United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 5, 2021

2020005268 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 5, 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.
15/790,423 10/23/2017 Shawn M. McMahon 99217US02;
67097-3690PUS1
2453
54549 7590 04/05/2021
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
FOUNTAIN, JASON A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/05/2021 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SHAWN M. MCMAHON, CHRISTOPHER WHITFIELD,
KRISTOPHER K. ANDERSON, JASON B. MORAN,
BRETT ALAN BARTLING, CHRISTOPHER PERRON,
JUSTIN M. ANIELLO, and STEPHANIE TANNER
____________

Appeal 2020-005268
Application 15/790,423
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.

CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1–23. 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 United Technologies Corp. as the
Applicant and real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-005268
Application 15/790,423
2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to compressor and turbine vanes in a gas
turbine engine. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 3–6. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A vane cluster for a gas turbine engine comprising:
an inner diameter platform;
an outer diameter platform;
a plurality of vanes spanning from the inner diameter
platform to the outer diameter platform;
an inbound region defined between a first vane and a
second vane of the plurality of vanes;
a plenum defined in the inner diameter platform at the
inbound region, the plenum including a plurality of film cooling
holes fluidly connecting the plenum to a primary flowpath; and
a feed hole connecting the plenum to a core cooling cavity
of one of the first vane and the second vane to the plenum.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
NAME REFERENCE DATE
Magowan US 5,344,283 Sept. 6, 1994
Proctor US 5,593,277 Jan. 14, 1997
Kress US 6,769,865 B2 Aug. 3, 2004
Riley US 2016/0003152 A1 Jan. 7, 2016
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claim 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, and 11–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Magowan.
2. Claims 1, 2, 5–9, 11–16, 19, 20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Riley and Magowan.
Appeal 2020-005268
Application 15/790,423
3
3. Claims 3, 4, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Riley, Magowan, and Proctor.
2. Claims 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Riley, Magowan, and Kress.
OPINION
Anticipation of Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, and 11–13
by Magowan
Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, and 11–13 as a group. Appeal
Br. 4–5. Claim 1 is representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Magowan discloses each limitation of
claim 1. Final Act. 3. In particular, the Examiner finds that Magowan
discloses inner and outer diameter platforms as claimed. Id.
Appellant argues that Magowan fails to satisfy the platform
limitations of claim 1. Appeal Br. 4–5. Appellant argues that its
specification identifies each platform as a distinct element. Id. Appellant
contends that the Examiner errs by misconstruing the term “platform” as
encompassing an entire compressor or turbine stage. Id.
In response, the Examiner interprets platform as encompassing the
entire annular inner and entire annular outer platforms of a stage. Ans. 4.
Under the Examiner’s interpretation, a plurality of vanes extend from the
platform of Magowan. Id. The Examiner directs our attention to Figure 4 of
Magowan, which depicts two adjacent vanes disposed side-by-side. Id. at 6.
The Examiner characterizes the platform portions of the two vanes as
collectively comprising a platform on which are disposed a plurality of
vanes. Id. “The platform as a whole is made up of the smaller portions.”
Id. at 9.
Appeal 2020-005268
Application 15/790,423
4
In reply, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s interpretation relies on
an incorrect application of the term “portion.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant
contends that Magowan uses “portion” to separately identify airfoil
portion 75, outer platform portion 76, and inner platform portion 77, all as
“portions” of first vane 72. Id. We agree with the Appellant and disagree
with the Examiner’s position on this point, but also determine that this is not
dispositive of the case before us.
Claim 1 is directed to a vane “cluster.” Claims App. The cluster
includes a plurality of vanes spanning from an inner platform to an outer
platform. Id. Thus, the structure depicted in Figure 3 of Magowan, which
entails a single vane 74, is not a “cluster” with a “plurality of vanes” within
the meaning of claim 1. Magowan, Fig. 3. However, Figure 4 of Magowan
depicts two adjacent vanes (74) side-by-side. Id. Fig. 4. This raises the
issue of whether Figure 4 depicts a vane “cluster” within the meaning of
claim 1. We view the issue of whether construction of the term “platform”
excludes a plurality of individual platforms being assembled into a larger,
consolidated “platform” as hinging on construction of the term vane
“cluster.”
Thus, the dispute between Appellant and the Examiner is one of claim
construction. During examination of a patent application, pending claims
are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim
terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
Appeal 2020-005268
Application 15/790,423
5
Cir. 2007). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the
applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to
obtain more precise claim coverage. Am. Acad. of Sci., 367 F.3d at 1364.
Appellant argues that vane clusters are integral components of
monolithic construction and, in essence, argues that the Examiner’s
construction is incorrect, because the Examiner forms a “cluster” by
assembling a plurality of separate components. Appeal Br. 4. Appellant
directs us to the following passage from the Specification as supporting its
proposed construction.
In some examples, each of the compressor stages and/or turbine
stages includes multiple vanes configured as vane clusters. The
vane clusters are single integral components including an outer
diameter platform, an inner diameter platform, and two or more
vanes spanning from the inner diameter platform to the outer
diameter platform. The vane clusters are arranged in a ring
with each vane cluster being adjacent to two other vane clusters
in order to form the completed stage.
Spec. ¶ 41.
Appellant’s argument actually raises two issues. The first issue
revolves around the fact that the word “integral” does not appear in claim 1,
such that we must decide whether to import the concept of integral
construction into the claim. The second issue is whether “integral” should
be construed as being formed as a single, monolithic structure as opposed to
merely an assemblage of fixedly attached components. In order to prevail in
this appeal, both of these issues must be resolved in Appellant’s favor. If
either or both of these issues is resolved in the Examiner’s favor, the
Examiner’s position must be sustained.
Appeal 2020-005268
Application 15/790,423
6
Appellant’s Specification explains that:
Each of the compressor and the turbine sections include
multiple stages, with each stage being constructed of a ring of
rotating rotor blades paired with a ring of static vanes. In some
examples, the static vanes are constructed of clusters, where
multiple circumferentially adjacent vanes in a given stage are a
single integral component. Each integral component is referred
to as a cluster.
Spec. ¶ 4. Thus, a vane “cluster” requires a plurality of vanes. Id. ¶ 6,
claim 1. An individual vane component comprised of a single vane airfoil
extending between an inner platform and an outer platform is not a “cluster.”
Returning to the claim language, although the word “integral” does
not appear in claim 1, it does appear that Appellant has operationally defined
the term vane “cluster” to require integral construction. Spec. ¶¶ 4, 41.
When Appellant elects to be a lexicographer by providing an explicit
definition in the specification for a claim term, such definition controls.
Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ Per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed.
Cir. 1998). Thus, we construe the term vane cluster so as to require integral
construction.
Next, we turn to the question of whether “integral” construction of the
vane cluster requires monolithic, one piece construction such as by casting.
Appellant’s Specification refers to casting. Spec. ¶¶ 46, 47. More
specifically, Appellant contemplates that at least certain embodiments of the
vane structure are made by casting. Id. ¶ 47 (“The void can be a cast void
that is cast simultaneously with the vane cluster 100”). However, the
Specification also contemplates that the vane cluster includes components
that are “attached” by means of fasteners. Id. ¶ 48.
Appeal 2020-005268
Application 15/790,423
7
Although Appellant’s Specification certainly contemplates that a vane
cluster may be formed of monolithic, one piece construction such as by
casting, that does not resolve the question of whether the Specification and
claims are broad enough to encompass other constructions, such as an
assemblage of components that are fixedly attached to each other. It is clear
to us that the Examiner construes vane “cluster” to encompass embodiments
where a plurality of components are fixedly attached to each other. We look
to Appellant’s Specification, briefs, and case law to ascertain whether the
Examiner’s construction is unreasonably broad.
The case of In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997) involved a
patent application for an acoustic isolator for a disc drive assembly that was
claimed as having an acoustic compliance area “integrally formed” as a
portion of a support member. Id. at 1053. When the case was before the
Board, the Board considered that “integral” is a relatively broad term that
included means for maintaining parts in a fixed relationship as a single unit.
Id. On appeal to the Federal Circuit, the court noted that “integral” is
frequently interpreted as covering more than unitary construction. Id.
at 1055. In sustaining the Examiner’s rejection and affirming the lower
decision by the Board, the Federal Circuit noted the absence of an express
definition in the specification requiring unitary construction. Id. at 1056.
The problem in this case is that the appellants failed to make
their intended meaning explicitly clear. Even though the
appellants implore us to interpret the claims in light of the
specification, the specification fails to set forth the definition
sought by the appellants. Nowhere in the technical description
of the invention does the application use or define the phrase
“integrally formed.”
Id.
Appeal 2020-005268
Application 15/790,423
8
The situation presented in the instant case is strikingly similar to
Morris. Appellant’s Specification merely states that a vane cluster is a
single, integral component. Spec. ¶¶ 4, 41. No further effort is made to
refine the meaning and definition of “integral.” Appellant’s Specification
acknowledges that each stage of the compressor and turbine sections of an
engine are constructed as a “ring.” Id. ¶ 4. Magowan illustrates how vanes
are fixedly attached to form such a ring. See Magowan, Fig. 2. Under the
circumstances, we are unable to conclude that the Examiner’s constructions
of vane cluster and platform are unreasonably broad. The Examiner’s
construction is bolstered by the teachings of Appellant’s own Specification
indicating that components of the vane cluster may be “attached” by
“fasteners.”
Having resolved the claim construction issue adversely to Appellant’s
position, we note that Appellant raises no other issue that is indicative of
Examiner error. Appeal Br. 4–5. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s
Section 102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, and 11–13.
Unpatentability of Claims 1–23
over Combinations Based on Riley and Magowan
Appellant argues all three of the Examiner’s obviousness grounds of
rejection under a single heading. Appeal Br. 6. In traversing the
obviousness grounds of rejection, Appellant relies primarily on the same
claim construction argument that we considered and found unpersuasive
with respect to the Examiner’s anticipation ground of rejection and which
we find equally unpersuasive with respect to each of the obviousness
grounds of rejection.
Appeal 2020-005268
Application 15/790,423
9
Appellant also argues that the Examiner has not alleged that it would
have been obvious to modify Magowan to utilize a vane doublet and also
argues that the claimed inbound region is not possible in a singlet structure.
Appeal Br. 6. These arguments are not persuasive in view of what is clearly
illustrated in Figure 4 of Magowan. In reality, Appellant’s Section 103
arguments are nothing more than different ways of expressing the same
claim construction arguments on “platform” and “vane cluster” that we have
already resolved adversely to Appellant.
We are not apprised of error and, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s
various obviousness grounds of rejection over claims 1–23.
CONCLUSION
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5, 8, 9,
11-13
102 Magowan 1, 2, 5, 8, 9,
11-13

1, 2, 5-9,
11-16, 19,
20, 22, 23
103 Riley, Magowan
1, 2, 5-9,
11-16, 19, 20,
22, 23

3, 4, 17, 18 103 Riley, Magowan,
Proctor
3, 4, 17, 18
10, 21 103 Riley, Magowan,
Kress
10, 21
Overall
Outcome
1-23

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED