—26—Moniz This rejection is based upon the same erroneous claim construction as is used in the anticipation rejection over Suciu. The rejection is not sustained. 7 Appeal 2014-007826 Application 13/409,305 Claims 1—8, 12—18, and 22—26—Suciu/Lewis/Walsh/Merry/Moniz This rejection is based upon the same erroneous claim construction as is used in the anticipation rejection over Suciu. The rejection is not sustained. Claims 1—8, 12—18, and 22—26—Merry/Lewis/Walsh/Moniz This rejection is based upon the same erroneous claim construction as is used in the anticipation rejection over Suciu. The rejection is not sustained. Claims 1, 2, 4—8, 12—18, and 22—26— Orlando/Suciu/Merry/Moniz/Lewis/Walsh This rejection is based upon the same erroneous claim construction as is used in the anticipation rejection over Suciu. The rejection is not sustained. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—8, 12—16, and 22—26 are reversed. REVERSED 8