Ex Parte Lockhart et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 5, 2019

13567376 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 5, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/567,376 08/06/2012 Eugene Lockhart
54549 7590 04/09/2019
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.
61889US01;
67097-1930PUS1
CONFIRMATION NO.
1050
EXAMINER
FOUNTAIN, JASON A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/09/2019 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 EUGENE LOCKHART, JESS A. WEINSTEIN,
and DAVID P. DUBE
Appeal2017-006313
Application 13/567,376 1
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, FREDERICK C. LANEY, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
United Technologies Corporation (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision entered Jan. 5, 2016 (hereinafter
"Final Act.") to reject claims 1---6, 12-15, and 17-22.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 United Technologies Corporation is the Applicant as provided in
3 7 C.F .R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2 After the Final Office Action , wherein the Examiner rejects claims 1-22
(see Final Act. 1), in an After-Final Amendment (filed Aug. 11, 2016)
entered by the Examiner (August 11, 2016, Advisory Action), Appellant
canceled claims 8-11. The Examiner further withdrew the rejection of
claims 7 and 16 (see Ans. 7). Therefore, only claims 1---6, 12-15, and 17-22
are before us on appeal.
Appeal2017-006313
Application 13/567,376
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The subject matter of Appellants' claimed invention relates to a stator
anti-rotation lug assembly for a gas turbine engine. Spec. ,r 3. Claims 1, 12,
and 18 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced
below with added emphasis to highlight the limitations that are central to
this appeal.
1. A compressor assembly of a gas turbine engine
compnsmg:
a case including at least one opening and axially
spaced apart channels;
a stator assembly supported within the case, the
stator assembly including a plurality of stator vanes
received within the channels of the case and movable
circumferentially within the channels; and
a lug assembly separate from the plurality of stator
vanes for holding a position of the plurality of stator
vanes relative to the case, the lug assembly including a
lug disposed within the channels and abutting at least
one of the plurality of stator vanes, the lug assembly
further including a boss extending from the lug through
the opening in the case, the boss including a threaded
hole receiving a threaded member holding the lug
assembly to the case.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. The Examiner rejected claims 1---6 and 18-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Burge (US 4,522,559, iss.
2
Appeal2017-006313
Application 13/567,376
June 11, 1985) and Walter (US 7,296,957 B2, iss. Nov. 20,
2007).
II. The Examiner rejected claims 12-15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suciu (US 8,128,021 B2,
iss. Mar. 6, 2012), Burge, and Walter.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Examiner finds Burge and Walter together disclose each of the
limitations claims 1---6 and 18-22 recite and determines it would have been
obvious at the time of the invention for a skilled artisan to have combined
them in the manner claimed. Final Act. 3-7. Appellant disagrees with
several of the Examiner's factual findings. See Appeal Br. 4--8; Reply Br.
1-5. In particular, Appellant argues that the Examiner's finding Burge
discloses "a lug disposed within the channels and abutting at least one of the
plurality of stator vanes," as independent claim 1 recites, was error,
moreover, that the Examiner erred by finding Burge discloses a stator vane
"engaging a lug extending across the axially spaced apart channels to at least
one of a plurality of stator vanes," as independent claim 18 recites. Appeal
Br. 4--5, 7. An error exists, according to Appellant, because "the lugs cannot
be within any slot or other structure that receives the stator vanes." Id. at 5.
We find Appellant's argument dispositive of Rejection I for the following
reasons.
From Figure 1 of Burge, the Examiner identifies element 9 as a case
with axially spaced apart channels, elements 18, 20, and 22 as disclosing
stator vanes, and element 28 as disclosing a lug. Final Act. 3, 5-6. For
3
Appeal2017-006313
Application 13/567,376
independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Burge' s Figure 1 discloses
stator vanes "received within the channels of the case" and discloses a "lug
disposed within the channels and abutting at least one of the ... stator
vanes." Id. ( emphasis added). For independent claim 18, the Examiner
finds that Burge' s Figure 1 discloses supporting a stator vane 20 "within
axially spaced apart channels of a case" and engaging a lug 26 "extending
across the axially spaced apart channels" to a stator vane to maintain a
position of the stator vane relative to the case. Id. at 5---6 ( emphasis added).
Although the Final Action does not identify clearly what elements in
Figure 1 that the Examiner is relying on to show the "axially spaced apart
channels," these elements are identified by the Examiner in the Answer in an
annotated version of Burge' s Figure 1, shown below:
Channels
----""'~~~,7
22/
Above Figure 1 from Burge shows a sectional view in the axial direction of
a gas turbine engine, which the Examiner has annotated to identify the
"axially spaced apart channels." See Ans. 12. The Examiner states, "[t]he
4
Appeal2017-006313
Application 13/567,376
channels are defined by the radially inward extensions from the case." Id. at
8. These radially inward extensions from the case are highlighted below:
~
18 2if
\r~r--
sa1 d
j
16)~--
.E.!.9- I
The above portion of Figure 1 from Burge includes annotations we have
provided to identify more clearly the radially inward extensions of the case
that the Examiner finds to form the walls of the channels.
Notably, however, claim 1 recites that a plurality of stator vanes are
"received within the channels of the case" and a lug is "disposed within the
channels." Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). The use of the article "the,"
therefore, indicates that both the stator vanes and the lug must be within the
same channels. Similarly, claim 18 recites "supporting at least one stator
vane within axially spaced apart channels of a case" and "engaging a lug
extending across the axially spaced apart channels to at least one of a
plurality of stator vanes," which likewise uses the article "the" to indicate
the engaging lug extends across the same channels that support the stator
vane within the channel. In view of the structure the Examiner identifies as
5
Appeal2017-006313
Application 13/567,376
the "axially spaced apart channels," it is clear that stator vanes 18, 20, and
22 are positioned below and away from the identified channels. In fact,
Figure 1 shows thermal insulating material 27, 29, and 31 (see Burge 1 :33)
separating the stator vanes from the channel structures that the Examiner
identifies.
As a result, we agree with Appellant that Burge does not disclose a
lug that can be within any slot or other structure that receives the stator
vanes. The Examiner erred by finding Figure 1 of Burge discloses "a
plurality of stator vanes received within the channels of the case" and
"supporting at least one stator vane within axially spaced apart channels of a
case," as claims 1 and 18 recite respectively. And the Examiner's reliance
on Walter does not cure this deficiency. Therefore, because a preponderance
of the evidence does not support the Examiner's findings that Burge and
Walter disclose each of the limitations independent claims 1 and 18 recite,
we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of these claims, as well as,
claims 2---6 and 19--22 depending therefrom.
Re} ection II
The Examiner determines claims 12-15 would have been obvious in
view of Suciu, Burge, and Walter based, in part, on a finding that Burge
discloses "a lug assembly securing the stator assembly relative to the case,
the lug assembly including a lug extending between axially spaced apart
channels in the case and holding the stator assembly in position." Final Act.
7-9. The Examiner relies on element 26 in Figure 1 of Burge for the recited
lug, but does not identify what specifically from Figure 1 shows the lug
extending between axially spaced apart channels in the case and holding the
6
Appeal2017-006313
Application 13/567,376
stator assembly in position, as claim 12 recites. Nevertheless, in the
Answer, the Examiner provides an annotated version of Figure 1 (shown
above, see supra Rejection I), which the Examiner asserts "highlight the
channels and how the lugs extend ... across the channels" and shows
channels that are "defined by the radially inward extensions from the case."
Ans. 8, 14.
Appellant argues that "the Burge lugs 24, 20, and 28 define channels
for the stator vanes rather than being received within channels defined as
part of the case." Appeal Br. 8. In response to the Examiner's clarification
in the Answer, Appellant argues, "[e]ven accepting the Examiner's reading
of the 'channels' does not correct this rejection as the Burge lugs 24, 20 and
28 are not within the 'channels' as read by the Examiner." Reply Br. 6.
Appellant's argument that the lugs are not within the channels is not
persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 12, which
broadly states that the lug extends between the axially spaced apart channels
rather than within the channels. Nevertheless, we also understand Appellant
to challenge whether the Examiner has made a prima facie showing that
Burge discloses lugs between axially spaced apart channels in the case of the
turbine engine, which is an argument we find has more merit.
The Examiner's finding that element 26 in Figure 1 of Burge discloses
a lug extending between axially spaced apart channels in the case and
holding the stator assembly in position depends on the radially inward
extensions from the case (see annotated Figure 1 above) defining channel
walls. The Examiner bears the burden of proving all facts required to
underpin an obviousness rejection by a preponderance of the evidence. See
Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The problem
7
Appeal2017-006313
Application 13/567,376
is that the Examiner has not established persuasively that radially inward
extensions define channel walls. The Examiner relies solely on a sectional
two-dimensional view in the axial direction that Figure 1 shows, but as a
two-dimensional view it does not alone demonstrate the radially inward
extensions define walls of a channel (i.e., that the extensions also extend in
the third-dimension along the case in the radial direction). The Examiner
offers no proof from the specification of Burge to support this finding.
We are mindful that, when evaluating claims for obviousness, "the
prior art as a whole must be considered." In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041
(Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986) (explaining that a reference "must be read, not in isolation,
but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole").
"It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose
[teachings] from any one reference ... to the exclusion of other parts
necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to
one of ordinary skill in the art." Hedges, 783 F.2d at 1041 (quoting In re
Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238, 241 (CCPA 1965)). Burge describes the radially
inward extensions as a structure that holds spacers 31, 33, and 35 (Burge
2:51-54), which suggests radially inward extensions encase these spacers
rather than forming the wall of a channel. In addition, Figure 2 of Burge,
which is a sectional two-dimensional view of the structure shown in Figure 1
in the radial direction, does not support the Examiner's finding, as shown
below.
8
Appeal2017-006313
Application 13/567,376
89
Piq.2
85 ____ ,..... ./ I
f \
87 84 \
24a.
Above Figure 2 is a sectional view of the gas turbine engine that Burge
describes in Figure 1. Burge 2:5-9, Fig. 2. Notably, this sectional view is a
plane through lug 24 and shows that the radially inward extensions of the
case do not extend in the third-dimension along the case in the radial
direction to form a wall. After considering Burge as a whole, we are not
persuaded that the radially inward extensions in Figure 1 form walls.
Without these wall, the Examiner's finding Burge discloses a case with
channels lacks sufficient evidentiary support. As a result, the Examiner has
not established a prima facie case that Suciu, Burge, and Walter disclose
each and every element independent claim 12 recites. Therefore, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 12, as well as claims 13-15
depending therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1--6, 12-15, and 17-
22.
REVERSED
9