GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 13, 2021

2020005880 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2021)

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.
15/200,532 07/01/2016 Christian Xavier STEVENSON 283490-US-1/GE3D-220 2803
159486 7590 09/13/2021
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900
Cincinnati, OH 45202
EXAMINER
LAN, YAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1782
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/13/2021 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):
CincyPAIR@dinsmore.com
OC.Prosecution@ge.com
brian.tent@dinsmore.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTIAN XAVIER STEVENSON,
JOHN ALAN MANTEIGA, and EARL NEAL DUNHAM
Appeal 2020-005880
Application 15/200,532
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JOHN A. EVANS, and BRIAN D. RANGE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 14–34. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). The
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as General Electric Company
(Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2020-005880
Application 15/200,532

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an additively manufactured part and an
engine component comprising an additively manufactured annular
combustor liner surrounded by an additively manufactured heat shield.
Claim 14, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
14. An additively manufactured part comprising:
an annular component surrounding an axis along at least
180 degrees of rotation;
a thin walled structure fused to the annular component at
a seam, the thin walled structure comprising:
an annular wall, the annular wall being concentric
with the annular component and having a diameter
that exceeds a diameter of the annular component, the
annular wall having a thickness less than 0.022 inches
across a majority of a surface of the annular wall, and a
plurality of helical ribs integrated with the annular wall,
the helical ribs having a thickness greater than
0.030 inches,
wherein the thin walled structure has a mean thickness
less than 0.100 inches, the mean thickness determined inclusive
of the annular wall and the plurality of helical ribs, and
wherein the annular wall conforms to a surface of the
annular component and a mean distance between the annular
wall and the annular component is less than 0.080 inches.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Green US 7,013,551 B2 Mar. 21, 2006
DiCintio US 2015/0285502 A1 Oct. 8, 2015
REJECTION
Claims 14–34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over DiCintio in
view of Green.
Appeal 2020-005880
Application 15/200,532

3
OPINION
The Appellant argues the claims in the following groups:
1) claims 14–29; 2) claims 30 and 31; and 3) claims 32–34 (Appeal Br. 10–
30). We therefore limit our discussion to one claim in each group, i.e.,
claims 14, 30, and 32. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013).
Claim 14
DiCintio discloses a gas turbine combustor (24) comprising an outer
casing (40) (which the Examiner relies upon as corresponding to the
Appellant’s thin walled structure (Final 5)), and a liner (60) (which the
Examiner relies upon as corresponding to the Appellant’s annular
component having a diameter larger that of the outer casing (40) and being
concentric with the outer casing (40) about the combustor (24)’s
centerline (50)) (Final 6) (¶¶ 29, 32; Figs. 2, 9).
Green makes a thin-walled isogrid casing such as a gas turbine engine
casing by a chip machining process (col. 1, ll. 6–10). The isogrid is a
structure comprising a triangular pattern arranged of ribs in rows of
equal-sided triangles to increase the stiffness of the casing while minimizing
weight (col. 1, ll. 12–19; Fig. 1). An exemplified finished machined isogrid
casing has a 0.56 mm (0.022 inch) pocket wall thickness and upstanding
ribs (12) (col. 5, ll. 14–32; Fig. 4).
The Appellant argues that the claim term “additively manufactured”
requires that the components have been built up by an additive process to
form a net shape or near net shape and, therefore, excludes a component
made by Green’s chip machining subtractive process (Appeal Br. 18–23).
The patentability of a claim in product-by-process form is determined
based on the product itself, not on the method of making it. See In re
Appeal 2020-005880
Application 15/200,532

4
Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“If the product in a product-by-
process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the
claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different
process.”).
The Appellant argues that “the term ‘additively manufactured’ is a
process limitation that connotes specific structure that should be treated as a
structural limitation” (Appeal Br. 18), and that the Appellant’s Specification
(Spec. ¶ 2) indicates additively manufactured components “have been built
up from one or more components to make a net or near net shape” (Appeal
Br. 21).
The Appellant does not establish that a product made by additive
manufacturing is different than a product having the same size and shape
made by a different process such as Green’s chip machining.
The Appellant argues that “only additive manufacture allows for the
particular claimed thinness of components to be achieved” (Appeal Br. 21).
Green’s preferred pocket radial thickness can be as thin as 0.45 mm
(0.0177 inch) (col. 3, ll. 29–32) which is less than 0.022 inch as required by
the Appellant’s claim 14.
The Appellant argues that “an additively manufactured component
does not require excess material to be removed, and thus the resulting
products formed via an additive manufacturing process is [sic]
fundamentally different from a product formed via a subtraction process”
(Appeal Br. 22).
The Appellant does not establish, and it is not apparent, that the
product remaining after material is removed in a subtraction process is
Appeal 2020-005880
Application 15/200,532

5
different than a product having the same size and shape made by an additive
manufacturing process.
The Appellant argues that DiCintio’s Figure 2 “does not appear to
show that the outer casing 40 is concentric with the liner 60 or that the
liner 60 conforms to either surface of the casing 40 because the liner 60 is
irregularly shaped and more of a gap appears between the liner 60 and the
outer casing 40 in some areas relative to corresponding areas” (Appeal
Br. 25).
The distance between the casing (40) and liner (60) in DiCintio’s
Figure 2 may appear to be greater in the lower part of the figure than in the
upper part. However, “[a]bsent any written description in the specification of
quantitative values, arguments based on measurement of a drawing are of
little value.” In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127 (CCPA 1977). See also, In
re Nash, 230 F.2d 428, 431 (CCPA 1956) (“it is well settled that the
drawings of patent applications are not necessarily scale or working
drawings”); In re Olson, 212 F.2d 590, 592 (CCPA 1954) (“Ordinarily
drawings which accompany an application for a patent are merely
illustrative of the principles embodied in the alleged invention claimed
therein and do not define the precise proportions of elements relied upon to
endow the claims with patentability.”). Regardless of the distance between
DiCintio’s casing (40) and liner (60), DiCintio’s casing (40) is outside and
conforms to the liner (60), and they are concentric about the centerline (50).
Consequently, DiCintio’s annular wall (outer casing (40)) conforms to, is
concentric with, and is greater in diameter than the annular component
(liner (60)), as required by the Appellant’s claim 14.
Appeal 2020-005880
Application 15/200,532

6
The Appellant argues: “Green’s disclosure of 0.56 mm is equivalent
of 0.022 inches. Green does not disclose a thickness less than
0.56 mm/0.022 inches. As such, Green fails to disclose ‘the annular wall
having a thickness less than 0.022 inches across a majority of a surface of
the annular wall’ as recited in claim 14” (Reply Br. 6–7).
Green’s exemplified pocket wall thickness obtained by spot drilling
followed by milling is 0.56 mm (0.022 inch) (col. 5, ll. 14–32). Green also
discloses a preferred pocket wall thickness range of 0.45–0.85 mm (col. 3,
ll. 29–32). Green, therefore, would have suggested, to one of ordinary skill
in the art, forming a pocket wall thickness less than 0.022 inch as required
by the Appellant’s claim 14.2
Claim 30
Claim 30 depends from claim 14 and requires that “the plurality of
helical ribs are located on a radially distal surface of the annular wall, the
radially distal surface facing the annular component.”
The Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 28):

2 Regarding claim 24 which depends from claim 14 and requires that “the
majority of the surface of the annular wall is separated from the annular
component by a constant separation distance,” the Examiner finds that “in
DiCintio, the function of the gap between the liner 60 and the outer casing
40 is to provide a flow pathway for the compressed working fluid/air 18
(paragraph [0027])” (Ans. 14), and concludes that “it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to appreciate that constant
separation/gap is desirable, because irregular gap/pathway would obviously
cause undesired flow resistance” (id.). The Appellant does not challenge that
finding or obviousness conclusion.

Appeal 2020-005880
Application 15/200,532

7
Green discloses that “[t]he resin is cured before chip machining
of the pockets takes place,” and further discloses that the resin
joins the engaging surfaces of the support and the casing
together. Green, col. 5, 11. 9–13.
Given the foregoing disclosure of Green, it is not
predictable to use the chip machining process of Green to form
ribs on a radially distal surface of the casing because it would
necessarily require undoing the previous step of applying a
resin to join the casing to the support.

Green’s filler material (e.g., epoxy resin (col. 5, l. 1)) is optional
(col. 2, ll. 32–45; col. 5, ll. 33–36; Fig.4). Thus, the resin removal argued by
the Appellant is not required.
Claim 32
The Appellant does not provide a substantive argument with respect to
the patentability of the engine component claimed in claim 32 but, rather,
merely points out some of the claim limitations and asserts that DiCintio and
Green do not disclose or suggest those limitations (Appeal Br. 29).
Such an assertion is not sufficient to distinguish the claimed engine
component over the applied prior art. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (Rule 41.37 “require[s] more substantive arguments in an
appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”).
For the above reasons we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
Appeal 2020-005880
Application 15/200,532

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
14–34 103 DiCintio, Green 14–34

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED