Ex Parte Jacques et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 15, 2018

13595443 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/595,443 08/27/2012 Normand P. Jacques 54549 7590 06/19/2018 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. 60829US01; 67097-1972PUS1 CONFIRMATION NO. 3815 EXAMINER WHITE, ALEXANDER A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/19/2018 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): ptodocket@cgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NORMAND P. JACQUES and ANTHONY R. BIFULCO Appeal2017-004317 Application 13/595,443 Technology Center 3700 Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE- Normand P. Jacques and Anthony R. Bifulco ("Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision in the Final Office Action (dated Feb. 10, 2016, hereinafter "Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 United Technologies Corporation is identified as the real party in interest in Appellants' Appeal Brief (filed Aug. 2, 2016, hereinafter "Appeal Br."). Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2017-004317 Application 13/595,443 INVENTION Appellants' invention relates to a stator vane assembly for a compressor. Spec. para. 4. Claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A compressor assembly comprising: a case disposed about an axis; and a stator vane supported within the case and including a platform with a first side including a recess and a second side including a tongue for overlapping a recess on a platform of an adjacent stator vane, wherein both the first side and the second side are disposed at an angle relative to the axis. REJECTIONS I. The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 5, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Shook et al. (US 4,826,397, issued May 2, 1989, hereinafter "Shook") and Matsumoto et al. (US 6,821,087 B2, issued Nov. 23, 2004, hereinafter "Matsumoto"). II. The Examiner rejects claims 4, 9-11, 14, 15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Shook, Matsumoto, and Jiomacas et al. (US 6,059,525, issued May 9, 2000, hereinafter "Jiomacas"). III. The Examiner rejects claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shook, Matsumoto, and O'Reilly et al. (US 7,278,821 Bl, issued Oct. 9, 2007, hereinafter "O'Reilly"). IV. The Examiner rejects claims 7, 8, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Shook, Matsumoto, and Manteiga et al. (US 6,371,725 Bl, issued Apr. 16, 2002, hereinafter "Manteiga"). 2 Appeal2017-004317 Application 13/595,443 V. The Examiner rejects claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shook, Matsumoto, Jiomacas, and Manteiga. VI. The Examiner rejects claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shook, Matsumoto, Jiomacas, Manteiga, and O'Reilly. ANALYSIS Claims 1-3 and 5 The Examiner finds that Shook discloses a compressor assembly 22 including a case 88 located along an axis A and a stator vane supported within case 88 having first and second sides disposed at an angle relative to axis A. Final Act. 6 ( citing Shook, Fig. 3). The Examiner further finds that, although Shook fails to disclose that the first side includes a recess and the second side includes a tongue "for overlapping a recess on a platform of an adjacent stator vane," Matsumoto discloses such features. Id. at 6-7. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Matsumoto discloses stator vanes 2 having platforms 21, 22 including a first side 23, 24 having a recess and a second side 23', 24' having a tongue. Id. at 7 (citing Matsumoto, Fig. 2a). The Examiner concludes that: [I]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the compressor assembly of Shook by providing that the first side includes a recess and the second side includes a tongue for overlapping a recess on a platform of an adjacent stator vane, as taught by Matsumoto. Doing so would allow one to provide a strong stator vane that is easily exchangeable and reduces the working steps in the assembly of the gas turbine engine. 3 Appeal2017-004317 Application 13/595,443 Id. at 7-8 ( citing Matsumoto, col. 2, 11. 5-15, col. 8, 11. 10-27). The Examiner further finds that "[i]t is well known in the art that fan, compressor, and turbine sections of gas turbine engines contain stator vane assemblies." Id. at 2-3 ( citing Shook, col. 1, 1. 55---col. 2, 1. 28, Figs. 1 (compressor section 22), 3 (stator vane assembly in turbine section 30'); Matsumoto, col. 1, 11. 17-28, Figs. 9-14; O'Reilly, col. 1, 11. 20-30, Figs. 1- 4; Bouchard et al. 2, col. 1, 11. 5-27). Thus, the Examiner takes the position that, although "the exemplary embodiment in Shook may be presented as a stator vane assembly and its support structure within the confines of a turbine section of a gas turbine engine, the same stator vane assembly and associated support structure is applicable to a compressor section of a gas turbine engine." Id. at 3. Appellants argue that, although "both turbines and compressors include stator vanes," nonetheless, "stator vanes within a turbine section include a much different configuration than those present in a compressor section." Appeal Br. 4. According to Appellants, as "Shook discloses a stator vane for a turbine section," Shook fails to disclose a compressor section, as called for by claim 1. Id. In response, "the [E]xaminer maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art knows that in general construction, compressors and turbines are incredibly similar and that the manner in which a stator vane may be held in place is generally applicable to either section." Examiner's Answer 4 (dated Nov. 30, 2016, hereinafter "Ans.") (citing to Shook, Fig. 3; Matsumoto, Figs. 1, 8, 10, and 11; Jiomacas, Fig. 1; O'Reilly, Figs. 2, 4). The Examiner 2 US 8,092,165 B2, issued Jan. 10, 2012, hereinafter "Bouchard." 4 Appeal2017-004317 Application 13/595,443 further contends that, although differences exist between turbine and compressor stator vanes due to different pressure and temperature loadings, nonetheless, as the "compressor assembly" of claim 1 "requires only ... a case about an axis ... a stator vane ... [ and] other limitations directed to the specific structure of the platform holding the stator vane," "Shook teaches a structure that qualifies as being a compressor assembly as claimed by ... [Appellants]." Id. at 4--5. In this case, we appreciate the Examiner's position that both turbines and compressors in a gas turbine engine include stator vanes. See Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 4. However, even though Shook discloses a compression section 22, nonetheless, we do not agree with the Examiner that Shook's stator vane, which is part of turbine section 30, is necessarily "applicable to ... compressor section [22]" of Shooks's turbine engine 12. See Final Act. 3; see also Shook, col. 6, 11. 5-8 and 29-30, Figs. 1, 2. For example, the Examiner has not adequately explained why Shook's stator vane in compression section 22 necessarily has inclined first and second sides like the stator vanes in turbine section 30. See Final Act. 7, Fig. A: Examiner's annotated Figure 3 of Shook. Furthermore, with respect to the disclosure of Bouchard, although Bouchard' s stator vane is for both compressor and turbine sections of a gas turbine engine (see Bouchard col. 1, 11. 5-7), this does not mean that Shook's turbine stator vane necessarily constitutes a stator vane for Shook's compressor section 22. Moreover, we note that the disclosures of Shook, Matsumoto, and Jiomacas refer to stator vanes for a gas turbine, whereas O'Reilly discloses a stator vane assembly for a compressor. See Shook, col. 5 Appeal2017-004317 Application 13/595,443 6, 11. 29-30; Matsumoto, col. 3, 11. 66-67; Jiomacas, col. 3, 11. 4--12; O'Reilly, Abstract. The Examiner has not adequately explained how any of the stator vanes of Shook, Matsumoto, Jiomacas, and O'Reilly can be used for both compressor and turbine sections of their respective gas turbine engmes. As such, the Examiner's finding that Shook's compressor assembly 22 includes Shook's turbine stator vane is mere speculation based on an unfounded assumption that because both turbines and compressors in a gas turbine engine include stator vanes, then turbine and compressor stator vanes are "incredibly similar" (see Ans. 4). The Examiner's modification of providing Matsumoto's stepped portions, i.e., tongue and recess, to Shook's stator vane, does not remedy the deficiency of Shook, as discussed above. See Final Act. 6-8. In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of claims 1-3 and 5 as unpatentable over Shook and Matsumoto. Claims 4 and 6--8 The Examiner's use of the disclosure of Jiomacas, O'Reilly, and Manteiga does not remedy the deficiency of the Examiner's combination of Shook and Matsumoto discussed above. See Final Act. 10-11, 14--16. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed supra, we do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of claim 4 as unpatentable over Shook, Matsumoto, and Jiomacas; of claim 6 as unpatentable over Shook, 6 Appeal2017-004317 Application 13/595,443 Matsumoto, and O'Reilly; and of claims 7 and 8 as unpatentable over Shook, Matsumoto, and Manteiga. Claims 16 and 18 As independent claim 16 does not recite "[a] compression assembly," but merely "[a] stator vane" (see Appeal Br. 9, 11 (Claims App.)), Appellants' arguments that rely on the arguments discussed above in the rejection of independent claim 1, are not persuasive. Id. at 3--4. Appellants further argue that providing Matsumoto's stepped portions, i.e., tongue and recess, to Shook's stator vane, would render Shook's stator vane inoperable. Appeal Br. 4; see also Reply Brief 2 (dated Jan. 10, 2017, hereinafter "Reply Br."). According to Appellants, as Shook's stator vane is hollow to permit cooling, modifying it with Matsumoto's thermosetting or rubber coated solid vane, would not allow cooling airflow as Shook requires, and moreover, the materials of Matsumoto's stator vane are "not compatible with the environment of a turbine section." Appeal Br. 5, Reply Br. 2. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument because obviousness does not require that all of the features of the secondary reference be bodily incorporated into the primary reference. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 ( CCP A 19 81). Here, we agree with the Examiner that the rejection does not rely on either the solid core or the materials of Matsumoto's stator vane, but rather, "on the teachings of shiplap joints between platforms of adjacent stator vanes as taught by Matsumoto." Ans. 5. We further agree with the Examiner that, although Matsumoto's stator vane includes a thermosetting skin layer and a solid core, such structural features "have little to do with the 7 Appeal2017-004317 Application 13/595,443 shiplap joint[']s ability to function as means of aligning and arranging adjacent stator vanes." Id. ( citing Matsumoto, col. 7, 1. 59---col. 8, 1. 27). Thus, the Examiner is correct in that "the supporting and interlocking mechanism of the stator vane assembly as taught by Matsumoto" would "maintain[] the desired positions of [Shook's] stator vanes while providing for the stator vanes to be easily exchangeable and reduce the working steps in assembling the gas turbine engine." Final Act. 4 ( citing Matsumoto, col. 2, 11. 5-15, col. 8, 11. 10-27, Figs. 1, 2a). As such, we do not agree with Appellants that "there is no supportable rational reason to modify the cited references as proposed by the Examiner." Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 3. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of claim 16 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Shook and Matsumoto. With respect to the rejection of claim 18, Appellants rely on the arguments discussed above. See Appeal Br. 7. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we also sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of claim 18 as unpatentable over Shook, Matsumoto, and Manteiga. Claims 9-11, 14, and 15 The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Shook and Matsumoto disclose most of the limitations of claim 9, but fail to disclose "wherein at least one of the recess and the tongue includes a crowned surface forming a seal." Final Act. 11-12. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that Jiomacas discloses a gas turbine engine 10 including a stator element 22 attached to a case 12, wherein stator element 22 has hooks 40, 42 and 8 Appeal2017-004317 Application 13/595,443 crowned surfaces 48, 50. Id. at 12 (citing Jiomacas, Fig. 1). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the crowned surface of Jiomacas to at least one of the tongue or the recess of Shook's stator vane, as modified by Matsumoto, in order to "allow one to ensure engagement between the hooks and the case and secure the stator element." Id. at 9-10 ( citing Jiomacas, col. 4, 11. 1-17). Appellants argue that because surfaces 48 and 50 of Jiomacas "ensure engagement in the slots formed by the casing hooks 32 and 34," surfaces 48 and 50 "do not provide [a] sealing function." Appeal Br. 6. The Examiner responds that an ordinary and customary meaning of the term "seal" is "something that secures." Ans. 7 ( citing Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Thus, according to the Examiner, "[a]s the raised surfaces of Jiomacas form secure engagements between the casing and the hooks of the shroud they can be said to form seals." Id. Although we appreciate the Examiner's definition of the term "seal," we note that "seal" also means "a tight and perfect closure ( as against the passage of gas or water)." See Seal Definition, Merriam-Webster.com, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/seal (last visited June 6, 2018). Such a definition is consistent with Appellants' Specification, which describes a "sealing contact" between the tongue 92 and recess 90 to prevent leakage of gas flow. Spec. para. 20. The Specification further states that the "sealing function" is "improved through the use of a crowning surface 96." Id., para. 55, Figs. 7, 8. Hence, given the descriptions in Appellants' Specification and the ordinary and customary meaning of the term "seal," the Examiner's 9 Appeal2017-004317 Application 13/595,443 interpretation that surfaces 48, 50 of Jiomacas form a "seal" is unreasonably broad, and is therefore in error. As such, because surfaces 48, 50 of Jiomacas merely secure or engage, we agree with Appellants that surfaces 48 and 50 "are not for sealing." Reply Br. 4. In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of claims 9-11, 14, and 15 as unpatentable over Shook, Matsumoto, and Jiomacas. Claims 12, 13, and 17 Regarding the rejection of claims 12 and 13, the Examiner's use of the disclosures of Manteiga and O'Reilly does not remedy the deficiency of the Examiner's combination of Shook, Matsumoto, and Jiomacas discussed above. See Final Act. 17-19. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed supra, we do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of claim 12 as unpatentable over Shook, Matsumoto, Jiomacas, and Manteiga; and of claim 13 as unpatentable over Shook, Matsumoto, Jiomacas, Manteiga, and O'Reilly. Similar to claim 9, claim 17 includes the limitation of a "seal at the interface between a recess and a tongue of adjacent stator vanes." Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). Therefore, for the reasons discussed supra in the rejection of claim 9, we also do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of claim 17 as unpatentable over Shook, Matsumoto, and Jiomacas. 10 Appeal2017-004317 Application 13/595,443 Claim 19 Although claim 19 includes the limitation "wherein the tongue and recess are loaded into sealing contact" (see Appeal Br. 11, Claims App), in contrast to the rejection of claims 9 and 17, the rejection of claim 19 does not rely on the disclosure of Jiomacas. See Final Act. 10. Rather, the Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Shook and Matsumoto disclose a "sealing contact," as called for by claim 19. Id. (citing Matsumoto, col. 8, 11. 10-27, col. 8, 1. 61---col. 9, 1. 38). As Appellants do not argue claim 19 separately from claim 16, Appellants do not identify any particular error in the Examiner's findings and reasoning. See Appeal Br. 5. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 19 over the combined teachings of Shook and Matsumoto. SUMMARY The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) is reversed as to claims 1-15, and 17 and affirmed as to claims 16, 18, and 19. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 11