Ex Parte Wilson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 30, 2018

14921503 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/921,503 10/23/2015 135291 7590 11/01/2018 Cantor Colburn LLP - Pratt & Whitney 20 Church Street 22 Floor Hartford, CT 06103 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Ross Wilson 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. CONFIRMATION NO. 77792US02 (U420112US2) 3596 EXAMINER CUMAR, NATHAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3675 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/01/2018 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): usptopatentmail @cantorcolburn.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROSS WILSON, MICHAEL G. McCAFFREY, JOHN R. FARRIS, THEODORE W. HALL, JOHN J. KORZENDORFER, ELIZABETH F. VINSON, JEFFREY M. JACQUES, JOHN E. PAUL, ALAN W. STONER, and EDWIN OTERO Appeal2017-011241 Application 14/921,503 Technology Center 3600 Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 of the Examiner's Decision rejecting claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20. Claims 9 and 19 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal2017-011241 Application 14/921,503 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1 and 11 are independent, with claims 2-8, 10, 12-18, and 20 depending from claim 1 or 11. Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and is reproduced below: 1. A seal support structure for a gas turbine engine, the seal support structure comprising: a seal support configured to retain a circumferential seal, wherein the seal support extends along an outer diameter of the circumferential seal and retains the circumferential seal relative to a rotating component, the rotating component providing a rotating component radial movement; and an engine support configured for mounting the seal support structure to a gas turbine engine mount, wherein the engine support includes at least one channel configured to provide radial movement of the seal support structure in response to the rotating component radial movement and circumferential retention of the seal support. REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1---6, 10-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over McDow (US 3,807,891, issued Apr. 30, 1974) and Sporer (US 2008/0124548 Al, published May 29, 2008). 2. Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over McDow, Sporer, and Sheridan (US 6,196,790 B 1, issued Mar. 6, 2001). 3. Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over McDow, Sporer, and Laurello (US 4,553,901, issued Nov. 19, 1985). 2 Appeal2017-011241 Application 14/921,503 OPINION Claims 1-6, 10---16, and 20 Appellant argues claims 1---6, 10-16, and 20 as a group. Br. 10-19. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2---6, 10-16, and 20 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that McDow teaches each element of claim 1, but "is silent about radial movement of [its] rotating component." Final Act. 4-- 5. The Examiner explains that "Sporer shows it is well known in the art that [a] rotating component shows radial movement during operation." Id. at 5. There is no dispute as to the majority of the limitations recited in claim 1. Appellant's brief focuses on the "rotating component radial movement" recited in claim 1, but presents no meaningful argument against the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Instead, Appellant block quotes the majority of the claim, including those portions directed to the "rotating component radial movement," and alleges, generally, that "neither McDow nor Sporer taken alone or in combination properly teaches or suggests" the recited features. Br. 11-12. Appellant also contends that "[t]he Examiner admits that McDow fails to teach or suggest 'radial movement of [the] rotating component"' (id. at 12 ( citing Final Act. 5)) and summarizes portions of McDow and Sporer (id. at 12-13), but offers no persuasive explanation identifying error in the Examiner's findings. Rather, Appellant contends that "the Examiner's modification of incorporating the abradable seal and rotor of Sporer into the thermal response turbine shroud of McDow would render McDow unsuitable for its intended purpose." Id. at 13. Appellant misapprehends the Examiner's rejection. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner simply relies on Sporer because McDow does not expressly 3 Appeal2017-011241 Application 14/921,503 state that rotating component 20 has radial movement. Final Act. 5. The Examiner makes this clear in the Answer, noting that "Sporer is relied upon to explicitly teach only the radial movement of rotating component." Ans. 13 (emphasis added). Appellant does not respond to the Examiner's Answer. In the Answer, the Examiner also finds that "[ o ]ne having ordinary skill in the art would realize that it is inherent for [a] rotating shaft to vibrate and vibration of [the] shaft include[s] radial movements, and hence McDow's seal assembly, including rotating component 20, inherently discloses the limitation '[the] rotating component providing a rotating component radial movement.'" Ans. 13. That is, Sporer is not even needed for the rejection of claim 1 because of the Examiner's position that radial movement of rotating component 20 in McDow is inherent, which, again, Appellant does not rebut. For at least these reasons, we are not apprised of Examiner error in the rejection of claims 1---6, 10-16, and 20. Claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 Claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 each depend from claim 1 or 11. Appellant does not provide separate arguments to rebut the Examiner's rejection of those claims. Accordingly, we are not apprised of Examiner error in the rejection of claims 7, 8, 17, and 18. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. 4 Appeal2017-011241 Application 14/921,503 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5