Scott Lamson

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 26, 2019

14769802 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2019)

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. 14/769,802 08/22/2015 Scott Lamson 71177US02; 67097-2434PUS1 1058 54549 7590 09/26/2019 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER KANG, EDWIN G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3741 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2019 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): ptodocket@cgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SCOTT LAMSON Appeal 2019-000840 Application 14/769,802 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 19, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-000840 Application 14/769,802 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention is directed to a gas turbine engine component including a component body defining an internal twisted micro-channel. Spec. ¶ 4. Claims 1 and 16 are independent. Appeal Br. 7, 8 (Claims App.). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A gas turbine engine component comprising: a component body defining an internal micro-channel extending in a lengthwise direction along a reference line, the internal micro-channel having oval cross-sections along the reference line, the internal micro-channel extending between a first reference position along the reference line and a second reference position along the reference line, the internal micro- channel twisting at least 180° and up to 360° with respect to the reference line between the first reference position and the second reference position. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Lee Liang US 5,002,460 US 7,563,072 B1 Mar. 26, 1991 July 21, 2009 Bunker US 2012/0243995 A1 Sept. 27, 2012 REJECTIONS2 I. Claims 1, 4, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Liang. II. Claims 10, 11, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Liang and Bunker. III. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Liang and Lee. 2 The Examiner withdrew a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Ans. 2; see Final Act. 4. Appeal 2019-000840 Application 14/769,802 3 OPINION Rejection I Appellant groups claims 1, 4, 16, and 19 together in contesting this rejection. See Appeal Br. 4–6. We decide the appeal of this rejection on the basis of independent claim 1, and claims 4, 16, and 19 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (permitting the Board to select a single claim to decide the appeal as to a single ground of rejection of a group of claims argued together). The Examiner finds that Liang discloses a gas turbine component comprising a component body as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 7–8 (making reference to annotated versions of Figures 2 and 3 of Liang provided at Final Act. 7). In the annotated version of Liang’s Figure 3, the Examiner draws a reference line (labeled “A”) between the center points (labeled “B” and “C”) of two adjacent oval cross-sections at which two adjacent micro-channels (spiral flow channels 121 and 122) intersect. The Examiner finds that channel 121 extends in a lengthwise direction along the reference line and between a first reference position (point B) and a second reference position (point C) along the reference line. Final Act. 8. Appellant argues that “the alleged reference line is a fictitious line added by the Examiner and is not actually disclosed in Liang.” Appeal Br. 5. This argument is unsound. As Appellant acknowledges, the reference line itself is not an actual structural feature, but, rather, serves merely as a reference for defining the structure of the micro-channel in claim 1. See id. As the Examiner explains, Liang’s Figure 3 depicts two distinct points where the centerlines of both channels cross, and, “[l]ike [in] the instant Appeal 2019-000840 Application 14/769,802 4 application, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a reference line exists between these two points.” Ans. 4–5.3 In the Reply Brief, Appellant additionally argues that “[w]hat the Examiner refers to as reference positions ‘B’ and ‘C’ are not disclosed by Liang and were added to the annotated drawings of Liang by the Examiner.” Reply Br. 2. This argument is as unsound as the aforementioned argument about the “fictitious” reference line. Much like the reference line, the first and second reference positions in claim 1 do not denote actual structural features, but, rather, serve as references for defining the micro-channel in claim 1. Appellant asserts that the reference line added by the Examiner is into the plane of the paper, while Liang’s channel 121 spirals within the wall in Figure 3. Appeal Br. 5. Thus, Appellant contends that Liang’s “channel 121 does not . . . extend in a lengthwise direction along the Examiner’s reference line.” Id. This argument is unavailing because it appears to be premised on a misunderstanding of the Examiner’s rejection. As the Examiner explains, the Examiner’s characterization of the reference line as being perpendicular to the paper (see Final Act. 8) “is in reference to Figure 2,” and “[t]he reference line is identified as an ‘x’ in [the Examiner’s annotated] Figure 2” (see Final Act. 7; Ans. 3). Ans. 5. The Examiner’s annotated Figure 3 depicts reference line A running along the plane of the paper, not into the plane of the paper. See Final Act. 7; Ans. 3. 3 We additionally note that the reference line, as defined in Appellant’s Specification, need not be linear. See Spec. ¶ 42 (stating, “Although the channel 70 extends generally linearly in the lengthwise direction in the example, the channel 70 can alternatively be non-linear, in which case the reference line L would be non-linear.”). Appeal 2019-000840 Application 14/769,802 5 Lastly, Appellant argues that “[t]he reference line the Examiner drew in Liang is between two separate passages (121, 122), as shown even in the annotated Figures 2 and 3 from the Examiner’s rejection.” Appeal Br. 6. According to Appellant, “[n]either of these passages ‘extends along’ this line, as claimed. The line is outside of both passages.” Id. Appellant’s argument does not identify a deficiency in the rejection because it is not factually correct, and it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, which does not require that the reference line be inside the micro- channel. In fact, reference line L in Appellant’s disclosed invention does not appear to be located inside micro-channel 170 as depicted in Figure 6, at least at second reference position P2. See Fig. 6 (appearing to show reference line L behind micro-channel 170 at the top thereof). Further, as the Examiner points out, reference line L is outside of the micro-channels in the other embodiments as well. See Figs. 3, 4, 8. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, as shown in the Examiner’s annotated version of Liang’s Figure 3, the reference line (line A) identified by the Examiner is inside both passages at least at points B and C, where Liang’s channels 121 and 122 intersect. See Final Act. 7; Ans. 3, 7. Further, Liang’s channel 121 extends in a vertical lengthwise direction along reference line A. For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Liang. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 4, 16, and 19, which fall with claim 1, as anticipated by Liang. Rejections II and III Appellant does not present any additional arguments contesting the rejections of claims 10, 11, 17, and 19. See Appeal Br. 6 (relying on the arguments presented for claims 1 and 16 in contesting the rejections of Appeal 2019-000840 Application 14/769,802 6 dependent claims 10, 11, 17, and 19). For the reasons set forth above, Appellant’s arguments fail to apprise us of error in the rejections of claims 1 and 16, and, likewise, fail to apprise us of error in the rejections of claims 10, 11, 17, and 19). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 10, 11, and 17 as unpatentable over Liang and Bunker, and the rejection of claim 19 as unpatentable over Liang and Lee. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 19 is AFFIRMED. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4, 16, 19 § 102(b) Liang 1, 4, 16, 19 10, 11, 17 § 103(a) Liang, Bunker 10, 11, 17 19 § 103(a) Liang, Lee 19 Overall Outcome 1, 4, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19 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