Ex Parte Hoke et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2016

12549693 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/549,693 08/28/2009 James B. Hoke
54549 7590 04/27/2016
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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.
PA010919A;67097-1240PUS1 9499
EXAMINER
SUNG, GERALD LUTHER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2016 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 JAMES B. HOKE and PHILIP J. KIRSOPP
Appeal2014-002753
Application 12/549,693
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
James B. Hoke and Philip J. Kirsopp ("Appellants") 1 appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 6 in this
application. 2 The Board has jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies United Technologies Corporation as the real
party in interest. Br. 1.
2 Appellants canceled claims 2-5 and 7-14, and amended claims 1 and 6, in
the Amendment filed on June 26, 2013 after the Final Action. The Examiner
allowed the changes to be entered on July 1, 2013. As a result, only
amended claims 1 and 6 are before us on appeal.
Appeal2014-002753
Application 12/549,693
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 6 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed
subject matter, and it recites:
1. A turbine vane downstream of a combustor section
compnsmg:
an arcuate outer vane platform defined about an axis, said
arcuate outer vane platform includes a segment of said arcuate
outer vane platform along said axis which follows an outer
combustor liner panel structure;
an arcuate inner vane platform defined about said axis,
said arcuate inner vane platform includes a segment of said
arcuate inner vane platform along said axis which follows an
inner combustor liner panel structure;
a vane which extends in a radial direction between said
arcuate outer vane platform and said arcuate inner vane platform,
said vane defines a leading edge which is set back from a forward
most edge of said arcuate outer vane platform and said arcuate
inner vane platform; and
said segment of said arcuate outer vane platform and said
segment of said arcuate inner vane platform follows a respective
contour of the outer combustor liner panel structure and the
inner combustor liner panel structure.
Br. 6 (Claims App., emphasis added).
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1and6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Bobo (US 3,302,926, iss. Feb. 7, 1967).
Claims 1and6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Toborg (US 5,343,694, iss. Sept. 6, 1994).
Claims 1and6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Coughlan (US 2005/0086940 Al, pub. Apr. 28, 2005).
2
Appeal2014-002753
Application 12/549,693
ANALYSIS
A. Anticipation of Claim 1
The central issue for this appeal is the meaning of "follows," which
appears several times in claim 1. See Br. 6 (Claims App.). In each instance
"follows" is used, the Examiner asserts the broadest reasonable
interpretation is "to come after." Final Act. 2; Ans. 9. For this appeal,
Appellants do not challenge that interpretation for claim 1 's description of a
segment of the arcuate outer/inner vane platform that "follows" an
outer/inner combustor liner panel structure. Appellants instead contend that
"follows" has a different meaning when claim 1 recites that the segment of
the arcuate outer/inner vane platform "follows a respective contour" of the
outer/inner combustor liner panel structure. In that context, Appellants
assert "follows" requires the outer/inner segments to match, without a step,
the contours of the respective outer/inner combustor liner panel structure.
Br. 3.
According to Appellants, the evidence does not support the
Examiner's anticipation finding because each of the cited prior art references
fails to disclose segments of the arcuate outer/inner vane platform that match
the contours of the respective outer/inner combustor liner panel structure,
without a step therebetween. Id. at 3--4. For the following reasons, we agree
claim 1 requires the outer/inner vane platform segments to match the
contours of the respective outer/inner combustor liner panel structure,
without a step therebetween.
3
Appeal2014-002753
Application 12/549,693
Although claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation
during prosecution, "the construction cannot be divorced from the
specification and the record evidence." In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279,
1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011). "Since it would be unreasonable for the PTO to
ignore any interpretive guidance afforded by the applicant's written
description ... the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they
would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account
whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be
afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's
specification." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
"[H]eavy reliance on the dictionary divorced from the intrinsic evidence
risks transforming the meaning of the claim term to the artisan into the
meaning of the term in the abstract, out of its particular context, which is the
specification." Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(en bane). An applicant may demonstrate an intent to deviate from a more
broadly understood ordinary meaning "by including in the specification
expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear
disavowal of claim scope." Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d
1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
The ordinary use of the term "follows" is understood to have several
meanings, including: "to go, proceed, or come after" and "to copy after:
imitate". See Follow Definition, Meriam-Webster.com,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/follow (last visited on April 19,
2016). To understand which meaning of "follows" is applicable, context
matters and can be highly instructive. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313-14 ("[T]he
4
Appeal2014-002753
Application 12/549,693
context of the surrounding words of the claim also must be considered in
determining the ordinary and customary meaning of those terms."). As a
relevant example, consider a description related to the card game Hearts:
John plays a card first because he has the two of clubs and Jill
follows John because she is to his left, but Jill must play a card
that follows suit, if she can.
In the above sentence, the term "follows" is used twice, but the context
provides two different meanings for the same word. And, given the context,
it would be unreasonable to interpret "follows" to have the same meaning in
both instances. In the first instance, "follows" means Jill will "go, proceed,
or come after" John plays a card. In the second instance, "follows" means
Jill must, if she can, play a card with a symbol that matches (or "to copy
after: imitate") the symbol on the card John played- i.e., a club. The same
is true in this case.
Claim 1 recites, in the first instance, an arcuate outer vane platform
with a segment that ''follows an outer combustor liner panel structure" and
an arcuate inner vane platform with a segment that ''follows an inner
combustor liner panel structure." See Br. 6 (Claims App., emphasis added).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, we agree with the Examiner
that in this instance, and in this context, "follows" can be interpreted to mean
"go or come after." Final Act. 2; Ans. 9. As such, these limitations of claim
1 establish that the arcuate outer/inner vane platforms and their respective
segments are positioned aft the respective outer/inner combustor liner panel
structures.
In the second instance, however, claim 1 recites, said segments of the
arcuate outer/inner vane platforms ''follows a respective contour of the outer
combustor liner panel structure and the inner combustor liner panel
5
Appeal2014-002753
Application 12/549,693
structure." See Br. 6 (Claims App., emphasis added). Considering the
context of claim 1 as a whole, we do not agree with the Examiner that
"follows" can reasonably be given the same meaning in this later context as
in the first context because it renders the limitation "a respective contour"
meaningless. See Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. US. Surgical Corp, 93 F.3d
1572, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (rejecting an interpretation that renders a
limitation meaninglessly empty). As structures, the outer/inner combustor
liner panels necessarily have respective contours. Therefore, interpreting the
above phrase to mean "the segments of the arcuate outer/inner vane
platforms are positioned aft the respective contour of the outer/inner
combustor liner panel structure" adds nothing to the claimed invention
because previous limitations already require the arcuate outer/inner vane
platforms and their respective segments to be positioned aft the respective
outer/inner combustor liner panel structure, which necessarily have contours.
On the other hand, interpreting "follows" to mean "to copy after"
because of the context in which it is used in the second instance, the phrase
would require "the respective segments of the arcuate outer/inner vane
platforms to match the respective contour of the outer/inner combustor liner
panel structure." As such, the last limitation has meaning and adds a further
requirement to the claimed apparatus. Not only must the segments of the
arcuate outer/inner vane platforms be aft the respective outer/inner
combustor liner panel structures, but they must also match the respective
contours of the outer/inner combustor liner panel structures. This
interpretation is consistent with the Specification. Additionally, the
Specification clearly and unambiguously demonstrates the Appellants'
intention to require the segments of the arcuate outer/inner vane platforms to
6
Appeal2014-002753
Application 12/549,693
match the respective contours of the outer/inner combustor liner panel
structure without a step therebetween.
In the Background, the Specification describes the problem
Appellants were addressing:
Air compressed in a compressor section of a gas turbine
engine is mixed with fuel, burned in a combustor section and
expanded in a turbine section. The flow path from the combustor
section to the turbine section is defined by the interface
there between. The geometry of the interface may result in flow
stagnation or bow wave effects that may increase the thermal
load within the interface. The thermal load may cause oxidation
of combustor liner panels, turbine vane leading edges and
platforms which may result in durability issues over time.
Spec. i-f 3. In the Detailed Description section, the Specification describes
further the problems Appellants recognized with prior apparatuses,
In the related art (Figure 5) an aft end segment of the
combustor liner panel L required specific cooling to maintain
metal temperatures immediately upstream of a turbine vane
leading edge Ve. A step in the flowpath exhausts coolant from
the combustor panel upstream of the turbine vane. This flow is
exhausted at a lower velocity and total pressure than the core
flow and thus a pressure gradient was generated near the turbine
vane platform leading edge .... The aft facing step and cooling
exhaust also impacts the flow through the first turbine vane. The
cooling air exiting the aft step slot has a much lower velocity than
the mainstream flow creating a gradient. This gradient
contributes to flow vorticity at the leading edge of the turbine
vane and results in radial mixing that transports hot gases from
the core flow towards the turbine vane platform areas (Figure 6;
related art) which may generate an increased thermal load.
Id. i-fi-122-23 (emphasis added). Appellants determined that "the removal or
minimization of the aft facing step between the combustor liner panel L and
the vane platform Vp reduces or eliminates the bow wave effect that
7
Appeal2014-002753
Application 12/549,693
increases the thermal load locally which results in stagnation of hot gas at
the trailing edge of the liner panel." Id. i-f 23.
Appellants explain matching the contours and eliminating the step in
the interface between the liner panel structure and the arcuate vane platform
is key because it creates a smooth flow path therebetween:
The outer liner panel structure 46 is located adjacent to the
arcuate outer vane platform 3 8 and the inner liner panel structure
48 is located adjacent to the arcuate inner vane platform 40 to
provide a smooth flow path interface between the combustor
section 16 and the turbine section 18. A segment 38S of the
arcuate outer vane platform 3 8 is generally contiguous and
follows the contour of the outer liner panel structure 46 and a
segment 40S of the arcuate 15 inner vane platform 40 is
generally contiguous and follows the contour of the inner liner
panel structure 48 to define a smooth flow path therebetween.
That is, the segment 38S and the segment 40S essentially extend
the respective liner panel structure 46, 48 ... The smooth flow
path avoids generation of the pressure gradients where the
secondary flow structures typically originate.
With the smooth flow path, cooling for the combustor liner
panel structure 46, 30 48 may be injected from the secondary
flow B through effusion holes 50 in the combustor liner panel
structure 46, 48 upstream of the combustor section turbine
section interface. The cooling flow from the effusion holes
within the combustor liner panel structure 46, 48 is mixed with
the core flow. The smooth flow path removes or minimizes any
step between the combustor liner panel structure 46, 48 and the
vane plaiform 38, 40 to provide a very small total pressure
gradient near the vane plaiform 38, 40. The minimal pressure
gradient near the vane platform 3 8, 40 limits the development of
secondary flow effects upon the turbine vanes 42. The reduced
secondary flow effects also reduce the radial movement of hot
gases from the combustor section 16 towards the vane platform
3 8, 40 that have hereto fore resulted in durability problems.
8
Appeal2014-002753
Application 12/549,693
Spec. ilil 19, 21 (emphasis added). As a result of the disclosed geometry of
removing the step and forming a smooth flow path by having the same shape
between the interfacing parts of the liner panel structure and the arcuate vane
platform, Appellants' apparatus requires less cooling and durability is
improved. Id. i-f 24. "The overall effect is to reduce cooling flow in the
combustor section and turbine section, or to achieve improved durability
with constant flow through the reduced heat load on the aft end of the
combustor liner panels and first turbine vane platforms." Id.
The Specification demonstrates Appellants believe having a smooth
flow path at the interface between the vane platform and the combustor liner
panel structure is critical to the invention disclosed. To create a smooth flow
path at the interface, Appellants teach it is necessary to eliminate the step
found in prior turbines engines by making the contours of the segments of
the outer/inner vane platforms essentially extensions of the adjacent contours
of the combustor liner panel structures. With this background information, a
skilled artisan would understand in the context of the claimed invention the
phrase "said segment of said arcuate outer vane platform and said segment
of said arcuate inner vane platform follows a respective contour of the outer
combustor liner panel structure and the inner combustor liner panel
structure" is describing the segments of the arcuate outer/inner vane
platform as matching the respective contours of the outer/inner combustor
liner panel structure so that there are no steps therebetween.
For each of the cited prior art references Bobo, Toborg, and Coughlan,
the Examiner found them anticipatory because the segments of the arcuate
outer/inner vane platform are shown aft of the respective contours of the
outer/inner combustor liner panel structure. Ans. 9-10. The Examiner
9
Appeal2014-002753
Application 12/549,693
applied an interpretation that did not require the segments of the arcuate
outer/inner vane platform to match the respective contours of the outer/inner
combustor liner panel structure without a step therebetween. Id. Because
the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the
cited prior art discloses this limitation, as properly construed, we do not
sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 1.
B. Anticipation of Claim 6
The dispute between the Examiner and Appellants regarding claim 6
focuses on the same claim interpretation issue discussed above regarding
claim 1. As a result, for the same reasons discussed above for claim 1, the
claim phrase "said segment of said arcuate outer vane platform and said
segment of said arcuate inner vane platform follows a respective step-less
contour of said outer combustor liner panel structure and said inner
combustor liner panel structure" found in claim 6 (emphasis added) would
be understood by a skilled artisan as describing the segments of the arcuate
outer/inner vane platform to have contours that match the step-less contours
of the outer/inner combustor liner panel structure so that there are no steps
there between.
For each of the cited prior art references Bobo, Toborg, and Coughlan,
the Examiner found them anticipatory because the segments of the arcuate
outer/inner vane platform are shown aft of the respective step-less contours
of the outer/inner combustor liner panel structure. Ans. 11. The Examiner
applied an interpretation that did not require the segments of the arcuate
outer/inner vane platform are shown to match the respective step-less
contours of the outer/inner combustor liner panel structure without a step
therebetween. Id. The Examiner does, however, also state "the liner
10
Appeal2014-002753
Application 12/549,693
structures 17 and the vane platforms 22 [of Toborg], 22 appear to form 'a
step-less flow path' which has not been claimed in claim 6." Id. (citing
Toborg, Fig. 1). We do not agree Figure 1 of Toborg supports this position
because the contours of the adjacent segments of the arcuate outer/inner
vane platform appear different than the respective step-less contours of the
outer/inner combustor liner panel structure. See Toborg, Fig. 1. Moreover,
Figure 1 of Toborg appears to show a step from the step-less contours of the
outer/inner combustor liner panel structure to the respective adjacent
segments of the arcuate outer/inner vane platform. Id. Notably, the
Examiner does not point to anything within the Specification of Toborg
suggesting a desire to have a step-less transition therebetween or that the
drawing are to scale. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int 'l,
Inc., 222 F.2d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (noting that patent drawings have
limited value for showing specific dimensional relationships when the
specification is silent on the issue). Therefore, because the Examiner has not
established by a preponderance of the evidence that the cited prior art
discloses this limitation, as properly construed, we do not sustain the
anticipation rejection of claim 6.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated over the prior art is reversed.
REVERSED
11