Ex Parte Lockhart et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 5, 201913567376 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 5, 2019) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation