Ex Parte Marx et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201312189976 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2013) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation