United Technologies CorporationDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 22, 202014860604 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2020) 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. 14/860,604 09/21/2015 Carey Clum 81973US01 (U420015US) 1008 135291 7590 07/22/2020 Cantor Colburn LLP - Pratt & Whitney 20 Church Street 22 Floor Hartford, CT 06103 EXAMINER BUI, DUNG H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1773 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/22/2020 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 CAREY CLUM and CHRISTOPHER W. ROBAK ____________ Appeal 2019-004923 Application 14/860,604 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4–8, and 11–18 of Application 14/860,604.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification (“Spec.”) of Application No. 14/860,604 filed Sept. 21, 2015; the Final Office Action dated Sept. 26, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Advisory Action dated Dec. 6, 2018 (“Adv. Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed Feb. 26, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer dated Apr. 8, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed June 7, 2019 (“Reply Br.”). 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 2. 3 Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, and 19 were canceled on Sept. 6, 2018. Appeal 2019-004923 Application 14/860,604 2 For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The subject matter of the invention relates to apparatuses comprising particulate collection devices. Spec. ¶ 4. According to the Specification, it is desirable to remove particulates in the air or gas path of a gas turbine engine. Spec. ¶ 3. These particulates can reduce the life of parts in service by erosion and chemical-mechanical degradation. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A cooling system for components of a gas turbine engine, the cooling system comprising: a particulate collection device, the particulate collection device including: a first member of the cooling system, the first member having a first orifice located therein, the first orifice being fluidly coupled to the cooling system of the gas turbine engine; an inlet for directing air towards the first member; and a second member having a second orifice located therein, the second orifice being aligned with the first orifice, wherein the second member and the second orifice are spaced from the first member and the first orifice by a first distance, the first distance and a size of the first orifice and a size of the second orifice concentrate particles of a particular size into the second orifice via aerodynamic lensing, wherein the size of the second orifice is smaller than the size of the first orifice; a collection chamber coupled to the second member such that the second orifice is fluidly coupled to the collection chamber; and wherein the cooling system is located within the engine and cools components of the engine proximate to a combustor of the engine. Appeal 2019-004923 Application 14/860,604 3 REFERENCE The Examiner relies on U.S. Patent No. 3,483,676 to Sargisson, issued Dec. 16, 1969 in rejecting the claims. Final Act. 6. REJECTIONS4 The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1, 4–6, and 12–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Sargisson, and the rejection of claims 7, 8, and 11 as obvious over Sargisson. Final Act. 6–10. DISCUSSION Our decision in this case turns on the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim term “engine.” The claims require that “the cooling system is located within the engine,” with “the engine” referring to the “gas turbine engine” recited in the preamble. See Appeal Br. 22 (Claims Appx). The Specification supports that the engine is a gas turbine engine. See Spec. ¶¶ 1–3, 5. Appellant challenges the Examiner’s interpretation. Appeal Br. 12. In the Advisory Action, the Examiner defines “engine” as “a mechanical tool,” citing a definition from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.5 Adv. Act. 2. Based on that definition, the Examiner finds that an “‘arbitrary’ engine ‘cover’” is part of the engine of the claims. Id. at 2, 5. Using this interpretation, the Examiner finds that Sargisson discloses a 4 In the Answer the Examiner withdrew the rejections of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking written description, and of claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. Ans. 3. 5 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/engine. Appeal 2019-004923 Application 14/860,604 4 cooling system located within the gas turbine engine, illustrating the finding with the annotated version of Sargisson’s Figure 1 reproduced below: Sargisson’s Figure 1 is a side view of a helicopter. Sargisson col. 2, ll. 25–26. A comparison of the original figure and the Examiner’s annotated version shows that the Examiner drew in an oblong encircling the structures identified by Sargisson as engine “E” and cowl “14.” Compare Adv. Act. 5 with Sargisson Fig. 1. During prosecution, an application’s claims are given their broadest reasonable scope consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The words used in a claim must be read in light of the specification, as it would have been interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id.; see also In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054–55 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that during prosecution claim terms are given “the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification.”). The Examiner’s interpretation of “engine” as a mechanical tool that includes the engine cover as part of the mechanical tool is inconsistent with Appeal 2019-004923 Application 14/860,604 5 the plain meaning of engine and how one or ordinary skill in the art would have understood the term in light of the Specification. See In re Baker Hughes, Inc., 215 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the PTO cannot adopt a construction that is “beyond that which was reasonable in light of the totality of the written description”). “The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is not whether the specification proscribes or precludes some broad reading of the claim term adopted by the examiner.” In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 13882–83 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Nor is it simply an interpretation that is not inconsistent with the specification. Id. It is an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is consistent with the specification. Id. Other dictionary definitions of “engine,” including other definitions in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, support that one of ordinary skill in the art reading the Specification would not have interpreted the engine in the claims as including an arbitrary cover: “a machine for converting any of various forms of energy into mechanical force and motion”6; “a machine for converting thermal energy into mechanical energy or power to produce force and motion”7; “a machine with moving parts that converts power into motion”8. The Examiner’s interpretation is so broad as to suggest that a car body is part of a car engine, or even that tool bag is part of a wrench. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an 6 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/engine 7 https://www.dictionary.com/browse/engine# 8 Oxford English Dictionary, “engine.” Appeal 2019-004923 Application 14/860,604 6 external covering of an engine does not convert one form of energy into another. In the Answer, the Examiner finds that the cowl of Sargisson is an associated part of the engine. Ans. 3. The Examiner finds that the particulate collection device is located in the inner wall of the cowl, and, therefore, within the engine. Id. A reference must disclose, with sufficient specificity or clearly and unequivocally, every element of the claimed invention arranged as recited in the claim to be anticipatory. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (to anticipate, the prior art reference must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements “arranged as in the claim”) (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Sargisson Figures 2 and 5 demonstrate that the cowl is separate and distinct from the engine: Appeal 2019-004923 Application 14/860,604 7 Sargisson Figure 2 is an enlarged elevation, with portions broken away, of a cowl defining the inlet for air entering a gas turbine engine used in powering a helicopter. Sargisson col. 2, ll. 27–29. Figure 2 shows the air inlet 16 to a gas turbine engine is defined by cowl 14 extending from the fuselage of a helicopter in advance of the actual engine inlet 16. Id. col. 2, ll. 44–47. A plurality of cyclonic air separators 28 mounted on inner and outer panels 24, 26 separate dirt and air. Id. col. 2, ll. 63–71. Sargisson Figure 5 is a section taken through cowl 14, illustrating a front frame 18 and a rear frame 20 of cowl 14, as well as air inlet 16 in front of the actual engine. Id. col. 2, ll. 44–51. Appellant shows reversible error by the Examiner when finding that Sargisson discloses a cooling system located within the engine. See Appeal Br. 10–12. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered Sargisson’s cowl to be part of the engine in light of Sargisson’s unambiguous description of the cowl as separate from the engine. Therefore, Sargisson fails to disclose “wherein the cooling system is located within the engine,” and does not anticipate independent claims 1 or 12, or their dependent claims. Appeal 2019-004923 Application 14/860,604 8 In the obviousness rejection of claims 7, 8, and 11, the Examiner provides no additional reasoning in relation to the cooling system being located within the engine. See Final Act. 9–10. Therefore, the Examiner fails to meet the burden of establishing prima facie obviousness of these claims. See In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Given the overly broad construction of “engine,” upon which the rejection is based, the Examiner fails to establish that the combined references teach all of the claimed limitations. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4–6, and 12–18 as anticipated by Sargisson. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 7, 8, and 11 as obvious over Sargisson. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4–6, 12–18 102(a)(1) Sargisson 1, 4–6, 12–18 7, 8, 11 103 Sargisson 7, 8, 11 Overall Outcome 1, 4–8, 11–18 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation