Ex Parte Miranda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2017

13790863 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/790,863 03/08/2013 Carlos Miguel Miranda 19441-0861 4187
13077 7590 12/20/2017
F.versiherk SiitherlanH fTF,
EXAMINER
Suite 2300 DOUNIS, LAERT
999 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3748
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2017 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):
patentdocket @ eversheds-sutherland. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CARLOS MIGUEL MIRANDA, STANLEY F. SIMPSON,
and KENNETH D. MOORE
Appeal 2017-003107
Application 13/790,8631
Technology Center 3700
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 21—24 and 26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
According to Appellants, the invention “relate[s] generally to gas
turbine engines[,] and[,] more particularly^] to systems and methods for
providing a flow of purge air and an adjustable flow of cooling air to a wheel
space cavity and/or a stator cavity.” Spec. 11. Claim 21 is the only
1 According to Appellants, “[t]he real party in interest is the General
Electric Company.” Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-003107
Application 13/790,863
independent claim on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 21 as illustrative
of the appealed claims.
21. A system for providing an adjustable flow of
cooling air from a stator cavity to a wheel space cavity of a
turbine assembly, the system comprising:
at least one fixed purge air orifice in communication with
the wheel space cavity, wherein the at least one fixed purge air
orifice is configured to provide a constant flow of purge air to the
wheel space cavity;
at least one cooling air passage configured to provide the
adjustable flow of cooling air to the wheel space cavity from the
stator cavity; and
a flow control device associated with the at least one
cooling air passage, the flow control device comprising:
a valve configured to control the adjustable flow of
cooling air within the at least one cooling air passage; and
a temperature dependent actuator positioned at least
partially within the wheel space cavity and in mechanical
communication with the valve, wherein the temperature
dependent actuator is configured to open and close the
valve.
REJECTION AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 21—24 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Pask (GB 2 246 836 A, pub. Feb. 12, 1992) and
Langdon (US 2011/0162384 Al, pub. July 7, 2011).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 21, on which each of claims 22—24 and 26
depends, recites “at least one fixed purge air orifice in communication with
the wheel space cavity, wherein the at least one fixed purge air orifice is
2
Appeal 2017-003107
Application 13/790,863
configured to provide a constant flow of purge air to the wheel space
cavity.” Appeal Br., Claims App. Essentially, Appellants argue that the
Examiner’s rejection is in error because, although the Examiner relies on
Pask to disclose the claimed fixed purge air orifice,
Pask is directed to providing cooling air to the rotor blades, not
purge air to the wheel space cavity. Even if the flow of cooling
air in Pask momentarily entered the wheel space cavity before
entering the rotor blades, such cooling air would not necessarily
purge the wheel space of hot gasses.
Reply Br. 2; see also Appeal Br. 3—5. Based on our review of the record,
including Appellants’ Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, and the Examiner’s
Final Office Action and Answer, Appellants do not persuade of us Examiner
error. Thus, we sustain the rejection of the claims.
ft is true that the Examiner does not show where Pask describes that
passage 25 is configured to provide a constant flow of purge air to the wheel
space cavity. Nonetheless, an Examiner may establish a prima facie case of
obviousness for an apparatus claim if the Examiner has reason to believe the
function is an inherent characteristic of the prior art. In re Schreiber, 128
F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[Wjhere the Patent Office has reason to
believe that a functional limitation . . . may, in fact, be an inherent
characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the
applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does
not possess the characteristic.”).
In this case, the Examiner finds that there is no structural difference
between Appellants’ purge air orifice 130 and Pask’s passage 25. Final
Action 3. Indeed, Figure 2 of Appellants’ Specification and Figure 2 of Pask
show that Appellants’ purge air orifice 130 and Pask’s passage 25 are
essentially the same structure—namely an opening in a wall. Furthermore,
3
Appeal 2017-003107
Application 13/790,863
both Appellants’ purge air orifice 130 and Pask’s passage 25 receive
extraction air from a compressor and direct it to a wheel space. See
Answer 2—3; see also Reply Br. 2. As such, the Examiner has a sufficient
reason to believe that the provision of purge air is an inherent characteristic
of Pask’s passage 25, and, thus, the burden shifts to Appellants to establish
otherwise.
Based on our review, however, Appellants do not carry this burden.
Although Appellants provide attorney argument that their purge air orifice
has a different structural configuration than Pask’s passage 25, Appellants
do not show or otherwise describe what this structural difference is. See
Appeal Br. 4—5. Appellants do not otherwise provide evidence sufficient to
persuade us that Pask’s arrangement fails to provide purge air. Thus, based
on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 21, as well as the rejection of dependent claims 22—24
and 26, which Appellants do not separately argue. See Appeal Br. 5.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 21—24
and 26.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
4