Ex Parte Miranda et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 18, 201713790863 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation