Ex Parte Marx et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2013

12189976 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PETER MARX, JAMES ROBERT WISE, and
MARCEL KOENIG
____________

Appeal 2011-004852
Application 12/189,976
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-004852
Application 12/189,976

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Peter Marx et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

THE INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A gas turbine comprising:
a supporting structure which concentrically
surrounds a hot gas path;
an annular heat shield configured and
arranged to shield the supporting structure from
the hot gas path, the heat shield comprising a
plurality of segments circumferentially arranged
one behind the other and circumferentially
abutting against one another to form gaps, each
pair of abutting segments including opposing
faces;
elongate sealing slots in each of the plurality
of segments, the slots being longitudinally
delimited by a wall portion of each segment, the
sealing slots positioned in said opposing faces of
abutting segments;
seals configured and arranged to seal off the
gaps between the segments, said seals comprising
thin elongate sealing strips positioned in said
sealing slots; and
an enlarged frictional surface between said
wall portion and said sealing strip configured and
arranged to reduce friction between said wall and
said sealing strip, and to inhibit the frictionally-
induced piercing of the wall by the sealing strip.
Appeal 2011-004852
Application 12/189,976

3
PRIOR ART
Maier US 5,868,398 Feb. 9, 1999

GROUNDS OF REJECTION
1. Claims 1-3 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Maier.
2. Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Maier.
OPINION
Anticipation
Appellants argue claims 1-3 and 6 as a group. We select independent
claim 1 as the representative claim and claims 2, 3 and 6 stand or fall with
claim 1. See App. Br. 7; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
The Examiner finds that Maier discloses each and every limitation of
independent claim 1, including seals 52 comprising sealing strips, and an
enlarged frictional surface 74. Ans. 3-4.
Appellants argue that Maier’s “end members 56 definitely fail to
restrain the axial member 54 from coming into a damaging frictional
contact with the radial wall portion at the sharp edge 70 of its axial joint
element 60.” App. Br. 13 (emphasis added).1 In response to this argument,
the Examiner points out “that this limitation is not part of the claims.” We
agree. Claim 1 merely states that friction is reduced between the wall and
the sealing strip and that frictionally-induced piercing of the wall by the
sealing strip is inhibited. Ans. 6 (emphasis added). Accordingly,

1 Regarding the “end members 56,” we understand that Appellants are
referring to the same structure in Maier that the Examiner identified as
enlarged frictional surface 74.” See Maier, fig. 6.
Appeal 2011-004852
Application 12/189,976

4
Appellants’ argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s
findings.
Appellants argue that Maier “fails to describe any structures which
can be construed to be an enlarged frictional surface between a wall portion
and a sealing strip configured and arranged to reduce friction between the
wall and the sealing strip.” App. Br. 13. We disagree. We note that Maier’s
radial portions 74 are part of Maier’s end members 56 of its axial member
54 (sealing strip). These radial portions 74 are located between a wall
portion of slot 34 and the axial member 54 and are “enlarged” with respect
to the axial member. Thus, Maier clearly describes structure which can be
construed to be an “enlarged” surface. In response to Appellants’ argument,
the Examiner reasons that “contact between the axial end joint elements
provides friction between the axial end joint elements which results in the
reduction of friction between the wall and the sealing strip.” Ans. 6. We
agree and further note that the slidable cooperation of the joint elements
described in Maier (col. 3, l. 56 to col. 4, l. 3) to compensate for
misalignment of the stator vanes does not prevent the radial portion 74 from
acting as an “enlarged” frictional surface as claimed. In addition, claim 1
calls for the enlarged frictional surface to reduce friction between the wall
portion and sealing strip, but does not recite what this reduction in friction is
in comparison to. For example, the enlarged frictional surface would appear
to reduce friction between the wall and sealing strip as compared to a sealing
strip not having the enlarged frictional surface. Thus, Appellants have not
apprised us of error in the Examiner’s findings.
Appellants argue that Maier fails to disclose any structures that
“inhibit the frictionally-induced piercing of the wall by the sealing strip.”
Appeal 2011-004852
Application 12/189,976

5
App. Br. 6.2 In response to this argument the Examiner reasons “[t]he
friction between the end joint elements restricts the axial movement of the
axial end joint elements” which in turn inhibits “frictionally-induced
piercing of the wall by the sealing strip relative to an embodiment where
there is no end member (56).” Ans. 6. We agree with and adopt the
Examiner’s reasoning, further noting that claim 1 merely requires that
frictionally-induced piercing of the wall by the sealing strip be inhibited, not
that it be prevented. Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.
In response to the Examiner’s Answer, Appellants contend that the
Examiner does not understand the invention, discuss their prior art Figure 4
explaining that “the scraping of the sharp end of the sealing strip is strictly
coupled to a vibrational motion perpendicular to the longitudinal direction
of the strip,” and that “[t]his vibration mode of the sealing strip
perpendicular to its longitudinal direction is not reduced by the frictional
axial sliding motion between the axial member 54 of Maier.” Reply Br. 3.
Appellants’ argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim language
and does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings. Claim 1 does
not call for any motion of the sealing strip, and thus, does not require that the
frictionally-induced piercing of the wall by the sealing strip be caused by
“vibrational motion perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the strip.”
Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and
claims 2, 3 and 6 which stand therewith.
Obviousness
Appellants argue that claims 4 and 5 are allowable based on their

2 We note that the term “the wall” in claim 1 lacks antecedent basis.
Appeal 2011-004852
Application 12/189,976

6
dependency from claim 1 and do not present separate arguments for their
patentability. See App. Br. 14; see also App. Br. 7.
As we have sustained the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, we likewise
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 5.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-6 are AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

hh